"You can't be poor and be a scientologist" -the view from the rich public

[Karakorum]

Just wanted a small comment on what Leah says (the relevant the timestamp is 5:38-6:05)

The key quote is:
L.King: "So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?"
L.Remini: "No. Not at all."


Really?! Does Leah think all the SO and staff are rich? Of course she does not. So why given this very straightforward question does Leah speak like only the rich public exist and pretend the SO and staff do not exist? (not to mention the poor public)

I guess I get a bit annoyed at this because that was the altitude of many rich and famous public scientologists when they were inside. Staff and SO are just invisible people thrown there to serve you. Out of sight, out of mind. She mentions SO members once at timestamp 9:11 for 2 seconds and just says they sign contracts and "live in those (church owned) buildings".
That's totally they most relevant things about the Sea Org...
...said no one ever

All in all it is a pretty poor interview. It is critical of scientology and that's it, Leah skims over the key problems of the church and then goes into various small tangents without even clearly explaining what scientology is and what do scientologists do.

I remember hearing Leah on Jo Rogan's show some time ago and didn't like it at all. This King interview just reminded me why. I wish the ex-scientologist community would have higher quality celebrities acting as our public face, cause this just doesn't cut it.


I already see what some replies will be: " Karakorum! Don't forward an enemy Marty Alanzo line!"

Whatever, from time to time someone needs to say that the emperor is naked.

 

[He-man]

What I think she mean is, "you can't progress up the bridge without paying out insane amount of monies". I hear you though. It does give an corrupted picture of what it means to be a Scientologist.

My family was always poor when I was young, it didn't stop us from being Scientologists, it only stopped us from progressing up the bridge in good standing with the "church".

 

[Karakorum]

What I think she mean is, "you can't progress up the bridge without paying out insane amount of monies". I hear you though. It does give an corrupted picture of what it means to be a Scientologist.

You can, you just need to give your time and work instead. That's a major part of the whole system
When describing the basic of how Scientology functions, I'd never just skip the public or the staff. Maybe if I had very little time I would skip talking about celebrities, whales and wog contractors. But the public, staff and SO are what makes the Scientology society.

I also think it contributes to the damaging stereotype of scientology in the general population: "Oh its an UFO cult for gullible rich actors. Who cares let em' pay"

My family was always poor when I was young, it didn't stop us from being Scientologists, it only stopped us from progressing up the bridge in good standing with the "church".

Yeah being poor public or even middle-income public is not easy, especially since the kids get conveyor-belted to staff and the SO.

 

[stratty]

Just wanted a small comment on what Leah says (the relevant the timestamp is 5:38-6:05)

The key quote is:
L.King: "So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?"
L.Remini: "No. Not at all."


Really?! Does Leah think all the SO and staff are rich? Of course she does not. So why given this very straightforward question does Leah speak like only the rich public exist and pretend the SO and staff do not exist? (not to mention the poor public)

I guess I get a bit annoyed at this because that was the altitude of many rich and famous public scientologists when they were inside. Staff and SO are just invisible people thrown there to serve you. Out of sight, out of mind. She mentions SO members once at timestamp 9:11 for 2 seconds and just says they sign contracts and "live in those (church owned) buildings".
That's totally they most relevant things about the Sea Org...
...said no one ever

All in all it is a pretty poor interview. It is critical of scientology and that's it, Leah skims over the key problems of the church and then goes into various small tangents without even clearly explaining what scientology is and what do scientologists do.

I remember hearing Leah on Jo Rogan's show some time ago and didn't like it at all. This King interview just reminded me why. I wish the ex-scientologist community would have higher quality celebrities acting as our public face, cause this just doesn't cut it.


I already see what some replies will be: " Karakorum! Don't forward an enemy Marty Alanzo line!"

Whatever, from time to time someone needs to say that the emperor is naked.

OK, you say the key quote is: "So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?" and Remini said "No, not at all". Well, that's absolutely correct isn't it? You know full well LK was talking about people who want to partake in scientology 'services' and wasn't remotely addressing the side issue of staff who 'do scientology'.

Your post was just pointless waffle as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

 

[Karakorum]

OK, you say the key quote is: "So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?" and Remini said "No, not at all". Well, that's absolutely correct isn't it? You know full well LK was talking about people who want to partake in scientology 'services' and wasn't remotely addressing the side issue of staff who 'do scientology'.

