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

[HelluvaHoax!]

Back on topic. Yes Leah had done a fantastic job. But her answer could have been better.

Larry: Do you have to be rich to be a scientologist?

Better answer: No you don't have to be rich, but it will cost you $600,000 or more over time for the services you are expected to do.

.

Excellent answer!

If Leah wanted to lean over backwards to be considerate of the religious beliefs of Scientologists, she could have given your answer with even more data!

LEAH​

No you don't have to be rich, but it will cost you $600,000 ​

or more over time for the services you are expected to do.....................​

However, if you simply inform Scientology that as much as you would love​

to pay the $600,000 for your Total Freedom, you simply can't afford it---in such​

cases Scientology routinely will allow such people to receive the $600,000 worth​

of auditing absolutely free on a charity basis----as long as the low-havingness​

downstat DB signs a vow of poverty and a servitude contract for one billion years.​

LARRY KING​

Whoa! You have to pay $600,000 or sign a one billion​

year contract?!! That sounds a little bit strange.​

​

LEAH​

Well, Larry--I don't want my comments to unfairly​

influence how people feel about Scientology. So I​

take back everything I told you! Actually, people​

should not judge Scientology unless they first​

try it for themselves and pay the $600,000​

and sign a billion year contract. After that​

if they don't get their miracle powers​

Scientology will happily refund all​

their money and all their time.​

​

LARRY KING​

Jeez, that sounds like a really fair deal to me!​

​

LEAH​

Yeah, well you're sure right about that Larry!​

That's why I came on your show Larry, so that​

people could get rid of the false data that there​

is any cost to any cost to doing Scientology!​

​

​

- - -​

​

 

[Karakorum]

I have unignored you after seeing the admin post. I thought the matter would be over, but I see this is not the case.

<snip> Karakorum first decided to begin sending me PMs and trying to get herself very personally involved in matters having to do with Alanzo. Clearly nothing ever ends well where he is involved.

I was not "very personally involved in matters having to do with Alanzo", stop lying. The "personal involvement" was me openly posting replies in a public thread.
By that logic, you are now "very personally involved in matters having to do with" me, Ethetan, DoteyOT and everyone here. Because you are posting in the same thread.

Also, if you think that PM conversation was so important and incriminating, then why didn't you agree when I asked to have the whole PM posted in public?
Either agree to do so, or stop the smear campaign by making public allegations that there was anything wrong in what I wrote in that PM.

If my reaction to her continuing to post comments from Alanzo after he was banned is somehow all due to some major misunderstanding that I still do not understand---then that's certainly a possibility. It's over.

I've not posted a comment from Alanzo. That is a lie.

Can you please kindly provide a link to the posts in which I allegedly continue to post comments from Alanzo? I'm honestly curious what do you consider to be this "comment from Alanzo".

 

[stratty]

Jesus wept! This thread! I'm slowly losing the will to live! I wish P&B would put it out of its misery.

 

[Bill]

I have unignored you after seeing the admin post. I thought the matter would be over, but I see this is not the case.


I was not "very personally involved in matters having to do with Alanzo", stop lying. The "personal involvement" was me openly posting replies in a public thread.
By that logic, you are now "very personally involved in matters having to do with" me, Ethetan, DoteyOT and everyone here. Because you are posting in the same thread.

Also, if you think that PM conversation was so important and incriminating, then why didn't you agree when I asked to have the whole PM posted in public?
Either agree to do so, or stop the smear campaign by making public allegations that there was anything wrong in what I wrote in that PM.


I've not posted a comment from Alanzo. That is a lie.

Can you please kindly provide a link to the posts in which I allegedly continue to post comments from Alanzo? I'm honestly curious what do you consider to be this "comment from Alanzo".

Yes, HH seems to have misinterpreted what you wrote. We got that. WE GOT THAT. We really did get that. Really. Now can you let it go? Or is that going to be the theme for the rest of this thread from now on? (I miss the "Ignore thread" button).

