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

[Riddick]

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"

"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" "

Many different experiences to examine. When I was on staff we had many professional people such as dentists, engineers, etc that joined staff and gave up our profession to join the winning team of clearing and OT'ing the planet.

This can be also true during the early days of dianetics.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

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.

Excellent points!

That's how i see it too. She was asked a question, she answered.

She's not anyone's attorney or paid representative or PR spokesperson or lobbyist. She's just little Leah answering a question. She is not being sec-checked where anyone needs to be staring at the e-meter and yelling "THAT! THAT! THAT!" LOL

So I don't see why any of her answers need to be put under an electron microscope with concerns/criticisms that she did not give an expansive, answer that covers all spectrums of inquiry. There are only so many moments or seconds provided for someone to answer an interviewer's question, so they have to pick their focus and their battles.

If (on the other hand) the interviewer had specifically asked her: "SO CAN ANYONE DO ANYTHING IN SCIENTOLOGY WITHOUT PAYING VAST SUMS OF MONEY?" I am sure Leah would have happily answered that as well.

BOTTOM LINE: It's not her job nor her hobby to shill for Scientology and promote how you can get free auditing. That would lead people to very damaging conclusions. So, intelligently, she didn't talk about that subject.

That's how I am if someone asks me a question (outside of this message board) about some aspect of Scientology. I pick a narrow lane (due to time/attention constraints) and focus on ONE POINT and then answer. If they want to ask followup questions, I rinse-and-repeat. I don't try to give them an entire Briefing Course when they just wanted to know whether the com course was worth the money.

Why anyone would be concerned about criticizing Leah for her truly outstanding whistleblowing is a complete mystery to me. I honestly have not seen anything she has ever done that was not well-intentioned and very helpful to warning people about a very very very dangerous cult.

.

 

[Karakorum]

Hey guys, thank you for all the replies. I appreciate all including those that express a very different opinion from mine. Seeing the all reactions I think it is good that we opend this discussion.

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.

Well, Leah is a celebrity. This combined with the US media's focus and preferred forms of interviews and publications makes Leah the most prominent spokesman. It is not a de jure title, but it is what she holds de facto. I have no reason to believe that people like Aaron Smith-Levin or Chris Shelton would ever get this level of media attention.

Leah's interviews are very high profile and they deal with issues very important for us. This is why I believe any ex-scientologist should be free to express his/her opinion on this matter.

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.

Leah did many important things in the past and her show brought the attention of the wider society to the issues of Scientology. It inoculated a lot of people against the cult and I think that was a "mission accomplished" on that front.

At the same time, Leah should not be placed on a pedestal above all criticism just because of her often illustrious past actions. There's no kha-khan status in the big world, nobody should be given a free pass. If Leah does or says something that is unhelpful or damaging, people should be able to point this out.

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

I have to disagree on the importance of this. 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 dimiss 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.

Leah is a "rich celebrity" and precisely because of this, she has the power to help overturn this stereotype and show the true picture. In this interview she did the opposite and hence my criticism.

IDIOTIC THREAD ALERT!

Thank you for being open-minded and polite.

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.

I think I already adressed this point above:
Leah (nor anyone else) should not be placed on a pedestal above all criticism just because of her often illustrious past actions. There's no kha-khan status in the big world, nobody should be given a free pass. If Leah does or says something that is unhelpful or damaging, people should be able to point this out.

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.

That is a point I never made. Please kindly quote the parts of my posts that you are addressing, rather than putting your own words in my mouth.

My point was that Leah reinforces the stereotypical view of Scientologists "rich public buying services" and omits the manipulation and abuse that its poorer members go through, especially staff. Most members of scientology are not rich. And if they join as middle-class, they will soon end up poor.

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.

That is a point I never made. Please kindly quote the parts of my posts that you are addressing, rather than putting your own words in my mouth. Don't be like Alanzo - please quote my posts and address then rather than re-inventing them and maliciously changing their meaning..

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.

1. Please provide a link to my specific post which you believe is done "for the banned troll". I'd be glad to address your concerns, but please make them concrete and precise. I do not enjoy sweeping generalizations, innuendo and vague accusations.

