The TRUTH about Tom Cruise: ex-scientologist Jon Atack reveals it all.

Isaac

Well-known member
I just finished the book, "Inside Scientology" by Janet Rietman.
Wow - Tom Cruise is walking on a tight rope and IMO, will probably not want to live if he ever discovers the truth
His life has to absolutely suck
Imagine thinking and believing Scientology works when the entire time he was in the cult, he was manipulated and deceived
Out of anyone in Scientology, Tom Cruise was probably deceived the most because David Miscavige got involved
To believe "1st there is LRH, then there is DM and then there is ME" show what a narcissist he is
I don't believe he will ever find love again and his family will continue to shatter due to the internet being at their finger tips and is only a mouse click away for any of them to go down the rabbit hole of discovering LRH was a con artist and their religion is a total scam
 

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
After I discovered that I was not an all powerful being who was responsible for his own condition; it still took me years to get over that attitude. I may have left the cult but I was still a self-centered narcissist. Believe it or not, I am only now starting to get over it.

I thought that way for so long that it became ingrained, like a habit. I see that attitude in many groups that cultivate that "can do, make it go right" attitude. I remember being a server in a restaurant and my customers were students from a martial arts school. The owner of the school was admired by the students like he was a "great wonderful man". I'd seen that before. He exuded the "we can do anything" attitude that I had seen previously only in Scientology staff or certain OTs that I had met. It would not surprise me if all that admiration was going to his head. I wouldn't blame him. Such attention is powerful stuff.

It's enough to make me start my own cult.:)
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

Ref: The Operating Thetan known as Tom Cruise

I was going to describe Scientology's favorite messianic movie star as a lunatic.

However, that term has been outlawed, as follows:

On December 5, 2012, the US House of Representatives passed legislation approved earlier by the US Senate removing the word "lunatic" from all federal laws in the United States.[3] President Barack Obama signed the 21st Century Language Act of 2012[13] into law on December 28, 2012.[14] "Of unsound mind" or non compos mentis are alternatives to "lunatic", the most conspicuous term used for insanity in the law in the late 19th century
Therefore, I will attempt to describe Mr. Cruise in acceptable terms other than lunatic (or its derivative "loony")—so we will respectfully describe him as:

"NON COMPOS MENTIS"

However, if Cruise ever has the BlowCog he shall be awarded a new completion certificate. . .

"NON CULTUS MENTIS"


.
 

Isaac

Well-known member
Wow I am shocked that Chris Shelton has the balls to call Tom Cruise a MONSTER
I agree that Tom Cruise is a monster and a nut job but I would be afraid that the psychopath will sue Chris off the planet
I hope not and apprecaite the work Chris contributes exposing the lies and scams of Scientology and Hubbard
 
Last edited:

Isaac

Well-known member
After I discovered that I was not an all powerful being who was responsible for his own condition; it still took me years to get over that attitude. I may have left the cult but I was still a self-centered narcissist. Believe it or not, I am only now starting to get over it.

I thought that way for so long that it became ingrained, like a habit. I see that attitude in many groups that cultivate that "can do, make it go right" attitude. I remember being a server in a restaurant and my customers were students from a martial arts school. The owner of the school was admired by the students like he was a "great wonderful man". I'd seen that before. He exuded the "we can do anything" attitude that I had seen previously only in Scientology staff or certain OTs that I had met. It would not surprise me if all that admiration was going to his head. I wouldn't blame him. Such attention is powerful stuff.

It's enough to make me start my own cult.:)
I cringe as I think of what an ass I made of myself with my insouciant certainty I displayed to friends and family about it was a scientific fact (cuz L Ron wrote he codefied the tech via research) :whistle:
and claimed anyone being critical L Ron or Scientology was hiding big sordid crimes and potentially were evil SP's :modest:
to only further make an ass out of myself by following the tech - hammering them with "come on...what did you do? what are your crimes?"

After I left, I apologized to them all and most of them already knew that was coming because they read various books and blogs warning them that Scientologists were programmed to - attack, never defend
 
Last edited:

The_Fixer

Well-known member
I found this video got more interesting the further it went on.

The fact that critical thinking (or lack of) is a not a factor in becoming involved in cults, but rather simply emotional rationale for the most part was rather a surprise to me. The concept did make sense once it was explained.

What also surprised me is the fact that 45% of medical doctors joined the Nazi party then as well, because Eugenics was a fairly big thing back then.

Arthur Conan Doyle was a big believer in fairies too. The magical type, not the ones that speak with semi strangled testicles.

He had a wealth of interesting information in there.
 
Last edited:

TheSneakster

Well-known member
In this case, John Atack seems a lot like some baseball fanatic who has only ever watched baseball games on T.V., telling all about the life of Hank Aaron, whom they have never even met or spoken with.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
FYI: my remarks above concern John Atack's personal knowledge of Tom Cruise, his life, and his Scientology activities.

Only in this case, he was in the pits with them, not watching the TV.
It's a baseball analogy, so perhaps you meant dugout not pits.

