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

[Karakorum]

I believe part of becoming our true selves again after leaving the cult is that wonderful feeling of no longer having to be careful when we speak or in this case, post ... you and I and many others have been on ESMB now for over a decade but I still vividly remember that feeling and I occasionally liked saying certain things just because I could.



I didn't find Kara's post nasty, I didn't agree with it but I didn't find it nasty. In some ways I wondered if she was just stretching her wings, enjoying the freedom of being somewhere where she can just be herself with other exes and say whatever she likes (within ESMB rules) after being in the cult for so long (second generation IIRC).

Yep, I am 2nd gen, though I've been out for over 10 years now. Freedom doesn't feel very new. Though self-thought-policing... yeah I'm not gonna do that. I like being able to call a spade a bloody shovel.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Ideas and opinions that fall outside of the Overton window invariably require considerably more supporting evidence than you’ve provided.
You get that, right, Karakorum?
If you use the word “tanked”to describe your opinion of Leah’s (accurate) answer to an interview question then choose not to walk it back or add supporting information to your opinion...other than repeating, ad nauseum, your opinion that “the emperor is naked” casting yourself as some brave truthteller...don‘t be surprised if you’re viewed as a troll.
No one is above criticism, but if anyone has earned, and deserves the twin appellations of Troublemaker and Truthteller, it’s LEAH, not you...whoever you are,
In my opinion, you are 100% entitled to your worthless opinion.

I tried to use the new definition of "tanked" in sentences. . .

"As a businessman Jeff Bezos tanked because when I ordered a pay-per-movie from Amazon, I did not like it."​

​

"Facebook tanked because they didn't design their website the way I would have, which would have forced members​

to look at a "save the rainforest" video before each time they were allowed to post. ​

​

"The US Constitution totally tanked because it did not prevent poverty, crime and the murder of 85M people in World War II"​

Somehow I am not feeling super-keyed-out. I feel that my efforts to clear the word may have tanked. lol

.,

 

[Lee #28]

Can't we all just get along....?

 

[He-man]

Can't we all just get along....?

I'm afraid that's impossible.

Opinions matter.

 

[PirateAndBum]

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.

Let's note that she did not say anything about Leah tanking. Can we do that?

Sheesh you guys are a tough bunch. Kara's praised Leah's work. She's never tried to make the CoS look good.

Molehill meet Mountain.

Nobody's perfect, including Leah, Shelton, Ortega, Bunker, etc. Expressing a negative opinion about a specific thing a critic said isn't a condemnation of every fucking thing that critic has done. FFS you know this. How are critics to improve in their criticism if there is no feedback?

 

[Lee #28]

I'm afraid that's impossible.

Opinions matter.

of course they do.....

But bickering is just so.....ugggg to me.

Points of opinion can be made....but to keep making them over and over and over....

I just don't like that.

 

[Karakorum]

Ideas and opinions that fall outside of the Overton window invariably require considerably more supporting evidence than you’ve provided.
You get that, right, Karakorum?
If you use the word “tanked”to describe your opinion of Leah’s (accurate) answer to an interview question then choose not to walk it back or add supporting information to your opinion...other than repeating, ad nauseum, your opinion that “the emperor is naked” casting yourself as some brave truthteller...don‘t be surprised if you’re viewed as a troll.
No one is above criticism, but if anyone has earned, and deserves the twin appellations of Troublemaker and Truthteller, it’s LEAH, not you...whoever you are,
In my opinion, you are 100% entitled to your worthless opinion.

In all honesty, I meant to say that the interview as a whole tanked, not just that one answer. Oh and I certainly did NOT say: "Leah Remini tanked". The interview tanked - it was just bad in my humble opinion.
Oh and to be even more clear: By "tanked" I meant failed, was a flop. As in: "That film had a big budget, but its sales sure tanked"

As for explaining my opinion further than “the emperor is naked” I feel I already did this in several previous posts in this thread - I'd especially suggest you look at my replies to Pirate&Bum or Guanoloco. I think I'll just be repeating myself if I go over the same points I already made in replies to them.

I'm not 'casting' myself as a 'truth-teller', just confirming that I am going to speak my mind. This includes being critical of people who are playing on the same team.