 

[Lee #28]

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karakorum posted
Can you please kindly provide a link to the posts in which I allegedly continue to post comments from Alanzo? I'm honestly curious what do you consider to be this "comment from Alanzo".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karakorum, the moderator already resolved this (see P&B's post). He already stated that you answered all the issues. I already posted that it was a possibility that this was all due to some major misunderstanding. I already posted that I am happy if P&B deletes any part of this conversation or all of it. I already posted that "It's over". The thread has already moved on. However, if it helps clear up any part of the "major misunderstanding" I will answer your question by simply reposting YOUR POST from that other thread. That's all that I am going to say about it, hope this helps. ---hh​

Below is a reprint of your post that prompted me to say
that you posted 'comments from Alanzo' after he was banned.
There are four (4) "Alanzo said:" hyperlinked comments from Alanzo.

Your question about why I said that you were posting comments from Alanzo
should now be very clear. Because you were posting comments from Alanzo.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -​

LINK TO YOUR POST HERE

------beginning of karakorum's post-------

Well, I know Allen is banned, but I think he might still read the forums as a guest. I asked him to provide some replies to my questions to make it a two-way comm, which he did. I thus feel it would be proper and decent to at least answer his last questions.

Alanzo said:
Don't let the tribalism in Anti-Scientology influence you.

I'm happy to take off my skull necklace and wash away the woad warpaint if that helps with the comm

Alanzo said:
If my tendency of 'being entangled in interpersonal squabbles with people who crossed" me are something you saw in my files - please let me know what you saw.

Actually that is not something from the files, rather its something I observed in your posts on the old boards and on your blog. There is certainly a lot of controversy around you. Part of this is likely because some of your opinions tend to be aligned with the opinions that Marty suddenly started to exhibit after Monique dropped the court case. But some of that I think comes from your own personal style.

The way I remember you back from the day you appeared to have this vibe of a tenacious "stand my ground" guy and it seems the CoS machine did not manage to flatten that.

Alanzo said:
So for now - how about spilling EVERYTHING you know about me, publicly, and right here on ESMB2?

There isn't much more to say. I told you about the financial 80s one that I looked at as a marginal side-task, as your name came up while I was investigating a very different person some 12 years ago. That was, from my perspective at the time a dead end: Your case was decommited and had nothing that would help me with what I was doing.
Your ethics file certainly contained more than that 80s case (I would remember otherwise, as it would be unusual just to have one single thing from over 10 years back). Whatever else was there must have been irrelevant when it comes to the task at hand that I was doing so I did not look deep into that. If there was some out-2D or out-tech stuff in your file, then I wouldn't even give it a second look at it back then, much less remember the details now after so many years.

Alanzo said:
There is no "Pre-Cult Self". You were always you.

Well in my case those two sentences are correct, but probably not in the way you intended. I am 2nd gen, born into the cult. So by definition I couldn't have had a "pre-cult self" regardless if it exists or not.

I certainly feel I did have a "pre-SO self" though. I don't think I have developed a "post-SO self", but maybe its too soon for that. I mean what is a decade between friends, right?

So this is my honest last reply. End of comm I guess

----end of karakorum's post------



.

 

[M&M]

 

[Mockingbird]

Oh, you know, it's that tribal thing! When Marty came out he was still a scilon and he attracted the believers (the indies) Many of them had not yet woken up.

I was talking about people who had completely rejected Hubbard and Scientology wholesale. The people who I couldn't get to see how Marty Rathbun was wrong on several of his claims in some cases rejected Scientology many years ago.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

...

​

I was talking about people who had completely rejected Hubbard and Scientology wholesale. The people who I couldn't get to see how Marty Rathbun was wrong on several of his claims in some cases rejected Scientology many years ago.

.

Here's how it kinda looked when. . .

All of Ron's Loyal Horsemen
And all of Dave's Ideal Men
Blew -- And the COS could not
put them back on lines again!

Fortunately the Indies found and followed a new & improved guru in
Marty Rathbun (Ron 3.0)--whose tech was scientifically proven
to be 200% standard---which was significantly better than
COS tech which was merely 100% standard.


..
. ​

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

. . .

I don't know if any of you caught it the past couple days, but there is this fantastic teaser-trailer by LARRY KING for an upcoming show where he interviews Marty Rathbun:

LARRY KING
"So you can't be poor and be a scientologist?"

