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

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

I have been accused of being an evil troll trying to derail this thread. LOL. I guess it's a "derail" if I don't agree that Leah is no good and I allow someone to trash her. Since Leah's track record of activism has been smeared, it's actually directly on point to talk about whether she deserves harsh criticism or praise. I see zero reason to "dead agent" Leah Remini, considering all the the extraordinary and great things she has done to help Scientology victims.

So far the original poster on this thread found NOTHING whatsoever good about anything Leah has ever done:

-- LEAH'S INTERVIEW WITH LARRY KING (e.g. "All in all it's a pretty poor interview" - karakorum)

-- LEAH's INTERVIEW WITH JOE ROGAN: (e.g. "I didn't like it at all" - karakorum)

That's interesting, nothing but bad to say about Leah. I could be missing something but the only people I ever saw on the internet or tv that have nothing but bad things to say about Leah are the Church of Scientology hate websites, Marty Rathbun's hate website and Alanzo's hate websites. I am trying hard to not draw conclusions.

It makes me wonder about these things:

1. Is there NOTHING Leah Remini has ever done that is good?

2. If Leah is so terrible, WHO then does karakorum have any positive opinion about in the world of Scientology critics? (not, me for sure because she multiple times has labeled me a lying, evil troll. . I'm so evil in fact that she has blocked me TWICE! LOL. Sorry, but that reminds me of all the people who keep make grandstanding speeches about how they are absolutely moving out of the USA because it's too evil, but they never move, lol)

3. Here are two more examples of incredibly successful interviews that Leah gave on national TV that have received wide acclaim and millions upon millions of views. Are the following two (2) perfectly good interviews no good also?

- - INTERVIEW WITH CHELSEA HANDLER (over 3M views) --

- - -

-- INTERVIEW ON 20/20 (over 3M views) --

​

How is it possible that nothing Leah Remini ever did is any good and she only deserves critical takedowns?

Again, if Leah is no good, is there ANYBODY who is any good in the eyes of this harsh critic?

.

 

[Karakorum]

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

Well, it is always a sound policy to stay alert. We all know the church would like to take a swing at any enemies and what better way than to sow discord and prevent people from cooperating with one another.

I've added quite a few "moving parts" precisely to make it more difficult for the CoS to triangulate me and get my identity. I so far see no evidence that this approach failed. I do however realize that this identity-camouflage might simply look fishy to others. I get that.

I also don't have a "certificate of not being an OSA operative" that I could share.

So, what facts can I point in my own defense?

• I've joined the old forums in May last year. A long time for an OSA sleeper agent to hang around without doing damage.
• I have 600+ messages only on this forum and another several hundreds on the old forums. Not to mention comments on Rinder's and Ortega's blog. That is a large body of messages, the overwhelming majority very critical of Scientology and very on-point when it comes to ex-scn experiences. One would think OSA would probably not post so many hundreds of posts that in no way further their line.
• I used to post in a specific time of day. Then you might have seen my daily posting patterns to shift greatly since the Coronavirus shutdown, which is consistent with an office worker who suddenly was moved to working from home. To me that looks like a regular "wog work" pattern.
• Both Emma and P&B can cross-check my IP that I used both here and on the old forums. The IP will be consistent and come from a country with no known Scientology churches, not to mention SO bases.
• If someone is paying attention, you might notice that my knowledge of what was going inside consistently brings you back to the late 1990s and the 2000s and that I did not display any insider CoS knowledge of events from the past 10 years or so.
• I have a pretty fixed pattern when it comes to offering both positive and critical opinions about some of the major people in the anti-scn scene. I've been open about my lack of trust in Marty, Mike or Alanzo (Marty least of all. I'm quite ambivalent on Mike). None of this is new, you probably heard me say that last June already.
• You can search my posts on the old forums, IIRC you will find a comment where I said that Leah's interview with Rogan sucked. I've not been very secretive about my criticism. If I feel something has jumped the shark, I'll say so. Doesn't matter if its Ortega or Rinder or Shelton who said/did/wrote something bad or counterproductive.

Well, that's it folks! Make your own judgement.

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.

Well, I picked it as a timestamp for people who don't feel like watching the whole thing just to be able to refer to the argument I am making (people complained about me not doing that before with a Rogan vid).

The general argument however can be summed up as:
"The Larry King interview was an opportunity lost. Leah, unwittingly or not, played into the common scientology tabloid stereotype of a "rich man's ufo cult for hollywood actors".