Your post was just pointless waffle as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

That is the quote which is key to what I want to address in the thread and that is why I provided the timestamp. My whole point was exactly that Leah "wasn't remotely addressing the side issue of staff who 'do scientology'."
Larry is excused, he's not a scientologist, he doesn't know what he's talking about. But Leah should.

Staff don't pop out of thin air. Staff are predominately poor recruits or kids of non-wealthy scientologists. By omitting this, Leah is just contributing to the "Scientology just cons hollywood actors"

 

[stratty]

That is the quote which is key to what I want to address in the thread and that is why I provided the timestamp. My whole point was exactly that she "wasn't remotely addressing the side issue of staff who 'do scientology'."

She wasn't because LK didn't ask.

 

[Karakorum]

She wasn't because LK didn't ask.

But he did, he said: "So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?"
He asked the right question, he just didn't get a true answer. The true answer would be: "You can, but then you have to contribute all your time and effort for pennies. If you want to get auditing without working for the church, then yes you have to be rich".

There is nothing wrong with the way L.King conducted the interview or the questions he asked. All that is wrong is on Leah's plate.

 

[stratty]

But he did, he said: "So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?"
He just didn;t get a true answer. The true answer would be: "You can, but then you have to contribute your time and effort for pennies. If you want to get auditing without working for the church, then yes you have to be rich".

There is nothing wrong with the way L.King conducted the interview or the questions he asked. All that is wrong is on Leah's plate.

All that stuff about working on staff would have just muddied the water. She was simply trying to get a point across - scientology is very expensive, unlike most mainstream 'religions'.

 

[He-man]

All that stuff about working on staff would have just muddied the water. She was simply trying to get a point across - scientology is very expensive, unlike most mainstream 'religions'.

Don't you think it's an important part of the puzzle though?

That's where you'll find the biggest group of abused people within Scientology imnsfho.

 

[stratty]

Don't you think it's an important part of the puzzle though?

That's where you'll find the biggest group of abused people within Scientology imnsfho.

Indeed I do, but in that context she was wise to simply make the point about how expensive scientology is compared to other religions.

The way staff are used and abused is a massive issue in its own right. Nobody needs to tell me that, I've been there, done that and sold the t-shirt.

 

[Karakorum]

All that stuff about working on staff would have just muddied the water. She was simply trying to get a point across - scientology is very expensive, unlike most mainstream 'religions'.

I stongly believe that was exactly the wrong point to get across, precisely because it just reinforces false stereotypes. If people believe this is just about rich actors... nobody will care and nobody will bother investigating if there is abuse in the church or not.

Are there rich actors in Scientology? Sure, everyone knows that. But the real point of a high-profile interview would be to move beyond this damaging stereotype and show people the rest of the picture. But Leah doesn't do it and just plays into the tired old tabloid frame.
Which is exactly why I am not happy with how Leah goes on through this or other similar interviews. She's not a good spokeswoman for the community.

 

[He-man]

I stongly believe that was exactly the wrong point to get across, precisely because it just reinforces false stereotypes. If people believe this is just about rich actors... nobody will care and nobody will bother investigating if there is abuse in the church or not.

Are there rich actors in Scientology? Sure, everyone knows that. But the real point of a high-profile interview would be to move beyond this damaging stereotype and show people the rest of the picture. But Leah doesn't do it and just plays into the tired old tabloid frame.
Which is exactly why I am not happy with how Leah goes on through this or other similar interviews. She's not a good spokeswoman for the community.

^^

What the She devil lady said.

 

[stratty]

I stongly believe that was exactly the wrong point to get across, precisely because it just reinforces false stereotypes. If people believe this is just about rich actors... nobody will care and nobody will bother investigating if there is abuse in the church or not.

Are there rich actors in Scientology? Sure, everyone knows that. But the real point of a high-profile interview would be to move beyond this damaging stereotype and show people the rest of the picture. But Leah doesn't do it and just plays into the tired old tabloid frame.
Which is exactly why I am not happy with how Leah goes on through this or other similar interviews. She's not a good spokeswoman for the community.

She was asked a question and she gave a perfectly truthful answer. If she didn't give a completely full answer it was because, as I say, she was making a point.

I don't know if she sees herself as a 'spokeswoman for the community', she's just calling it as she sees it and she has brought the subject front and centre in the media over the past couple of years in a way very little else has ever done, and that's a very good thing in my opinion.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Just wanted a small comment on what Leah says (the relevant the timestamp is 5:38-6:05)

The key quote is:
L.King: "So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?"
L.Remini: "No. Not at all."