MARTY RATHBUN
OMG, That.is.so.not.true!
That happens to be a total lie, Larry!

LARRY KING
Huh? Leah Remini brought in the official Scientology
Price List and I saw it with own eyes---that you need at least
$600,000 to make it to the top of Scientology. That sounds
pretty damn rich to me ---only millionaires
and movie stars could afford that!

MARTY RATHBUN
You're glib Larry. You don't know the
history of Scientology---I DO!

LARRY KING
Come on dude, get serious!

MARTY RATHBUN
I am serious. What you don't understand is
that a poor person can do Scientology and
it makes them more able. They become
so able they can easily become
a multimillionaire!!

LARRY KING
Well every Scientologist I interviewed over the
past 50 years said that's bullshit---a total
marketing gimmick to make Scientologists
donate everything they've got and
go into overwhelming debt.

MARTY RATHBUN
Not true at all.

LARRY KING
Well give me an example then!

MARTY RATHBUN
Sure---me for example! I was dead broke when
I got into Scientology. But as i sit here with
you today I am a multimillionaire!

LARRY KING
Are you going to look me in my eye without
blinking and tell me that you are a multimillionaire
because of Scientology's technology?

MARTY RATHBUN
Absolutely! Not the part of the tech
where you get auditing--- the part of the tech where
you just pocket millions directly from bank accounts
containing all the parishioner donations. Hey,
I can scientifically prove that right now by
showing you my settlement agreement!

.​

 

[Mockingbird]

.

...

​

.

Here's how it kinda looked when. . .

All of Ron's Loyal Horsemen
And all of Dave's Ideal Men
Blew -- And the COS could not
put them back on lines again!

Fortunately the Indies found and followed a new & improved guru in
Marty Rathbun (Ron 3.0)--whose tech was scientifically proven
to be 200% standard---which was significantly better than
COS tech which was merely 100% standard.


..
. ​

I guess Marty Rathbun could produce tech that gets twice the results of the earlier version of Scientology, since two times zero is zero.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I guess Marty Rathbun could produce tech that gets twice the results of the earlier version of Scientology, since two times zero is zero.

LOL

Yeah, it's Scientology math.

They have advanced algebraic formulations, notably the improvements they made in the the theory of ZERO SUM GAIN.

Scientology's version:

ZERO SUM CASE GAIN
For each and every dollar GAINED by Scientology's leader from
selling another auditing, there is a commensurate
LOSS of reality by the preclear.

. ​

 

[Mockingbird]

LOL

Yeah, it's Scientology math.

They have advanced algebraic formulations, notably the improvements they made in the the theory of ZERO SUM GAIN.

Scientology's version:

ZERO SUM CASE GAIN
For each and every dollar GAINED by Scientology's leader from
selling another auditing, there is a commensurate
LOSS of sanity by the preclear.

. ​

Yikes, then since they took billions from thousands of people we must be extremely sanity deficient ? Um...

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Yikes, then since they took billions from thousands of people we must be extremely sanity deficient ? Um...

LOL

I decided to soften the edge on that one, changing it from LOSS of sanity, to LOSS of reality.

Naturally, I prefer the edgier word "sanity" more, because it implies that culties are cray-cray.

However, with Scientology being "the world's fastest growing religion", I think it's prudent---in case they actually CLEAR and take over the planet--- to have an insurance policy where I don't post such horrific shit that they won't let me back in.

.

 

[Mockingbird]

LOL

I decided to soften the edge on that one, changing it from LOSS of sanity, to LOSS of reality.

Naturally, I prefer the edgier word "sanity" more, because it implies that culties are cray-cray.

However, with Scientology being "the world's fastest growing religion", I think it's prudent---in case they actually CLEAR and take over the planet--- to have an insurance policy where I don't post such horrific shit that they won't let me back in.

.

Honestly in the past I might have said that with your history of joking and degrading if Scientology takes over and they get their hands on you and know all your "crimes" in their opinion, you are in for a short and painful death or a long and painful death, depending on the whims of whatever ethics officer or MAA gets to decide your fate, but with Marty Rathbun returning to the fold after everything he did David Miscavige MIGHT let you work out a similar deal.