2. If you have evidence that I had been "in regular contact" with Alanzo after he was banned, then by all means please share this evidence in public with all of us. Failure to do so will result in my reporting your posts for malicious and false accusations.

If you accuse others of wrongdoing, please provide evidence.

To be clear from my end: The only form of contact with Alanzo I ever had (other than years ago when I was a kid in California) were replies to some of his posts on this very forum. All of those replies are out there in the open, everyone can go and see if there is any conspiracy going on. There is none.

I've not contacted Alanzo by any other means - email, phone or whatnot. He didn't even have private messaging turned on when he was here on the forums. All my replies to him were in public. Get real.
Moreover - even if I were to contact him in some manner outside the forums... would that be a violation of the forum rules? I don't think so, but I'd like to hear from the admins to confirm.

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!

Please provide a link to my specific post in which you believe I've "posted a banned troll's comments" as well the evidence that this is the case. Continuing with false accusations and dailure to provide evidence will result in me reporting your posts for malicious and false accusations.

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

Please provide evidence that I am a sockpuppet and/or spokesperson for a "banned troll".
To be clear: I'm entirely fine with the admins checking my whole IP login history and comparing it with any of the banned members or conducting any other forms of cross-verification. I'm pretty convinced I'm the only person posting from my specific country and all my post's IP will be consistent with the same region. Feel free to cross-reference with the IP used on the old Emma's forums as well.
I hereby authorize Emma and PirateAndBum as admins of the respected forums to exchange between themselves information about my IP to confirm this (please do not post my IP or the country of origin in public though).

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

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

I'm all about having a robust discussion and a free exchange of opinions. But I am not the one who posts accusations about banned trolls and sock puppet accounts.

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.

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.

Thanks for your posts guys, I'll address them both at the same time because the notion behind them is the same:
Exactly - I agree with you in full! I've never even got to OT III. I went clear (yeah: me and my "clear memory" har har har) and then it got mired in the "You need to work not dilly-dally" part.
This is one more reason why I didn't like the way Leah handled this interview. It will give people the impression that the thing that is wrong with scientology is that it charges rich people too much for their services. She didn't address the fact that draining people out of money is just part of the trap and that draining people out of their labor and children is equally important.

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

Yeah and that's really what I meant. I'm not saying Leah is sabotaging the movement or that she's an OSA goon. I was dissatisfied because her answers really weren't the best and it annoyed me that she wasted such a high-profile opportunity as a Larry King interview. That's all.

 

[He-man]

Hey guys, thank you for all the replies. I appreciate all including those that express a very different opinion from mine. Seeing the all reactions I think it is good that we opend this discussion.


Well, Leah is a celebrity. This combined with the US media's focus and preferred forms of interviews and publications makes Leah the most prominent spokesman. It is not a de jure title, but it is what she holds de facto. I have no reason to believe that people like Aaron Smith-Levin or Chris Shelton would ever get this level of media attention.

Leah's interviews are very high profile and they deal with issues very important for us. This is why I believe any ex-scientologist should be free to express his/her opinion on this matter.


Leah did many important things in the past and her show brought the attention of the wider society to the issues of Scientology. It inoculated a lot of people against the cult and I think that was a "mission accomplished" on that front.

At the same time, Leah should not be placed on a pedestal above all criticism just because of her often illustrious past actions. There's no kha-khan status in the big world, nobody should be given a free pass. If Leah does or says something that is unhelpful or damaging, people should be able to point this out.


I have to disagree on the importance of this. 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 dimiss 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.

Leah is a "rich celebrity" and precisely because of this, she has the power to help overturn this stereotype and show the true picture. In this interview she did the opposite and hence my criticism.


Thank you for being open-minded and polite.

I think I already adressed this point above:
Leah (nor anyone else) should not be placed on a pedestal above all criticism just because of her often illustrious past actions. There's no kha-khan status in the big world, nobody should be given a free pass. If Leah does or says something that is unhelpful or damaging, people should be able to point this out.



That is a point I never made. Please kindly quote the parts of my posts that you are addressing, rather than putting your own words in my mouth.

My point was that Leah reinforces the stereotypical view of Scientologists "rich public buying services" and omits the manipulation and abuse that its poorer members go through, especially staff. Most members of scientology are not rich. And if they join as middle-class, they will soon end up poor.