Really?! Does Leah think all the SO and staff are rich? Of course she does not. So why given this very straightforward question does Leah speak like only the rich public exist and pretend the SO and staff do not exist? (not to mention the poor public)

I guess I get a bit annoyed at this because that was the altitude of many rich and famous public scientologists when they were inside. Staff and SO are just invisible people thrown there to serve you. Out of sight, out of mind. She mentions SO members once at timestamp 9:11 for 2 seconds and just says they sign contracts and "live in those (church owned) buildings".
That's totally they most relevant things about the Sea Org...
...said no one ever

All in all it is a pretty poor interview. It is critical of scientology and that's it, Leah skims over the key problems of the church and then goes into various small tangents without even clearly explaining what scientology is and what do scientologists do.

I remember hearing Leah on Jo Rogan's show some time ago and didn't like it at all. This King interview just reminded me why. I wish the ex-scientologist community would have higher quality celebrities acting as our public face, cause this just doesn't cut it.


I already see what some replies will be: " Karakorum! Don't forward an enemy Marty Alanzo line!"

Whatever, from time to time someone needs to say that the emperor is naked.

If you look at her entire body of work it's pretty obvious that she cares deeply about all Scientologists, including Sea Org members. The CoS is IMO an incredibly abusive organization, and Remini has done as much as pretty much anyone to make the general public aware of that.

That she didn't get that particular point 100% correct in that interview as you pointed out is a relatively minor point IMO. YMMV.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

IDIOTIC THREAD ALERT!

Leah Remini helps countless victims of the sociopathic cult of Scientology.
She gives them a voice on nationally televised programing and a huge internet presence as well. That includes all victims of Scientology's cruel hoax; staff members, paying pubic, relatives of Scientologists, ex-Scientogists, et al. She is honorable, courageous and is actually doing wonderfully good things for good people. She is a champion for those who cannot take on a multi-billion dollar organized crime racket by themselves. Hero is a good word that comes to mind.

However. . .

This thread ignores all that but instead focuses on a Leah's terrible crime of failing to promote to wogs the "Big Lie" that you can do Scientology for free! Nothing is free in scientology, that could not be further than the truth.
All ex-Scientologists know the COST of doing Scientology is more than enough to cripple anyone. There is lavish money cost and lavish time cost. Donating 30-60 years of your life to an avaricious con game game is even more expensive than the loss of a million dollars. So what was Leah's horrific crime? She talked about the criminal pricelist of Scientology but not the equally debilitating price of devoting your entire life to a lie.

The poster does nothing of value to help Scientology's viciously damaged victims, but is very worried indeed that Scientology is not being treated fairly.
Jeez, does this begin to smell like a standard COS smear? Jeez, this is the same target (Leah) that the COS goon squad (OSA) attacks 24/7 with smears. Jeez, this is the same target (Leah) that the indy goon (Rathbun) attacks 24/7. Jeez this is the same target (Leah) that the hate-troll Alanzo attacks 24/7. Jeez this is the same poster who AFTER ALANZO WAS BANNED was in regular contact with him and began POSTING THE BANNED TROLL'S POSTS FOR HIM.

Posting a banned troll's comments on the same message board the troll was just banned from is not just a subtle "tell". It's a flashing neon billboard illuminated by a dozen stroboscopic klieg lights!

Nobody was supposed to notice that a banned troll was now posting thru a sock-puppet and/or spokesperson. My god, how did anyone ever figure that out? I mean, sure he SAID he was doing that, but nobody would really be dumb enough to really do that, would they? LOL

So, here comes the next round of gimmicks, but jeez---it sure looks exactly like the old gimmicks!

Same old "let's pretend we are having a robust discussion" ruse.

Same old "hey, let's argue about it!"

Same old lame trolling gimmicks. It's exciting, we're just minutes away from hearing about "cruelty" and "tribes"! LOL

Yeah, it's real hard to figure out!



.

.

 

[PirateAndBum]

But he did, he said: "So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?"
He asked the right question, he just didn't get a true answer. The true answer would be: "You can, but then you have to contribute all your time and effort for pennies. If you want to get auditing without working for the church, then yes you have to be rich".

There is nothing wrong with the way L.King conducted the interview or the questions he asked. All that is wrong is on Leah's plate.