If you want a chance you might start joking and degrading regarding the critics of Scientology and attacking the so called "anti Scientology cult", it just never sounds right to me, it's an oxymoron. Anyway, if you want any advice on turning your coat and being a Judas I recommend contacting Marty Rathbun and Alanzo so you can do an internship and apprenticeship.

I think the chances of Scientology taking over the entire world in our lifetimes is about the same as Hubbard returning and David Miscavige cooperating with him. So, you might have nothing to worry about.

You could be rechristened Heckuvahope and Scientology could rebrand itself under you. Hmm. Did you ever want to be a minister of propaganda, er I mean dissemination secretary ?

 

[Karakorum]

.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karakorum posted
Can you please kindly provide a link to the posts in which I allegedly continue to post comments from Alanzo? I'm honestly curious what do you consider to be this "comment from Alanzo".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karakorum, the moderator already resolved this (see P&B's post). He already stated that you answered all the issues. I already posted that it was a possibility that this was all due to some major misunderstanding. I already posted that I am happy if P&B deletes any part of this conversation or all of it. I already posted that "It's over". The thread has already moved on. However, if it helps clear up any part of the "major misunderstanding" I will answer your question by simply reposting YOUR POST from that other thread. That's all that I am going to say about it, hope this helps. ---hh​

Below is a reprint of your post that prompted me to say
that you posted 'comments from Alanzo' after he was banned.
There are four (4) "Alanzo said:" hyperlinked comments from Alanzo.

Your question about why I said that you were posting comments from Alanzo
should now be very clear. Because you were posting comments from Alanzo.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -​

LINK TO YOUR POST HERE

------beginning of karakorum's post-------

Well, I know Allen is banned, but I think he might still read the forums as a guest. I asked him to provide some replies to my questions to make it a two-way comm, which he did. I thus feel it would be proper and decent to at least answer his last questions.


I'm happy to take off my skull necklace and wash away the woad warpaint if that helps with the comm


Actually that is not something from the files, rather its something I observed in your posts on the old boards and on your blog. There is certainly a lot of controversy around you. Part of this is likely because some of your opinions tend to be aligned with the opinions that Marty suddenly started to exhibit after Monique dropped the court case. But some of that I think comes from your own personal style.

The way I remember you back from the day you appeared to have this vibe of a tenacious "stand my ground" guy and it seems the CoS machine did not manage to flatten that.


There isn't much more to say. I told you about the financial 80s one that I looked at as a marginal side-task, as your name came up while I was investigating a very different person some 12 years ago. That was, from my perspective at the time a dead end: Your case was decommited and had nothing that would help me with what I was doing.
Your ethics file certainly contained more than that 80s case (I would remember otherwise, as it would be unusual just to have one single thing from over 10 years back). Whatever else was there must have been irrelevant when it comes to the task at hand that I was doing so I did not look deep into that. If there was some out-2D or out-tech stuff in your file, then I wouldn't even give it a second look at it back then, much less remember the details now after so many years.


Well in my case those two sentences are correct, but probably not in the way you intended. I am 2nd gen, born into the cult. So by definition I couldn't have had a "pre-cult self" regardless if it exists or not.

I certainly feel I did have a "pre-SO self" though. I don't think I have developed a "post-SO self", but maybe its too soon for that. I mean what is a decade between friends, right?

So this is my honest last reply. End of comm I guess

----end of karakorum's post------

I'm not posting his comments - what you quoted is my own reply in my own words to his thread. I've never posted any of his content pretending it to be my own. Neither before nor after he was banned. I'm not his sockpuppet I'm under the impression you were making all of this malicious libel up jut to derail a thread you didn't like. Un-ignoring you was a mistake I shall not repeat again.
My most personal and entirely subjective opinion of you is that you are a malicious troll who is out to harass and smear people who dare disagree with your opinions. I sincerely regret ever sending a PM to you or asking you for friendly advice.

Consider yourself ignored and this reply to be the last comm you will ever get from me.

I guess Marty Rathbun could produce tech that gets twice the results of the earlier version of Scientology, since two times zero is zero.

I think that's the best summary of his tech-related activity that I've ever read. Did the CoS allow him to practice independent scientology or not?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

deleted---double posted

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

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.