Is it OSA Ops? Is it a troll?

I'd vote troll.

I'm too smart and funny for an OSA goon.

To paraphrase Karakorum:

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

​

That's not paraphrasing. That is a direct quote. How's that for splitting hairs?

 

[Bill]

.

I have been accused of being an evil troll trying to derail this thread. LOL. I guess it's a "derail" if I don't agree that Leah is no good and I allow someone to trash her. Since Leah's track record of activism has been smeared, it's actually directly on point to talk about whether she deserves harsh criticism or praise. I see zero reason to "dead agent" Leah Remini, considering all the the extraordinary and great things she has done to help Scientology victims.

So far the original poster on this thread found NOTHING whatsoever good about anything Leah has ever done:

-- LEAH'S INTERVIEW WITH LARRY KING (e.g. "All in all it's a pretty poor interview" - karakorum)

-- LEAH's INTERVIEW WITH JOE ROGAN: (e.g. "I didn't like it at all" - karakorum)

That's interesting, nothing but bad to say about Leah. I could be missing something but the only people I ever saw on the internet or tv that have nothing but bad things to say about Leah are the Church of Scientology hate websites, Marty Rathbun's hate website and Alanzo's hate websites. I am trying hard to not draw conclusions.

It makes me wonder about these things:

1. Is there NOTHING Leah Remini has ever done that is good?

2. If Leah is so terrible, WHO then does karakorum have any positive opinion about in the world of Scientology critics? (not, me for sure because she multiple times has labeled me a lying, evil troll. . I'm so evil in fact that she has blocked me TWICE! LOL. Sorry, but that reminds me of all the people who keep make grandstanding speeches about how they are absolutely moving out of the USA because it's too evil, but they never move, lol)

3. Here are two more examples of incredibly successful interviews that Leah gave on national TV that have received wide acclaim and millions upon millions of views. Are the following two (2) perfectly good interviews no good also?

- - INTERVIEW WITH CHELSEA HANDLER (over 3M views) --

- - -

-- INTERVIEW ON 20/20 (over 3M views) --

​

How is it possible that nothing Leah Remini ever did is any good and she only deserves critical takedowns?

Again, if Leah is no good, is there ANYBODY who is any good in the eyes of this harsh critic?

.

If I'm getting @Karakorum's criticism correctly, Leah's interviews are bad because they paint the Church of Scientology is a bad light.

I think Karakorum should step right up and explain how very, very good the church really is -- to counteract Leah's "lies".

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

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?
​

Interesting questions, indeed!

One thing that sticks in my mind is this. . . when Alanzo got back on ESMB this last time (before being banned again) he made a beeline directly to the "STUPID THREAD". It is well known for any veteran posters that Alanzo has chopped down entire rain forests to get enough paper to post all his bitter hatred for me. He even has entire hate pages on his blogs just like the COS posts against their enemies. But he couldn't wait to get on the STUPID THREAD and be with me. LOL. I asked him very very very politely to not post there since that thread never had any problems in a decade. He left but then a short time later he made another bee-line back and started posting derailing material---and his stuff was moved to another thread by P&B with the admonition to not post on that thread again unless he removed all his hate websites on me first. Well, history repeats itself and a short time later Alanzo got banned (again!) when he went on one of his crazed hate attacks in full view.

Now, I don't know what to make of this, but karakorum (who I don't know ANYTHING about) also made a bee-line directly to me as well, sending me PMs and asking me to send him/her links and information I might have about Alanzo). A very short time later (this thread) karakorum also has exploded with hate and accusations that are identical to those Alanzo has spewed for years. Same exact accusations!

Are these just coincidences or patterns?

That's why I invited karakorum to tell the board more about her views on Scn critics---and asked her a few minutes ago to let us know if there is ANYBODY she does like?

Frankly, I don't mind anyone having any opinion that is positive or negative, but when someone like Leah does such phenomenally successful whistleblowing against a viciously fraudulent cult, I fail to see why anyone would harbor such horrible critiques of their work.

It's an interesting subject to discuss. Karakorum brought it up so let's discuss it. Despite accusations that I am derailing, on the contrary I am 100% discussing the exact thing that the poster wanted to discuss.

.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

This is beyond ridiculous ... for God's sake leave the girl alone. It's becoming embarrassing. Kara had an opinion, she posted it ... many of us disagreed with it ... she moved on ... we didn't.

None of that makes her a bloody OSA goon or a troll.

FFS.