In my opinion, you are 100% entitled to your worthless opinion.

Why thank you, I feel so much better now.

Do you have any specific constructive pointers on what should I improve?

No one is above criticism, but if anyone has earned, and deserves the twin appellations of Troublemaker and Truthteller, it’s LEAH, not you...whoever you are,

I'm more than happy to give Leah the credit where its due and I did so many times. At the same time I will criticize her if I see a flop like this interview. I'm able to hold many positive and negative opinions about the same person at the same time. I don't see a reason to go into black-and-white thinking.
If Marty Rathbun one day wakes up to say that Scientology is a cult and water is wet, I'm not gonna disagree. If Ortega or Leah or any other critic say something silly or counterproductive, I'm not gonna pretend it was the best statement ever.

 

[He-man]

Let's note that she did not say anything about Leah tanking. Can we do that?

Sheesh you guys are a tough bunch. Kara's praised Leah's work. She's never tried to make the CoS look good.

Molehill meet Mountain.

Nobody's perfect, including Leah, Shelton, Ortega, Bunker, etc. Expressing a negative opinion about a specific thing a critic said isn't a condemnation of every fucking thing that critic has done. FFS you know this. How are critics to improve in their criticism if there is no feedback?

You said fucking. I'm reporting you to the.. oh wait, nevermind. Sorry.

 

[He-man]

Also. Proof that we need a proper witch hunt now.

 

[Karakorum]

Also. Proof that we need a proper witch hunt now.

View attachment 3133

Trolololololo

 

[PirateAndBum]

Yes, @Karakorum, you're entitled to your opinion. If you think the whole interview tanked then that's what you think. I would say that anything which accurately shines a light on the truth about scn is useful. It might be done well or poorly.

You know what did tank? Marty's multi-part video series. That really tanked in a monumental way.

What else tanks? In my opinion the "1st amendment survey" (or what ever they're called, videos, when someone just goes by a Idle morgue with a video camera and sees what happens. Quite boring and useless IMO. I believe it's called trolling. Trolling the cult isn't very effective.

ETA: I suppose there could be some well-done trolling. I'm sure Hoxie could make some very interesting trolling videos

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Let's note that she did not say anything about Leah tanking. Can we do that?

Sheesh you guys are a tough bunch. Kara's praised Leah's work. She's never tried to make the CoS look good.

Molehill meet Mountain.

Nobody's perfect, including Leah, Shelton, Ortega, Bunker, etc. Expressing a negative opinion about a specific thing a critic said isn't a condemnation of every fucking thing that critic has done. FFS you know this. How are critics to improve in their criticism if there is no feedback?

I don't see anything wrong with Karakorum expressing her opinions at all.

I don't see anything wrong with others expressing their opinions at all.

She has now labeled Leahs interview(s) as "tanking" and "failing" and labeled it a "flop". So that's her opinion.

Others have other opinions.

Where is the problem?

.

 

[PirateAndBum]

I don't see anything wrong with Karakorum expressing her opinions at all.

I don't see anything wrong with others expressing their opinions at all.

She has now labeled Leahs interview(s) as "tanking" and "failing" and labeled it a "flop". So that's her opinion.

Others have other opinions.

Where is the problem?

.

No problem -

 

[Karakorum]

Yes, @Karakorum, you're entitled to your opinion. If you think the whole interview tanked then that's what you think. I would say that anything which accurately shines a light on the truth about scn is useful. It might be done well or poorly.

Thanks for the support.

In all fairness, I would agree that my opening post in this thread was too emotional and also vague.

However after 10+ posts I have made here, I think I have already stated my position very clearly and even gone into a nuanced rabbithole of which objectives should we pursue in the big picture of dealing with the CoS and which narratives will be helpful.

You know what did tank? Marty's multi-part video series. That really tanked in a monumental way.

The ones he made after he took down the lawsuit? Hey, no argument there. Everything he made since blows. I am not one to jump to "OMG OSA" conclusions, but the 180 that Marty did just looks too convenient.

What else tanks? In my opinion the "1st amendment survey" (or what ever they're called, videos, when someone just goes by a Idle morgue with a video camera and sees what happens. Quite boring and useless IMO. I believe it's called trolling. Trolling the cult isn't very effective.