As per his own book, Atack's first-hand experience of Scientology is almost entire limited to that of a public student auditor, preclear and pre-OT at St. Hill. He wasn't a org staff member and he never joined the Sea Organization. He says he completed Audited NED for OTs (OT V) and was unhappy with the results. Atack left Scientology in 1983.

Tom Cruise did not become involved in Scientology until around 1986 when his then wife Mimi Rogers brought him into Celebrity Center International in Hollywood. Cruise also received some auditing services at Gold Base (International Scientology Management HQ) from Mark "Marty" Rathbun.

Using the baseball analogy for Scientology, that perhaps makes Atack a season ticket holder with a seat in the lower stands at foreign ball field where Hank Aaron never even played.

As far as the book for which he is famous among critics is concerned, 95% of the material is edited stories from people he interviewed or from other sources and the majority of it was not possible for him to verify as true facts at the time it was written. He could fairly be considered an investigative reporter, I suppose.

As far as Tom Cruise is concerned, Jon Atack can only speculate based on information, misinformation, and disinformation that is third or fourth hand at best.
 
Last edited:

The_Fixer

Well-known member
FYI: my remarks above concern John Atack's personal knowledge of Tom Cruise, his life, and his Scientology activities.



It's a baseball analogy, so perhaps you meant dugout not pits.

As per his own book, Atack's first-hand experience of Scientology is almost entire limited to that of a public student auditor, preclear and pre-OT at St. Hill. He wasn't a org staff member and he never joined the Sea Organization. He says he completed Audited NED for OTs (OT V) and was unhappy with the results. Atack left Scientology in 1983.

Tom Cruise did not become involved in Scientology until around 1986 when his then wife Mimi Rogers brought him into Celebrity Center International in Hollywood. Cruise also received some auditing services at Gold Base (International Scientology Management HQ) from Mark "Marty" Rathbun.

Using the baseball analogy for Scientology, that perhaps makes Atack a season ticket holder with a seat in the lower stands at foreign ball field where Hank Aaron never even played.

As far as the book for which he is famous among critics is concerned, 95% of the material is edited stories from people he interviewed or from other sources and the majority of it was not possible for him to verify as true facts at the time it was written. He could fairly be considered an investigative reporter, I suppose.

As far as Tom Cruise is concerned, Jon Atack can only speculate based on information, misinformation, and disinformation that is third or fourth hand at best.
You are correct, I do mean dugout.

But yet you still believe in Hubbard's Scientology?

Give me Jon Atack anyday instead.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
But yet you still believe in Hubbard's Scientology?
I believe my Scientology which, as I've endlessly repeated over many years, rejects everything ultimately harmful and destructive which (solely after my own personal evaluation) might be found in Ron Hubbard's Scientology.

Give me Jon Atack anyday instead.
I'm not the one publishing tabloid-style malicious fake exposes concerning a Scientology celebrity of whom I have zero personal knowledge.
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
I believe my Scientology which, as I've endlessly repeated over many years, rejects everything ultimately harmful and destructive which (solely after my own personal evaluation) might be found in Ron Hubbard's Scientology.
While I don't have an issue with someone pulling what they believe to be positive bits from Scientology, I do take issue with still calling it Scientology.

That would be like calling myself a nazi because I still practice nazism but removed all the harmful and destructive aspects of it.


I'm not the one publishing tabloid-style malicious fake exposes concerning a Scientology celebrity of whom I have zero personal knowledge.
Some historians have written great books about periods they did not personally experience or have any personal knowledge of. There are ex-Scientologists who do have first-hand knowledge of Cruise, and some stories have been published. I'm not sure why you'd characterize Atack's knowledge as "third or fourth-hand at best". Were you looking over his shoulder while he did his research for that video?
 

The_Fixer

Well-known member
I believe my Scientology which, as I've endlessly repeated over many years, rejects everything ultimately harmful and destructive which (solely after my own personal evaluation) might be found in Ron Hubbard's Scientology.



I'm not the one publishing tabloid-style malicious fake exposes concerning a Scientology celebrity of whom I have zero personal knowledge.
By that reasoning, no one should be able to say anything about Miscavige, Stalin or Hitler either.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
By that reasoning, no one should be able to say anything about Miscavige, Stalin or Hitler either.
Not even remotely my point or message.

You (and many others) seem to imagine John Atack as someone with god level insider knowledge of the Church of Scientology. He is not and was not an insider beyond his experiences as public pre-clear/pre-OT at St. Hill.

Like Veda, he has zero interest in any reports from people who really were insiders, if those reports run counter to the PR narrative he wishes to push. That makes him more of a propagandist than a historian.

Atack has gone so far as to just make up false facts: in particular, his claim that Hubbard was expressing approval of pedophilia in a particular quote-mined out-of-context sentence in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

Caveat Emptor.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
Like Veda, he has zero interest in any reports from people who really were insiders, if those reports run counter to the PR narrative he wishes to push. That makes him more of a propagandist than a historian.
He's interviewed many insiders, including Mike Rinder on at least 3 occasions.

To me, it seems that his expert opinions run counter to the PR narrative you wish to push, and that's why you take issue with him.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Not even remotely my point or message.

