Wow I am shocked that Chris Shelton has the balls to call Tom Cruise a MONSTER
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)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 found this video got more interesting the further it went on.
Only in this case, he was in the pits with them, not watching the TV.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.
It's a baseball analogy, so perhaps you meant dugout not pits.Only in this case, he was in the pits with them, not watching the TV.
You are correct, I do mean dugout.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.
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.But yet you still believe in 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.Give me Jon Atack anyday instead.
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.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.
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?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.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.
Not even remotely my point or message.By that reasoning, no one should be able to say anything about Miscavige, Stalin or Hitler either.
He's interviewed many insiders, including Mike Rinder on at least 3 occasions.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.
.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.
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.