That is a point I never made. Please kindly quote the parts of my posts that you are addressing, rather than putting your own words in my mouth. Don't be like Alanzo - please quote my posts and address then rather than re-inventing them and maliciously changing their meaning..


1. Please provide a link to my specific post which you believe is done "for the banned troll". I'd be glad to address your concerns, but please make them concrete and precise. I do not enjoy sweeping generalizations, innuendo and vague accusations.

2. If you have evidence that I had been "in regular contact" with Alanzo after he was banned, then by all means please share this evidence in public with all of us. Failure to do so will result in my reporting your posts for malicious and false accusations.

If you accuse others of wrongdoing, please provide evidence.

To be clear from my end: The only form of contact with Alanzo I ever had (other than years ago when I was a kid in California) were replies to some of his posts on this very forum. All of those replies are out there in the open, everyone can go and see if there is any conspiracy going on. There is none.

I've not contacted Alanzo by any other means - email, phone or whatnot. He didn't even have private messaging turned on when he was here on the forums. All my replies to him were in public. Get real.
Moreover - even if I were to contact him in some manner outside the forums... would that be a violation of the forum rules? I don't think so, but I'd like to hear from the admins to confirm.


Please provide a link to my specific post in which you believe I've "posted a banned troll's comments" as well the evidence that this is the case. Continuing with false accusations and dailure to provide evidence will result in me reporting your posts for malicious and false accusations.


Please provide evidence that I am a sockpuppet and/or spokesperson for a "banned troll".
To be clear: I'm entirely fine with the admins checking my whole IP login history and comparing it with any of the banned members or conducting any other forms of cross-verification. I'm pretty convinced I'm the only person posting from my specific country and all my post's IP will be consistent with the same region. Feel free to cross-reference with the IP used on the old Emma's forums as well.
I hereby authorize Emma and PirateAndBum as admins of the respected forums to exchange between themselves information about my IP to confirm this (please do not post my IP or the country of origin in public though).


I'm all about having a robust discussion and a free exchange of opinions. But I am not the one who posts accusations about banned trolls and sock puppet accounts.



Thanks for your posts guys, I'll address them both at the same time because the notion behind them is the same:
Exactly - I agree with you in full! I've never even got to OT III. I went clear (yeah: me and my "clear memory" har har har) and then it got mired in the "You need to work not dilly-dally" part.
This is one more reason why I didn't like the way Leah handled this interview. It will give people the impression that the thing that is wrong with scientology is that it charges rich people too much for their services. She didn't address the fact that draining people out of money is just part of the trap and that draining people out of their labor and children is equally important.


Yeah and that's really what I meant. I'm not saying Leah is sabotaging the movement or that she's an OSA goon. I was dissatisfied because her answers really weren't the best and it annoyed me that she wasted such a high-profile opportunity as a Larry King interview. That's all.

Bestest reply to a slagging off I've seen for a long time.

 

[Karakorum]

"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" "

Many different experiences to examine. When I was on staff we had many professional people such as dentists, engineers, etc that joined staff and gave up our profession to join the winning team of clearing and OT'ing the planet.

This can be also true during the early days of dianetics.

You have a point, but it might also depend on what times are we talking about. My impression of WUS in the 90s and 2000s was that staff was mostly poorer (or ex-middle class who went poor after the regges drained them) people, or 2nd generation kids. Leah has also experienced the 1990s and 2000s in California from this angle. It is not like me and Leah are talking about a different time or place.
This was slightly different in the SO, where there was a bunch of older members who joined in the 1970s abandonning their professions.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

@Karakorum ... I don't know what happened here because all you did was express an opinion.



I couldn't care less if Leah missed an opportunity to mention the reality of being on staff and all that goes along with it because the girl has been and continues to be brilliant overall and I absolutely appreciate her for everything she has done, she can only do so much at any given time ... but I also totally respect your right to post as your true self and not feel you have to pretty things up (ie post 'carefully') for your contributions to be acceptable ... I thought we left that nonsense behind when we left the cult.

 

[Karakorum]

@Karakorum ... I don't know what happened here because all you did was express an opinion.