You (and many others) seem to imagine John Atack as someone with god level insider knowledge of the Church of Scientology. He is not and was not an insider beyond his experiences as public pre-clear/pre-OT at St. Hill.

Like Veda, he has zero interest in any reports from people who really were insiders, if those reports run counter to the PR narrative he wishes to push. That makes him more of a propagandist than a historian.

Atack has gone so far as to just make up false facts: in particular, his claim that Hubbard was expressing approval of pedophilia in a particular quote-mined out-of-context sentence in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

Caveat Emptor.
.

On behalf of all the outstanding whistleblowers everywhere (like John Atack, Veda, et al) that you regularly attack, smear and lamely attempt to "dead agent", I will now attempt to channel what they must be thinking when they read your preposterous propaganda:

"THE FORCE FARCE IS STRONG WITH THIS ONE!"
-Darth Veda
I can think of a lot of other more devastating yet accurate words than "FARCE" to describe your absurd defense of the despicable misanthropic con man known as L. Ron Hubbard. For readers unfamiliar with your nasty attacks on whistleblowers, I will mention one particular telling moment that happened within the last week here on ESMB. It was the moment after a number of posts had been made that exposed DOZENS of fraudulent medical claims Hubbard made to his patients/pcs, such as his guarantee to be able to cure CANCER.

I asked you directly if you still refused to admit that Hubbard was a charlatan.

You asserted that despite the avalanche of evidence to the contrary, you still do not regard Hubbard as a charlatan. This reveals the depths of dishonesty and even perhaps delusion that you have openly showcased.

Readers are advised to fact check Sneakster's sneaky attacks on whistleblowers in a sadly misguided effort to salvage some shred of credibility for the human crime wave known as L. Ron Hubbard.



.

.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
He's interviewed many insiders, including Mike Rinder on at least 3 occasions.

To me, it seems that his expert opinions run counter to the PR narrative you wish to push, and that's why you take issue with him.

Sneakster's attacks on John Atack are not only without any factual merit, they are a disgrace when considering all the brilliant books, essays, interviews and videos about Scientology/Hubbard John has meticulously researched and contributed to the world.

Sneakster attempts to slime John with this sleazy dismissal that one would ordinarily read in "FREEDOM" magazine or peruse in the dead-agent pack ethics officers show to Scientologists who may be waking up and "disaffecting".


SNEAKSTER POSTED: "You (and many others) seem to imagine John Atack as someone with god level insider knowledge of the Church of Scientology. He is not and was not an insider beyond his experiences as public pre-clear/pre-OT at St. Hill."

I have been on ESMB since 2009 and I cannot recall even one (1) incident where anyone "imagined John Atack as someone with god level experiences". That never happened. Sneakster "manufactured" that crime, just the way Hubbard's attack policies advised—when no actual crimes can be found.

On Sneakster's other point that John Atack was "not an insider". Absurd! John was a very active participant in Scientology, living it, studying it, training in it, applying it and advancing up to the upper "advanced" levels. And after leaving Scientology, John continued to conduct masterfully complete and verified research on Hubbard and his cult, and writing books that saved countless people around the world from becoming victims to Hubbard's rapacious hoax.

By comparison, Sneakster never did the OT levels. Sneakster never did the training side of Scientology, learned to audit or even studied the technology that Scientologists practice. Sneakster has stated on various occasions that he held a low-level clerk position as a "course administrator", the party that keeps the books and course packs neatly arranged on shelves so that students can find them. That position in the org would be comparable to a grocery store stock boy who arranges Campbells Soup cans on the shelf nicely with all the labels facing forward for customer convenience. Come to think of it, in the orgs, Sneakster must have been responsible for keeping EMPTY soup cans at the ready for student auditors/pcs hungry to engage auditing en route to "Total Freedom".

Now that I think of it again, I have no clue whatsoever what an "INSIDER" would be if not a brilliantly intelligent man like John Atack who was literally INSIDE Scientology learning and practicing Scientology. I couldn't even guess what Sneakster's definition of "Scientology Insider" would be. Who is that? Some dork in a naval costume carrying around a clip board and destroying Scientology's "enemies" by tricking and lying to them, per Hubbard's tech?

Come on Sneakster, tell us who the "insiders" are. The dozen or so super criminals who manage Scientology?

.
 
Last edited:

Karen#1

Well-known member
These are the facts.
Jon Atack has spent the last 30 years researching and documenting Scientology facts. Jon Atack is a Scientology scholar.
He has probably done more Freedom of Information requests than any other person alive.
Documenting, Documenting Documenting from actual documentation.
He was the researcher for Russell Miller in the Book "Bare Faced Messiah" which was meticulously researched and fact checked
exhaustively so that it was bullet proof against law suits of course which never happened.

Side Bar note: The Cult called Scotland Yard naming Russell Miller as an AXE MURDERER. !!!!!
Russell and I had a good laugh on that one when we met in London.

Jon Atack had 20+ years of intense and brutal FAIR GAME costing him his life's savings and his home. He survived it all.
I interview with him for YOUTUBE monthly and and never fail to be impressed at his depth of knowledge on SCN history and implementation
of history and Hubbard.

T
 
Top