I'm not sure I saw many of these "walk by with a camera" vids, though I recall a few. I think this might have some value in downtown Clearwater where they might serve as a "No, you don't own this whole city yet" message.
But in general I agree, they don't do anything except maybe making paranoid staff even more paranoid. "Big pharma is out to get us, don't believe me, check that dude outside who is taping us just now!"

I found some of that MadGayPope guy's vids to be nothing but harassment. And it would be harassment regardless if he does it to scientology body-routers, catholic nuns, Rastafarians, Trump supporters or boyscouts.

I think the only vid he ever made that had value was the one where he has staff tell him how scientology is entirely fine with people being gay and he just opens dianetics and reads Hubbard's anti-gay passages from it. That vid at least pointed out the hypocrisy in CoS recruiting.

Recruiting isn't our main problem right now. The main issue is getting the remaining 20,000 or so Scientologists free from Dave's rule.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Yes, @Karakorum, you're entitled to your opinion. If you think the whole interview tanked then that's what you think. I would say that anything which accurately shines a light on the truth about scn is useful. It might be done well or poorly.

You know what did tank? Marty's multi-part video series. That really tanked in a monumental way.

What else tanks? In my opinion the "1st amendment survey" (or what ever they're called, videos, when someone just goes by a Idle morgue with a video camera and sees what happens. Quite boring and useless IMO. I believe it's called trolling. Trolling the cult isn't very effective.

ETA: I suppose there could be some well-done trolling. I'm sure Hoxie could make some very interesting trolling videos

.

I Liked all the views in that post.

As far as making trolling videos, I had a few really killah ideas over the years that involved having Scientologists in controlled environs (like a "BRIEFING") where they think it's a real-deal briefing by senior management. Hey, white polyester shirts and black ties are cheap props! LOL.

So, during the briefing they are given some really startling news that is contrary to major beliefs that Scientologists hold sacred.

It would be fascinating for all people (Scientologists, ex-Scientologists and non-Scientologists) to see Cognitive Dissonance manifest in real time. It's a very little studied phenomena and precious little has been done on video to capture this pervasive but invisible reaction of believers.

In some ways the COS actually ASSISTS their parishioners with cognitive dissonance. Such as the "RON IS DEAD" event where the escape route is provided and the Scientologist doesn't even have to think of an explanation. I thought the explanation church leaders gave was pretty cool-- "HEY RON IS DEAD BUT HE'S NOT REALLY DEAD. IT'S JUST THAT HE'S SO OT HE CAN'T BE ALIVE"

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I think I have already stated my position very clearly and even gone into a nuanced rabbithole of which objectives should we pursue in the big picture of dealing with the CoS and which narratives will be helpful.

QUESTION: Rather than giving correctional instructions to others (e.g. Leah) of what she is doing wrong and what she should really be doing------why don't YOU engage your heralded strategy and demonstrate to everyone else how effective it is?

QUESTION: If your "tech" to take down Scn works miracles, why can't you demonstrate it? Something to do with parlor tricks? lol

Honestly, i think after most people have escaped from Scientology, their due diligence capabilities start becoming more fine tuned and effective---and they don't just accept on faith that people are experts, without proof. So where is your proof that your cult-takedown tech works?

In the military there is a rather devastating term that I am reminded of. It's REM. It's how the front line grunt soldiers (the ones being torn apart by machine gun fire and explosive shrapnel) describe the high and mighty military brass that are sending them orders from 20 miles or even countries away.

REM = "REAR ECHELON MOTHERFUCKERS"​

They earned that acerbic acronym because they are so far removed from the actual battle that the are absolutely clueless and their theories that manifest in ORDERS end up massacring the brave warriors that are actually fighting the war and know how to win it.

You might do well to give some thought to if you are making that same REM mistake. Maybe you could watch and learn from the people actually fighting in the front line trenches, like Leah. She's having extraordinary success if you wanna take a 2-day jeep ride to the front lines and bother to actually look.



.
.