I couldn't care less if Leah missed an opportunity to mention the reality of being on staff and all that goes along with it because the girl has been and continues to be brilliant overall and I absolutely appreciate her for everything she has done, she can only do so much at any given time ... but I also totally respect your right to post as your true self and not feel you have to pretty things up (ie post 'carefully') for your contributions to be acceptable ... I thought we left that nonsense behind when we left the cult.

I think I know what happened. Leah, Mike Rinder, Chris Shelton, Ron Miscavige and many other high profile critics are being unjustly and maliciously attacked by the CoS. Thus ex-members got conditioned by the CoS to look for a "second bottom" of any criticism of high profile defectors. I totally get that, which is why in the opening post I mentioned the "forwarding the enemy line" way of thinking that I expected might come up in any thread about Leah.

At the same time I think it is absolutely vital that we allow ourselves to talk openly and express criticism when we feel something is wrong or something wasn't done as well as it could. Leah, Mike, Chris etc shouldn't be "kha-khans" and free from legitimate, constructive criticism just because the CoS makes destructive criticism.

I think if we talk about this in an open manner and without self-policing, we will also "disarm" those who claim we are an anti-cult engaged in tribalism.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I think I know what happened. Leah, Mike Rinder, Chris Shelton, Ron Miscavige and many other high profile critics are being unjustly and maliciously attacked by the CoS. Thus ex-members got conditioned by the CoS to look for a "second bottom" of any criticism of high profile defectors. I totally get that, which is why in the opening post I mentioned the "forwarding the enemy line" way of thinking that I expected might come up in any thread about Leah.

At the same time I think it is absolutely vital that we allow ourselves to talk openly and express criticism when we feel something is wrong or something wasn't done as well as it could. Leah, Mike, Chris etc shouldn't be "kha-khans" and free from legitimate, constructive criticism just because the CoS makes destructive criticism.

I think if we talk about this in an open manner and without self-policing, we will also "disarm" those who claim we are an anti-cult engaged in tribalism.

You could be right but we have always talked openly about anything and everything on ESMB/ESMBR and agreed and disagreed on many things along the way, there are no kha-khans I can assure you ... that's why I was surprised at the reaction you got.

Maybe it's just the lockdown getting to us!

 

[Karakorum]

You could be right but we have always talked openly about anything and everything on ESMB/ESMBR and agreed and disagreed on many things along the way, there are no kha-khans I can assure you ... that's why I was surprised at the reaction you got.

Maybe it's just the lockdown getting to us!

Maybe its my own personal experience. I understand some people are careful and suspicious about me. I'm not posting under my real name and the various moving parts I added to prevent OSA from triangulating me and my location might also annoy or raise suspicions among ex-scientologists. I'm fine with that part.
But if someone is posting accusations in public, I would like that person to present evidence.

 

[He-man]

You could be right but we have always talked openly about anything and everything on ESMB/ESMBR and agreed and disagreed on many things along the way, there are no kha-khans I can assure you ... that's why I was surprised at the reaction you got.

Maybe it's just the lockdown getting to us!

We've always discussed everything... with different levels of argy bargy all the time.

And we do have Kha Khans, kinda. Remember how people react to criticism and difference of opinion when it comes to people like: Emma, Tory, Aaron Saxon, Carmel, BFG, Scooter, the bearded fella, Karen, etc etc etc. If you do speak out, you do get some sort of protection and insulation from your community.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

You could be right but we have always talked openly about anything and everything on ESMB/ESMBR and agreed and disagreed on many things along the way, there are no kha-khans I can assure you ... that's why I was surprised at the reaction you got.

I don't know about anyone else's reaction to karakorum, but I can share mine.

I don't know the person. I don't anything about them. I never noticed what they were posting about. I had no opinion about them.

When Alanzo was trolling (the most recent banning) I directly asked alanzo if he was ready to withdraw and disavow a certain "BIG LIE" he told about me on the Old Esmb. It was one example of dozens he told, but i wanted to see what his response would be. I referenced his own admission (printed on this website) where Alanzo openly admitted that he made up lies about people and what they said, in order to 'humiiliate' them. His words. When he does that, I can attest--he then runs away and refuses to answer questions. So after that exchange where I asked Alanzo that simple question, I also said if he didn't admit to lying I could simply pull up that post of his and show it. I was waiting to see if he was ready to man up and change his horrific trolling attacks.