 

[Karakorum]

If I'm getting @Karakorum's criticism correctly, Leah's interviews are bad because they paint the Church of Scientology is a bad light.

You are very, very far from understanding it correctly. I'd say you are on the other side of the Van Allen belt from "correctly".

I think Karakorum should step right up and explain how very, very good the church really is -- to counteract Leah's "lies".

In reply, I'm first gonna go and quote myself (post #23 of this thread):

"One of the major problems with the current image of scientology is the "UFO cult for rich Hollywood actors" stereotype. While this image certainly doesn't help Scientology recruitment, it is also damaging to current and ex-members. It causes the general public to dismiss Scientology as a "celebrity fad" and thus doesn't make them treat Scientology seriously. Nobody will revoke its tax free status or establish humane work norms for its employees if people continue to see it just from the rich celebrity angle."

I just feel that looking at scientology from the rich public angle alone is simply unhelpful at this point. One needs to point out the situation on staff, in the SO and among scientology's kids. Leah referred to this on various parts of her show. But she did not mention any of this in this interview, just focused on how scientology rips rich people off. That's my criticism and I stand by it. OSA suspicions or not.

I'd rather be a suspected of being an OSA agent than start to self-police my own comments.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Kara ... can you also see that Leah has been brilliant for us in general and has worked incredibly hard to expose the cofs for what it is ... a complete con?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[guanoloco]

You are very, very far from understanding it correctly. I'd say you are on the other side of the Van Allen belt from "correctly".


In reply, I'm first gonna go and quote myself (post #23 of this thread):

"One of the major problems with the current image of scientology is the "UFO cult for rich Hollywood actors" stereotype. While this image certainly doesn't help Scientology recruitment, it is also damaging to current and ex-members. It causes the general public to dismiss Scientology as a "celebrity fad" and thus doesn't make them treat Scientology seriously. Nobody will revoke its tax free status or establish humane work norms for its employees if people continue to see it just from the rich celebrity angle."

I just feel that looking at scientology from the rich public angle alone is simply unhelpful at this point. One needs to point out the situation on staff, in the SO and among scientology's kids. Leah referred to this on various parts of her show. But she did not mention any of this in this interview, just focused on how scientology rips rich people off. That's my criticism and I stand by it. OSA suspicions or not.

I'd rather be a suspected of being an OSA agent than start to self-police my own comments.

That's your way of seeing it.

Here's another.

Q: Scientology costs what?

A: Half a million dollars.

**stampede of people running away**

**followed by utter Ideal Morgue silence and empty parking lots**


If you can't see that then it's your ego in the way. Maybe take some time out of being so funny and smart and see the big picture.

 

[Karakorum]

Kara ... can you also see that Leah has been brilliant for us in general and has worked incredibly hard to expose the cofs for what it is ... a complete con?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

Yes, of course. I continue to say: "Convinving people to produce and release the Aftermath alone deserves huge praise". This was still at a time when most media outlets were afraid of Scientology. This series was exactly what showed the media that Scientology will not necessarily lawsuit them out of the galaxy like it did Time magazine.

But that does not mean I will shift my thinking to a "black-or-white" pattern.

If I see any big name in the ex-scene do something great or write something amazing, I'm gonna openly say that. But when they make something that tanked, I'm not gonna pretend it was a success.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

This is beyond ridiculous ... for God's sake leave the girl alone. It's becoming embarrassing. Kara had an opinion, she posted it ... many of us disagreed with it ... she moved on ... we didn't.

None of that makes her a bloody OSA goon or a troll.

FFS.

She had an opinion. Others have another opinion. Nobody did anything to her. She's a big girl and had some incredibly harsh opinions about Leah, so what if other don't agree. If you don't want people to discuss it, why don't you convince karakorum to set up her own blogsite away from the ESMB DISCUSSION website. Then she can post anything she wants and she can also block all comments. That's fine too.

But if someone comes on a discussion website, you are not going to convince people to not discuss it.

You don't need to moderate this thread. It's a discussion. Adults are here. They can come or go as they please.

If Karakorum doesn't like others' opinion she has made it very clear that she is not shy about trashing others. So, you don't need to protect her. Open discussions are good. Otherwise, what is the purpose of this message board, right?
.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

She had an opinion. Others have another opinion. Nobody did anything to her. She's a big girl and had some incredibly harsh opinions about Leah, so what if other don't agree. If you don't want people to discuss it, why don't you convince karakorum to set up her own blogsite away from the ESMB DISCUSSION website. Then she can post anything she wants and she can also block all comments. That's fine too.

