I don't like calling scientologists ex-scientologists... I tried using "recovering scientologists" but that one doesnt quite fit either.. and to hell with Victims of scientology.... how about we describe ourselves a bit more accurately...
I'll start. I am an ex-prisoner of scientology. the fact that our minds were imprisoned by Hubbard's lies and that we are able to admit this empowers the empathy to induce recovery in others.
Hey, let's all go to Big Blue...that stone lion is in front of big blue.
Were we the lambs?
I wrote a piece called "What is the Beast
," which is probably slightly off topic for this thread because it gets into the occult aspect of Hubbard's insanity. Hubbard's psycho-laundered term was the "reactive mind." He put Scientology's "Training Lion" in front of the Sea Org's main training org, ASHO, to signify the training of the beast. Scientologists are both the beasts and Hubbard's beast trainers. It turns my stomach.
The self-description we use really depends on the context and the people to whom we're communicating. To ourselves, we're "human beings," and that's generally enough. Spiritually, or theologically, we'd probably say "God's creations," or "God's children." (I wouldn't say "children of God," because another cult has grabbed and marked the term.) We certainly are "ex-Scientologists" or "former Scientologists," but as you know, these terms are used by certain cult ops or people serving the cult's purposes for black PR purposes in the Scientology conflict. My use of the terms depends on the forum and people I'm talking to.
Gerry refuses to go along with the "critic" label on a.r.s., because of how it's used by cult ops and others serving the cult's purposes as a justification for attacks on real fair game targets. Obviously, he criticizes Scientology, and in other contexts is correctly described as a "Scientology critic." He calls himself a "wog," just because it's all Scientologists' hate term for human beings.
Scientologists don't call us "human beings" in their usual conversations, because that could indicate to them how hateful they are toward human beings. They do
consider themselves superior to human beings, with or without using the "Homo Novis
classification as has been recently discussed in another OCMB thread. Scientology processing claims to elevate Homo sapiens
to Homo Novis
, or Homo Scientologicus
(Ref. PAB 119) and beyond. The term some Scientologists use instead of "wogs," "non-Scns" or "non-Scn'ists" or similar, is actually even more hateful than "wogs." These Scientologists use this even more hateful term because it makes them feel superior or enlightened for not using the term "wogs," which these Scientologists know to be a hate term. (Try it in phrases like "Non-Scns to the back of the bus.")
In certain contexts, it's completely appropriate to accept that we're "victims of Scientology" and to use that term. The cult and its ops, of course, hate the term because they never like to be known as the victimizers they are. So they further victimize their victims by belittling people who acknowledge they're victims, and by boasting as the huge victimizer Hubbard did that "Scientologists are those who refuse to be victims." I don't think it's helpful to accept the cult's black PR that's put on "victims," but to accept the term. Being a victim, does not mean that a person doesn't fight back, or isn't a great warrior against the victimizers. Victims deal with their victimization in a number of ways, some very courageous. The victimizers hate courageous victims more than any other "class" or "classification."
"Cult opponent" is a good, useful term in many contexts in the war. It implies action or activism greater than criticism, and it doesn't say whether the opponent is an "ex-member" of the cult or not. In the War Against Suppressive Persons (WASP), all wog warriors are both victims and opponents.