Then out of the blue i get PM from Karakorum and I don't have any idea why he/she is writing to me or who he/she is, so I am always rather cautious when that happens. So, suddenly this person I don't know has an urgent need to discuss Alanzo with me. For some reason they need me to go to the old ESMB and SEND THEM so they could inspect (for some reason) the lie(s) that I was asking Alanzo about. Nothing to do with Karakorum, but at that point my radar screen really perked up. Why does he need to personally investigate this matter that has nothing to do with him.

At that point I suspected that Karakorum was a friend or associate (or at least in contact) with Alanzo. So, I politely blew Karakorum off and send him nothing, told him nothing and just continued posting in plain view where anyone could read it. . I didn't need a secret rendezvous with a total stranger who suddenly needed to butt into the middle of something they had no information about and no relationship to.

For me that was weird, but I just wrote it off as someone to keep an eye on. It's a very very very bizarre request in my view.

Okay, well that was that. I planned at that point to completely ignore any further messages from Karakorum.

Within a short time Alanzo got banned.

SHortly after that Karakorum then appeared on that thread and began posting COMMENTS from Alanzo---and said that he (Karakorum) was in contact with ALanzo. Now I did not ignore it. Because what is the purpose of banning a troll if the troll can keep posting his comments and weird shit thru Karakorum? I posted something short and edgy to alert readers on that thread that Karakorum was in regular contact with Alanzo and posting his material.

So at that point it was obvious to me that my original guess (when Karakorum pm'd me) was a pretty damn good guess--that he was a friend or associate of Alanzos. No crime if he wants to be friends with someone like that, it's his life. But for me, Karakorum no longer was off the radar screen because those TWO events made him a "person of interest" that I was more wary of than before.

What I expected at that point was for Karakorum to at some point begin harshly criticizing the EXACT SAME LIST OF "ENEMIES" that the COS and Marty Rathbun and Alanzo all attack. Well, Karakorum did not disappoint. Suddenly a harshly critical thread against a wonderful ex-Scientologist, ex-Sea Org Member and extraordinarily effective WHISLEBLOWER began.

I have my own opinions that the "look how bad Leah is" thread is total crap, so i openly posted it.

If I don't want to read his posts I won't, If i want to block him i will.

But i thought i should be open why I am not a big fan of people who DO NOTHING HELPFUL ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY'S HOAX BUT INSTEAD ARE FOCUSED ON THE EVIL EX-SCIENTOLOGY CRITICS---ESPECIALLY THE MOST EFFECTIVE ONES.

How many times does this exact pattern have to repeat before it is obvious what is happening. Others can have their own opinions just like I have mine.

It's an unmistakable pattern and all the targets are always the same. Enough said, everyone can watch it and judge for themselves.

.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Maybe its my own personal experience. I understand some people are careful and suspicious about me. I'm not posting under my real name and the various moving parts I added to prevent OSA from triangulating me and my location might also annoy or raise suspicions among ex-scientologists. I'm fine with that part.
But if someone is posting accusations in public, I would like that person to present evidence.

Let's keep it real simple:

--Don't PM me any more. I didn't want to get your earlier PMs in the first place because I don't know you or anything about you.

-- Don't ask me again to send you information about Alanzo. When you asked me to send you such information I refused. And if you ever ask me again, I will refuse as many times as you ask me. What I have to say, I say publicly. And I don't like or respect people that try to stir up back channel "investigations". Take it somewhere else.

-- Don't relay Alanzo's posts and comments and opinions after Alanzo got banned. Don't post for Alanzo, he's banned.

-- Don't get in the middle of things that have nothing to do with you and start asking me questions because that behavior is creepy. I don't want to hear anything from you again. I never wanted to talk to you in the first place. Why the hell are you trying to contact ME anyways about Alanzo? Are you his spokesperson? Are you his representative? Are you conducting your own private investigation? I don't know WTF you are doing, but kindly fuck off, I don't need your help. And I don't want to contribute to whatever weird shit you are trying to stir up. Hows that for transparent? LOL

-- Find someone else who wants you to send them such weird PMs, that would not be me.