But if someone comes on a discussion website, you are not going to convince people to not discuss it.

You don't need to moderate this thread. It's a discussion. Adults are here. They can come or go as they please.

If Karakorum doesn't like others' opinion she has made it very clear that she is not shy about trashing others. So, you don't need to protect her. Open discussions are good. Otherwise, what is the purpose of this message board, right?
.

It doesn't feel like an open discussion ... it feels like a take down, but you are right I am not a mod and I wouldn't bloody well want to be.

 

[Karakorum]

That's your way of seeing it.

Here's another.

Q: Scientology costs what?

A: Half a million dollars.

**stampede of people running away**

**followed by utter Ideal Morgue silence and empty parking lots**


If you can't see that then it's your ego in the way. Maybe take some time out of being so funny and smart and see the big picture.

No offense, but you are stuck in the past.

Scientology recruitment is pretty much dead. That part of the conflict is won - mission accomplished.

Everyone and their mother now know it is expensive. If you only read the Daily Mirror or the Sun, you will still know that: "Tom Cruise and Travolta are in scientology and by the way its super expensive and they believe in aliens".

At this point new recruits are not an issue. Currently the remaining objectives are the following:

1. Bring awareness to and support to people leaving scientology (Leah did a STELLAR job in this field btw with the foundation)
2. Bringing awareness to the abuses inside scientology of its staff and SO.
3. Convincing the government that the tax-exempt status is a mistake.
4. MOST IMPORTANT: Convince the remaining scientologists to either leave, or take back the church and overturn the current management.

This is why I dislike this interview. Because it does nothing towards these 4 goals. Attacking scientology recruitment is like trying to knock down a tower that is no longer there.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Yes, of course. I continue to say: "Convinving people to produce and release the Aftermath alone deserves huge praise". This was till at a time when most media outlets were afraid of Scientology. This series was exxactly what showed the media that Scientology will not necessarily lawsuit them out of the galaxy like it did Time magazine.

But that does not mean I will shift my thinking to a "black-or-white" pattern.

If I see any big name in the ex-scene do something great or write something amazing, I'm gonna openly say that. But when they make something that tanked, I'm not gonna pretend it was a success.

I don't think for a single moment that it did tank ... but you do think that.

Fair enough.

 

[Karakorum]

I don't think for a single moment that it did tank ... but you do.

Fair enough.

I'm gonna go and evaluate things as I go one by one. I can praise Ortega 20 times in a row when he does a good job and then criticize him mercilessly if he does something crass and stupid. That's how I roll, I don't give people a free pass or apply a pollyanna effect filter.

 

[guanoloco]

No offense, but you are stuck in the past.

Scientology recruitment is pretty much dead. That part of the conflict is won - mission accomplished.

Everyone and their mother now know it is expensive. If you only read the Daily Mirror or the Sun, you will still know that: "Tom Cruise and Travolta are in scientology and by the way its super expensive and they believe in aliens".

At this point new recruits are not an issue. Currently the remaining objectives are the following:

1. Bring awareness to and support to people leaving scientology (Leah did a STELLAR job in this field btw with the foundation)
2. Bringing awareness to the abuses inside scientology of its staff and SO.
3. Convincing the government that the tax-exempt status is a mistake.
4. MOST IMPORTANT: Convince the remaining scientologists to either leave, or take back the church and overturn the current management.

This is why I dislike this interview. Because it does nothing towards these 4 goals. Attacking scientology recruitment is like trying to knock down a tower that is no longer there.

Yeah, because so many dyed-in-the-wool Scienos are watching it.

But above and beyond let's speculate that they did watch it.

How many of them are going to see a "lie"?

All of them know what the fucking Bridge costs.

All of them know that there is ZERO movement on the Bridge being on staff with no money.

No one, EVER, went up the Bridge on staff since Miscavige.

Miscavige has been in control longer than L. Ron.

Any of them that are going to take up your beef as a "lie" wouldn't come out with a gun to their head.

 

[Karakorum]

Yeah, because so many dyed-in-the-wool Scienos are watching it.

But above and beyond let's speculate that they did watch it.

How many of them are going to see a "lie"?

All of them know what the fucking Bridge costs.

All of them know that there is ZERO movement on the Bridge being on staff with no money.

No one, EVER, went up the Bridge on staff since Miscavige.

Miscavige has been in control longer than L. Ron.