I'd like to point out that those that work on staff rarely get to do any bridge actions. How many years did you put in and how far up the bridge did you get K? Staff work for dirt and get nothing for the most part. I know many that had been on staff for 10+ years that had made not one notch higher on either side of the bridge to nowhere. In fact I don't recall any staff ever getting bridge auditing as part of their "enhancement". Some paid for auditing, but I can't name one in the 2 CL V orgs I was around that ever got anything but sec-checking or correction lists run on them. (Not counting the purif.) How many orgs have a staff staff auditor? None I'd bet. At best they'd get to be guinea pigs for students or the rare intern.

Most scientologists are not rich so her answer was not really the best. Most scientologists never get very far up the bridge either.

Karakorum isn't Alanzo. Leah is not beyond criticism. There's always room for improvement, eh?

 

[Type4_PTS]

,

I'd like to point out that those that work on staff rarely get to do any bridge actions. How many years did you put in and how far up the bridge did you get K? Staff work for dirt and get nothing for the most part. I know many that had been on staff for 10+ years that had made not one notch higher on either side of the bridge to nowhere. In fact I don't recall any staff ever getting bridge auditing as part of their "enhancement". Some paid for auditing, but I can't name one in the 2 CL V orgs I was around that ever got anything but sec-checking or correction lists run on them. (Not counting the purif.) How many orgs have a staff staff auditor? None I'd bet. At best they'd get to be guinea pigs for students or the rare intern.

Most scientologists are not rich so her answer was not really the best. Most scientologists never get very far up the bridge either.

Karakorum isn't Alanzo. Leah is not beyond criticism. There's always room for improvement, eh?

This was my experience as well. I was on staff for close to 10 years (in a CL V org as well as two Sea Org orgs), and didn't go up the Bridge. I did my Purif and Level 0 Internship. It seemed as though it might take the full billion years to get all the way up the Bridge.

 

[Dotey OT]

I probably got more effed up while on staff than made bridge progress. I didn't make much progress in seven years, but did after. I always felt sorry for people that didn't think being on staff was very important, at least not enough to help.

 

[PirateAndBum]

I probably got more effed up while on staff than made bridge progress. I didn't make much progress in seven years, but did after. I always felt sorry for people that didn't think being on staff was very important, at least not enough to help.

As it turned out, being on staff was not important at all. No planet was saved, only lives thrown away slaving for peanuts under the whip of demand for production. When in, of course it was a completely different mind-set, staff were doing noble work supposedly, but of course nobody wanted to be on staff because they knew it was a thankless, stressful, ethics-nipping-at-your-heals ordeal for shit pay and terrible hours.

 

[Riddick]

Just wanted a small comment on what Leah says (the relevant the timestamp is 5:38-6:05)

The key quote is:
L.King: "So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?"
L.Remini: "No. Not at all."


Really?! Does Leah think all the SO and staff are rich? Of course she does not. So why given this very straightforward question does Leah speak like only the rich public exist and pretend the SO and staff do not exist? (not to mention the poor public)

I guess I get a bit annoyed at this because that was the altitude of many rich and famous public scientologists when they were inside. Staff and SO are just invisible people thrown there to serve you. Out of sight, out of mind. She mentions SO members once at timestamp 9:11 for 2 seconds and just says they sign contracts and "live in those (church owned) buildings".
That's totally they most relevant things about the Sea Org...
...said no one ever

All in all it is a pretty poor interview. It is critical of scientology and that's it, Leah skims over the key problems of the church and then goes into various small tangents without even clearly explaining what scientology is and what do scientologists do.

I remember hearing Leah on Jo Rogan's show some time ago and didn't like it at all. This King interview just reminded me why. I wish the ex-scientologist community would have higher quality celebrities acting as our public face, cause this just doesn't cut it.


I already see what some replies will be: " Karakorum! Don't forward an enemy Marty Alanzo line!"

Whatever, from time to time someone needs to say that the emperor is naked.

I just listened to that video on you tube. I see it was done back in 2018. You tube stats show as 847,000 + views.

There is no key quote.

What I find amazing and am pulling my hair out is that Leah or Larry King never mention or talk about the purpose of scientology and also dianetics.

The purpose of dianetics is to go clear, the purpose of scientology is to go OT. It is supposed to be mapped out by going up the Bridge To Total Freedom.

Instead they talk about stuff but never why people get involved and the ultimate goal of going clear and then OT.

WTF

Larry King should have asked are you Clear? And prove it?

For Pete's sake.