-- And if you decide to go after the same list of Scientology critics that Alanzo and Rathbun and OSA go after, don't be surprised if people post opinions that are quite contrary to your own.

Simple, right?
.

 

[Karakorum]

Then out of the blue i get PM from Karakorum and I don't have any idea why he/she is writing to me or who he/she is, so I am always rather cautious when that happens. So, suddenly this person I don't know has an urgent need to discuss Alanzo with me. For some reason they need me to go to the old ESMB and SEND THEM so they could inspect (for some reason) the lie(s) that I was asking Alanzo about. Nothing to do with Karakorum, but at that point my radar screen really perked up. Why does he need to personally investigate this matter that has nothing to do with him.

I've been a bit concerned about the way Alanzo was asking me about the ethics files and other things I saw back in the day when I was inside. I was also aware of the notoriety Alanzo had and the various suspicions about him and Marty. As such, I wanted to be extra careful before I "opened a comm line" and replied to any of his posts, because I wanted to avoid giving any accidental info for OSA to triangulate me. I felt many old-time members of both ESMB forums knew more about Alanzo than I did.
This is why I contacted you (and not only you) via PM and asked for advice, as you seemed to have a history of exchanges with Alanzo and could tell me more about what I can expect. In one of the public replies on the thread you have yourself mentioned that you have further knowledge and hat: "I can re-post that for anyone who hasn't seen it". I haven't seen it and that is why I reached out via PM.

The reason why I reached out to you and other via PM was precisely because I was wary of replying to Alanzo's posts and answering any questions he might have for me. This had stuff to do with me, because it was questions about my activity in the CoS at the time. I'm a paranoid person, sometimes the paranoia is justified, sometimes it is not. I wanted to know before I made the decision to give further replies.

I believe the discussion we both had over the PM was friendly, constructive and I got no impression that you were angry or dissatisfied about it. I respect your privacy and won't post any of this in the open. But I hereby grant you my permission to post all of our PM discussion in public if you feel this would substantiate any of the strange accusations you have made about me in this thread.

At that point I suspected that Karakorum was a friend or associate (or at least in contact) with Alanzo. So, I politely blew Karakorum off and send him or told him nothing about what I was discussing with Alanzo directly, in play view on the website. I didn't need a secret rendzvous with a total stranger to butt into the middle of something they had no information about and no relationship to.

I wouldn't have asked you if it wasn't for the fact that in a public post you wrote that: "I can re-post that for anyone who hasn't seen it". You cannot blame me now that I asked you about something you have yourself offered to do. This is disingenuous.

SHortly after that Karakorum then appeared on that thread and began posting COMMENTS from Alanzo---and said that he (Karakorum) was in contact with ALanzo.
Now I did not ignore it. Because what is the purpose of banning a troll if the troll can keep posting his comments and weird shit thru Karakorum? I posted something short and edgy to alert readers on that thread that Karakorum was in regular contact with Alanzo and posting his material.

That is a false statement. I have never posted that I am "in contact" with Alanzo, not to mention being "in regular contact" with him. Please post a link to the post where I supposedly said that.
The only "contact" in the last 10+ years I had with him were my public replies on this very forum to posts he made in public. Claiming anything else is a lie on your part.
The previous "contact" I had with him was during early 1990s when he was on staff at the Santa Monnica mission in the 90s and I was a kid. I'm from that part of California. I wrote this openly in that thread - people are free to go and check.

I've also made it painfully clear in my PM to you that I know Allen only from his Santa Monica days. Now you are trying to maliciously imply that there is some other relationship between me and him. I'm going to post just my reply of our PM for all to see what I supposedly told you in secret:

So what did I post about Santa Monica on that thread? You can go see for yourself, its still there.
This is what I wrote in that post when Allen asked me if we knew each other:
Me: "Kinda sorta we did. I've written publicly that I'm originally from Santa Monica.
Though there is an age gap between us, so you probably remember me far less than I remember you. I won't be surprised if you wouldn't remember me at all, I was likely "just one more kid" for you back in the day. I reckon you would remember some of my other family members better. "

See? apparently I had so much recent contact with Allen that he had to ask me if we even know one another and from where.