That is my take on it as well. Why go after Leah Remini who is clearly one of the most successful, articulate, compassionate and well loved voices speaking up against the horrific abuses of the cult of Scientology.

Just as Leah has stepped up and given a voice to other who don't have a platform, I am taking a moment to step up and speak for Leah who is not here to respond to this nasty nitpicking.

I just re-read that original post and it's all scorching nasty pointed at Leah, who is by any measure a truly courageous activist! One of the very best in the 70 year history of fraud, lying and daily abusive behavior.

Samples follow of Karakorum's lame attempt to throw shade on one of the brightest stars in the ex-scientology heavens:

​

​

LARRY KING VIDEO (Which was quite popular and garnered three-quarters of a million views). ​

"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)." - karakorum​

COMMENT: She answered the question. She is following her conscience and heart, not a canned speech which she asked you to write for her. ​

​

"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." -karakorum​

COMMENT: You get annoyed at the delightful Leah Remini because you are mad at other rich people? OMG, LOL. Yeah that's sane.​

​

"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". - karakorum​

COMMENT: So Leah should have talked about you and your experiences? Interesting. If you are so upset with Leah because her Larry King interview should really have been about you, why don't YOU get booked on the Larry King show and tell your own story?​

​

"All in all it is a pretty poor interview." - karakorum​

COMMENT: If it is so "poor" nobody will watch it, so you have nothing to worry about. Ooops, three-quarters of a million people watched and liked it.​

​

​

JOE ROGAN INTERVIEW:​

(Joe Rogan has the number one podcast in the world on YouTube. His interview with Leah was in his TOP 30. The views were out the roof with 6.5 million people watching and loving her explain her personal experience in Scientology) Let's see if that was also a bad interview according to you. ​

​

"I remember hearing Leah on Jo Rogan's show some time ago and didn't like it at all." -karakorum​

COMMENT: That was predictable. Leah turns in a stunningly successful interview, one of the most popular ever done on Scientology with over 6 million views. But you "didn't like it at all". It was all bad, right? Nothing you can say about it that's good. That is a telling comment that reveals much more about you than you realize.​

​

"I wish the ex-scientologist community would have higher quality celebrities acting as our public face, cause this just doesn't cut it." -karakorum​

COMMENT: So Leah is low quality, she doesn't cut it. Why is it that if you are high quality and you can cut it that you have never appeared on a nationally televised TV show? Why haven't you become an activist to show how its done? Why haven't you appeared on a podcast with 6.5 million views that people adored? Why is it that if you know much more and you are so much better than Leah Remini, you are unable to do anything at all except sling acerbic comments at her? Again, extremely telling.​

​

CONCLUSION: It's an amazing thing to watch----someone who fancies themselves as a world-class expert, yet they cannot do anything that experts do.​

​

​

ps: Big shout out to Leah from all your friends at ESMB Redux. We send you loads of love, keep rockin baby!!!​

​

.​

.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

Speaking of Leah's wildly successful interview with Joe Rogan (6.5M views), here it is in case you never had a chance to see it. . .

Leah is exceptionally warm, entertaining, funny, real, well-informed, compassionate and able to convey rich concepts in delightfully illuminating ways. She also paints a compelling cautionary tale for never-ins who are going to be better armed to avoid the gaslighting that Scientologists are going to attempt on them if they ever get a chance.

Brilliant spokesperson for the Ex-Scientology community AND for people around the world who might be succeptible to the big lies Scientology tells.

Leah Remini is as good as it gets!

 

[guanoloco]

I haven't decided if Karakorum is a troll or not but here's what I've noticed.

The micromanagement aspect of splitting hairs. As the saying goes the "devils in the details" and when a thread is posted with a topic or has some broad picture to then focus on a pixel and argue serves no purpose other than to derail and get lost in the weeds.

That's exactly what is occurring with the "criticism" of Remini's interview.

Out of the overall presentation to focus on the verbiage selected in a "in the moment" usage is nitpicking, serves zero purpose, detracts, derails and violates the Socratic Test of 3.

Is it OSA Ops? Is it a troll?

To paraphrase Karakorum:

Ockham's razor 101 - if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, then maybe it quacks?
​