 

[M&M]

@Karakorum

At first I didn't pay attention to the date of the video, the word "docuseries" made me think it was related to her new 2020 project ("Seeking Justice"). Then I saw the tag in the description: (Re-Release 2016).

The video you quote from LK's YT channel is a Feb. 2018 re-release of the original Dec. 2016 interview, which was aired barely two weeks after the start of her Scientology and the Aftermath docuseries (Episode 1 - Nov.29-2016).

Here on LK's website:

https://www.ora.tv/larrykingnow/2016/12/16/leah-remini-on-her-revealing-new-scientology-series

That was said more than 3 years ago!

This could explain why she seems to me at moments shy, uncomfortable, even overwhelmed at times (postural attitude) with some parts of the interview. She was barely at her beginnings! ... and LK seemed to me to be merciless shooting his questions and often interrupting her before she finished her sentences ...

In regard to the key quote you mention, I was more shocked though by what she said later, at Timestamp 19:06 to 19:35. (What I really didn't get is why does Leah seemed to separate Scientologists ("parishioners" = the public) from S.O. members ("people who work at Scn"), having been herself one of them ... )

She says: "Well there's Scientologists and there's the people who work at Scientology and they're called Sea Org members" then near the end of the time stamp describes what is an usual "normal" day in the life of a Scientologist.

In regard to this I totally agree it can give a quite slanted view about what it is really to "be a Scientologist". And I can totally understand your reactions and agree with your general argument:

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".

But given the time perspective, on one side, and on the other all the enormous amount of accomplishments Leah has achieved towards exposing the truth of Scn and fighting its abuses, I'd simply write that video off as one of most probably many "beginner mistakes" anyone can slip into when engaged in such a hardcore battle for Truth's sake.

 

[Karakorum]

@Karakorum

At first I didn't pay attention to the date of the video, the word "docuseries" made me think it was related to her new 2020 project ("Seeking Justice"). Then I saw the tag in the description: (Re-Release 2016).

The video you quote from LK's YT channel is a Feb. 2018 re-release of the original Dec. 2016 interview, which was aired barely two weeks after the start of her Scientology and the Aftermath docuseries (Episode 1 - Nov.29-2016).

Here on LK's website:

https://www.ora.tv/larrykingnow/2016/12/16/leah-remini-on-her-revealing-new-scientology-series

That was said more than 3 years ago!

This could explain why she seems to me at moments shy, uncomfortable, even overwhelmed at times (postural attitude) with some parts of the interview. She was barely at her beginnings! ... and LK's seemed to me to be merciless shooting his questions and often interrupting her before she finished her sentences ...

In regard to the key quote you mention, I was more shocked though by what she said later, at Timestamp 19:06 to 19:35. (What I really didn't get is why does Leah seemed to separate Scientologists ("parishioners" = the public) from S.O. members ("people who work at Scn"), having been herself one of them ... )

She says: "Well there's Scientologists and there's the people who work at Scientology and they're called Sea Org members" then near the end of the time stamp describes what is an usual "normal" day in the life of a Scientologist.

In regard to this I totally agree it can give a quite slanted view about what it is really to "be a Scientologist". And I can totally understand your reactions and agree with your general argument:


But given the time perspective, on one side, and on the other all the enormous amount of accomplishments Leah has achieved towards exposing the truth of Scn and fighting its abuses, I'd simply write that video off as one of most probably many "beginner mistakes" anyone can slip into when engaged in such a hardcore battle for Truth's sake.

That's a fair observation. The youtube date was 2018, so I assumed the footage was from that year.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

But bickering is just so.....ugggg to me. Points of opinion can be made....but to keep making them over and over and over....

I just don't like that.

.
There is a new high-tech device that was recently invented that can handle that.

It's called a channel-changer.

Seriously, once upon a time my lovely ex used to get bent out of shape because I watched "enturbulating entheta" on tv. It was quite unethical what I was doing. However, being NCG, I was unable to rise above my out-ethics situation and follow her orders---to turn it off.

To this day i still enjoy watching that "entheta" which wogs call boxing or mixed martial arts. LOL

.

 

[Dotey OT]

I'm still stuck on the Trololo guy.

But it seems to be time for a brief musical interlude:

The song that skipped in concert, revealing the fraud