So at that point it was obvious to me that my original guess (when Karakorum pm'd me) was a pretty damn good guess--that he was a friend or associate of Alanzos. No crime if he wants to be friends with someone like that, it's his life. But for me, Karakorum no longer was off the radar screen because those TWO events made him a "person of interest" that I was more wary of than before.

What I expected at that point was for Karakorum to at some point begin harshly criticizing the EXACT SAME LIST OF "ENEMIES" that the COS and Marty Rathbun and Alanzo all attack. Well, Karakorum did not disappoint. Suddenly a harshly critical thread against a wonderful ex-Scientologist, ex-Sea Org Member and extraordinarily effective WHISLEBLOWER began.

Well isn't that special? Because in our PM conversation I explicitly told you that I do not trust Marty Rathbun and that I do not trust Allen because they say the same sort of things.

Now you are just maliciously turning my statements 180 degrees from what you know they really were:

Go on @HelluvaHoax, grant me the right to post our whole PM discussion in public if what you claim is true. Make my day.

I have nothing to hide and what you claim is false.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

We've always discussed everything... with different levels of argy bargy all the time.

And we do have Kha Khans, kinda. Remember how people react to criticism and difference of opinion when it comes to people like: Emma, Tory, Aaron Saxon, Carmel, BFG, Scooter, the bearded fella, Karen, etc etc etc. If you do speak out, you do get some sort of protection and insulation from your community.

I don't think anyone has ever been give 'kha-khan' status here, but yes, we all have friends and we have become a community ... one that I like very much and value a lot.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

That is a false statement. I have never posted that I am "in contact" with Alanzo, not to mention being "in regular contact" with him. Please post a link to the post where I supposedly said that.
The only "contact" in the last 10+ years I had with him were my public replies on this very forum to posts he made in public. Claiming anything else is a lie on your part.

Unless English is not your first language and you don't speak/write very fluently, your claim above DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what you said on this forum on another thread. Let's now compare that claim to what you wrote on this forum AFTER Alanzo was banned. Here are your own words from April 15th, verbatim:

LINK TO FULL 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....​

​

In the same post you wrote that, you also included appx. 4 comments/opinions that you got from Alanzo.

So you DID in fact post that you were in contact with Alanzo.

Here it is again, let's compare YOUR two different statements that YOU made on 2 different days.

APRIL 15, 2020: "I asked (Alanzo) to provide some replies to my questions...which he did."
APRIL 22, 2020: "I never posted that I am in contact with Alanzo"

So which one is the lie?

I have no interest in what you are doing with all this massively complex arguing and trying to prove this or that.

I would however like to see your answer to the question of how you can post two completely contradictory statements and then call me a liar.

I can read English. Anyone can read what you wrote.

So this thing you are doing (whatever you want to call it) is unsustainable.


HERE'S THE DEAL DU JOUR: Just man up and admit you lied. Or at least admit that you were terribly mistaken and made false statements and false accusations. I am not even asking for an apology. If you admit it and acknowledge that you falsely accused me of lying, I will drop the whole matter. That's an easy out for you.

​

​

​

​

 

[He-man]

I don't think anyone has ever been give 'kha-khan' status here, but yes, we all have friends and we have become a community ... one that I like very much and value a lot.

Kha Khan isn't given formally, true, but definitively in an informal format.

I could give it to you, I suppose, formally, but I think that means we need to start keeping track on stats, and I'm soooo flat on that, like, never again.

 

[Karakorum]

​

Here it is again, let's compare YOUR two different statements that YOU made on 2 different days.
APRIL 15, 2020: "I asked (Alanzo) to provide some replies to my questions...which he did."
APRIL 22, 2020: "I never posted that I am in contact with Alanzo"

So which one is the lie?

I have no interest in what you are doing with all this massively complex arguing and trying to prove this or that.

I would however like to see your answer to the question of how you can post two completely contradictory statements and then call me a liar.

I can read English. Anyone can read what you wrote.

Both of my statements that you are referring to are true, there is no contradiction between them. The evidence is out there in the thread for everyone to see. Both his and my questions are all contained in that thread he started.