Any of them that are going to take up your beef as a "lie" wouldn't come out with a gun to their head.

I think you have focused on objective 4, while in this interview there was instead room for 1, 2 and 3.

Well, if she did mention the labor abuses and how a "regular joe" gets toasted by Scientology, that would contribute to objectives 1, 2 and 3 that I mentioned.
It would make it personal for people. Rather than making it more of a "gawk-celebirty-zoo" that tabloids provide anyway.

That's my opinion, you are free to disagree.

As for objective 4 - the public media is not the battlefield for that. The battlefield needs to be inside the church and the arguments, I believe, are best if they are "Debbie Cook style" appeals.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

If I see any big name in the ex-scene do something great or write something amazing, I'm gonna openly say that.

But when they make something that tanked, I'm not gonna pretend it was a success.

.

You bring up a good point. So HAVE YOU "....seen any big name in the ex-scene do something great or write something amazing?" Which people in your estimation are criticizing and whistleblowing in the right way? Clearly you think Leah is exposing Scientology in the wrong way.

Who then DO you like and support?

On your other comment ("when they make something that tanked") who are you talking about? Who tanked?


.

 

[guanoloco]

I think you have focused on objective 4, while in this interview there was instead room for 1, 2 and 3.

Well, if she did mention the labor abuses and how a "regular joe" gets toasted by Scientology, that would contribute to objectives 1, 2 and 3 that I mentioned.
It would make it personal for people. Rather than making it more of a "gawk-celebirty-zoo" that tabloids provide anyway.

That's my opinion, you are free to disagree.

As for objective 4 - the public media is not the battlefield for that. The battlefield needs to be inside the church and the arguments, I believe, are best if they are "Debbie Cook style" appeals.

OK.

If you're so concerned about the 4 objectives why didn't you start with that and then lay out the critique?

What you wrote was something about the poor staff being regarded as mere nothings under the noses of the high and mighty elite and wealthy.

That's the gist of your post.

Now, you're circling the wagons and coming up with objectives to support the criticism. IMHO that's fraudulent intellectual dishonesty.

Remini isn't above reproach but wouldn't it serve that there's something there to criticize?

Why not the low-hanging fruit of Ratbrain Rathburn or some other sellout fake fraud?

Remini came from a poor background and was a staff member before becoming a movie star or whatever the hell she is.

She knows all about staff and the conditions of it.

I'm sure you're aware of this.

 

[Karakorum]

OK.

If you're so concerned about the 4 objectives why didn't you start with that and then lay out the critique?

I guess at that point I was fresh from watching it and made a less precise and more engaged comment than the later ones. I felt like I was being precise and clear enough at the time. Now I improved with subsequent posts,

I do recognize that this discussion did make me clarify some of my ideas and put them in a much more organized and clearer written form. And this is precisely the worth of debates in general and forums in specific.

What you wrote was something about the poor staff being regarded as mere nothings under the noses of the high and mighty elite and wealthy.

That's the gist of your post.

That remains my opinion. Though I have put it in more emotional terms in the first post, as I was fresh from watching the vid - I cooled down a bit.

Now, you're circling the wagons and coming up with objectives to support the criticism. IMHO that's fraudulent intellectual dishonesty.

Why would it be dishonest? That's the way I feel about the interview. You can agree or disagree, but to judge honesty you would need to be abel to look into my head. I don't believe you have these sort of OT powers.

Remini isn't above reproach but wouldn't it serve that there's something there to criticize?

What about he low-hanging fruit of Ratbrain Rathburn or some other sellout fake fraud?

What about Marty? He's not in the interview and has not expressed an opinion AFAIK.
I don't trust him anyway.

Remini came from a poor background and was a staff member before becoming movie star or whatever the hell she is.

She knows all about staff and the conditions of it.

I'm sure you're aware of this.

And to me that makes it worse. She had the knowledge, but she didn't use it. She could have led the interview from a better angle, but she chose to follow the celebrity format.

 

[guanoloco]

OK.

Let's look at objective 3.

Q: Scientology costs what?

A: Half a million.

Coupled with the exposure of the abuse how many times does this have to be front and center before the public pressure causes the IRS to answer why they allow exemption to an abusive fraud that is bilking people?

In a day and age where Harvard has to give back government money because of the bad PR this is the best line of attack.

With media soundbytes measured in the microseconds this is the best focus.

But you live in the weeds. When it comes to discussing the elephant in the room you only see a grey background or something.

Molehills are Himilayas in that regard.