I've already wrote all in my previous post:
The only "contact" in the last 10+ years I had with him were my public replies on this very forum to posts he made in public. Claiming anything else is a lie on your part.

I'm sorry... can you please again tell me who doesn't "speak/write very fluently" in English?

So you DID in fact post that you were in contact with Alanzo.

That thread is still up there. The posts are there. People can go and see both my posts and Alanzo's posts. Its all there in the open.

If you have evidence that I had any form of contact with Alanzo than that public thread, then by all means, please show us your evidence.

Also, who died and made you the public prosecutor on the forums? Are you even qualified to conduct sec-checks and investigations?

 

[He-man]

APRIL 15, 2020: "I asked (Alanzo) to provide some replies to my questions...which he did."

She did ask him those questions in public on one previous thread.

That's not the same as "being in contact" unless "being in contact" means something else in the bastardization of the English language known as Americaneese.

At least that's what I can make of yer lingo, but I'm no native speaker. I just accidentally went native on your languino since all good fanatasy litterature had crappy translation to swedish back when I was a pimpled out teenager needed a daily fix of Conan, Fahrd and them other bunch.

 

[Mockingbird]

Well, a couple comments.

I know Leah Remini knows that many staff and Sea Org members are poor and live and work in terrible conditions because she was a Sea Org member herself. She wrote about it in her book Troublemaker.

It is hard to describe the pyramid shaped caste system of a cult in a television interview because you have three factors against you. The complexity and counterintuitive nature of a cult, the short time you get on television to answer questions and the lack of understanding about cults that most media have.

I have seen media people like Howard Stern do shows on Scientology and get lots and lots of details flat out wrong. These guys hear a few rumors, think that they know all about cults as crazy people who gravitate to each other and then they get more than half the story wrong. They tell people completely false ideas and then I have co-workers who are certain they know the truth about Scientology and the fact that I spent twenty-five years IN Scientology is irrelevant because a celebrity told them something and the celebrity was sure about what he said.

So, Leah Remini knows she has to be careful what she says and she won't likely have time to lay out the layers of Scientology and not get cut off.

Regarding people getting treated differently here to my knowledge it has always been that way. A few years ago I started posting at the earlier edition of ESMB and Marty Rathbun had posted his article on the real core beliefs of Scientology.

At the time Marty Rathbun was very popular and believed by most Scientology critics.

I looked at his article and criticized the fact that something like half his claimed core beliefs aren't even things most people in Scientology EVER believe.

I simply took each claim by Marty as an individual claim and evaluated it without concern for the source, since it is irrelevant, and from my twenty five years in Scientology realized his claims were wrong at least half the time and that he should have known better.

And further the people at ESMB should have known better too.

Many Marty Rathbun defenders didn't want to hear it.

Warren Beatty said people won't remember what you said, they will remember how you made them feel. People at the time remembered Marty Rathbun making them feel good, so they agreed with him despite knowing better.

It is human nature to follow the halo effect and use black and white thinking. Really black and white thinking is largely black and white FEELING. If we have a strong positive or negative feeling about a person we usually find things to support that feeling and ignore what doesn't fit that feeling. Leon Festinger covered this in extreme detail in A Theory Of Cognitive Dissonance.

Now, if Marty Rathbun published the exact same article for the first time TODAY he would get a very different response from the exact same people. The article hasn't changed, the facts have not changed, the feelings people have for Marty Rathbun have changed.

 

[Karakorum]

She did ask him those questions in public on one previous thread.

That's not the same as "being in contact" unless "being in contact" means something else in the bastardization of the English language known as Americaneese.

At least that's what I can make of yer lingo, but I'm no native speaker. I just accidentally went native on your languino since all good fanatasy litterature had crappy translation to swedish back when I was a pimpled out teenager needed a daily fix of Conan, Fahrd and them other bunch.

That is exactly true.

I've also told HelluvaHoax in that PM session that I have little trust for Allen and that this is why I'm reaching out to HelluvaHoax in the first place to tell me more, because I trust his version of the story much more than Allen's.

For some reason he is now lying about it and trying to present to you guys as if I revealed some big secret communication I supposedly had with Allen. I have no idea why he is doing this, but I can assure you all of it is false.