Alarming Rhetoric on Mike Rinder’s Blog

Mike Rinder ScientologyYesterday, Mike Rinder wrote a post that he hoped would whip all his commenters up into a lather against Scientologists in the entertainment industry. Here are his final paragraphs of that post:

“But of course they ignore the huge failures that are stinking up the lobby at CC: Jenna Elfman has not been able to hold a job since Dharma and Greg. Kirstie Alley defines washed-up. Anne Archer hasn’t had a role in a decade (or two). Even the mighty Tom Cruise has had two box office bombs in a row. Danny Masterson has done nothing since the 70’s. Juliette Lewis might even be longer. Catherine Bell? Marisol Nicholls? The only one who has had consistent work and success is Bart Simpson. Why aren’t all these other people having successful careers? Why isn’t the scientology magic working for them? For heaven’s sake, it’s the Golden Age of Tech times 2.

And what about Jason, Paul and Leah? They are all flourishing. Jason has a massive NW TV hit that he stars on. Paul is constantly writing and does more real humanitarian work than all of scientology combined. And Leah — leaving scientology has seen her with a NYT #1 bestseller, an Emmy, the leading docuseries on TV and co-starring again in a prime time sitcom. Can you imagine if one of the scientologists had this sort of career success?

Perhaps ESCAPING scientology is the best career boost and guarantee of success.

There is plenty of evidence to support this idea.

Scientology continues to operate on the principle “never defend, always attack” — even though they are like cornered rats and will ultimately be wiped out entirely because they are such menacing, antagonistic and rabid vermin. They cannot change because it’s all laid out in their own policy.”

Did you get that next-to-last sentence?

“[Scientologists]… are like cornered rats and will ultimately be wiped out entirely because they are such menacing, antagonistic and rabid vermin.”

Here he is calling Scientologists “cornered rats” who will be ultimately wiped out entirely because they are such menacing, antagonistic rabid vermin.”

Is this Mike Rinder Anti-Scientology rhetoric reverting back into Mike Rinder Scientology rhetoric? Calling Scientologists “cornered rats” and “rabid vermin” who will “ultimately be wiped out” harkens back to earlier totalitarian regimes, and their rhetoric, which Mike often used as the head of propaganda for the Church of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs.

Thankfully, none of this over-the-top rhetoric really worked on his commenters in the way he was going for. Regular commenters repeatedly corrected Mike on his facts regarding Scientology celebrities and their successes – even though they are still in the Church.

Mike Rinder tried to show how David Miscavige always said that leaving Scientology made people fail.

Mike Rinder then ended up trying to show how staying in Scientology made people fail.

What’s the difference between David Miscavige’s and Mike Rinder’s arguments here?

Some of the dangers from having spent decades in the craziest part of Scientology, as the head of the Office of Special Affairs International, are the totalitarian impulses that can still consume a person – under the right conditions – long after they get out of Scientology.

Now that Mike Rinder is on TV, having flipped from the Number 1 propagandist for Scientology into the Number 1 propagandist against Scientology, let’s hope he is aware of these totalitarian impulses within himself, and that he is taking precautions to try to control them.

This particular post of his is not a good sign.

Leave a Reply

68 Comments on "Alarming Rhetoric on Mike Rinder’s Blog"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest
Richard
Guest

I was going to post this on the previous topic but I’ll post it here:

Ex scn-ists sometimes say they have “no skin in the game”. The skin which is actually still there is that if they ever decided to become a public personality like a politician or actor or whatever they can be exposed and classified according to anti-scn descriptions, up to and including complicity in crimes. Even in the everyday workplace a scn-st or ex scn-ist would be suspect. It remains to be seen if “Scientologists” will simply be regarded as non threatening religious fundamentalists and leave it at that.

Regarding this topic, the generality called “Scientology” allows anyone associated with “Scientology” to be fair gamed.

statpush
Guest

WTF? This is the type of rhetoric Mike used to spout against the psychs. 97.5% of Scnists are harmless, maybe misguided, but harmless. But, because they are Scnists they should be “wiped out”? That’s right up there with LRH SoS quote about how to handle low toned people, quietly and without sorrow.

Doloras LaPicho
Guest

You watch, Tony won’t call this out, Chris Shelton won’t call this out, 90% of the Bunkeridoos won’t call this out, because he’s ON OUR SIDE and therefore can’t be criticised.

marildi
Guest

Alanzo: “Is this Mike Rinder Anti-Scientology rhetoric reverting back into Mike Rinder Scientology rhetoric? Calling Scientologists ‘cornered rats’ and ‘rabid vermin’ who will ‘ultimately be wiped out’ harkens back to earlier totalitarian regimes, and their rhetoric, which Mike often used as the head of propaganda for the Church of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs.”

I wouldn’t even give Mike the justification of “reverting back” – he wasn’t that radical even when he was the head of OSA. It would have been extremely out-PR, even for the CoS, to say about a whole group of people the kinds of things Mike is now saying on his blog. He has become a zealous extremist.

Obviously, his purpose is no longer to simply expose the abuses of the CoS with the aim of getting them handled. He now wants to eradicate Scientology entirely as a religious practice – despite the fact that until fairly recently he was still claiming to believe in religious freedom and the idea that even Scientologists should be free to practice their beliefs, as long as they did not abuse others.

Mike knows very well that Scientologists in general do not, for example, attack critics and attempt to ruin them. That is an OSA policy that pertains to OSA operatives. He knows it and yet he claims that this is what “Scientologists” are obliged by policy to do. Notice how often both he and Leah state, with regard to various abuses, that “this is the policy and no one can change it” – which in effect forwards the message that the abuses will never end until Scientology and Scientologists are “wiped out.” To me, it all comes across as calculated propaganda. And I can’t help but wonder who is really behind it and why.

Gary
Guest

You are taking what Mike said and blowing all the heel out of proportion. He saidvthat if the cos keeps up the always attack never defend that will be what causes the end of Scientology. I thought you were smart guess I was wrong.

Atomical
Guest

Blown out of proportion, eh? You mean like how Tony O, Mike Rinder and Leah Remini claim Scientologists are a bunch of pedophiles based on a single quote deliberately and shamelessly taken out of context?

All the worst excesses of Scientology anti-critic/anti-exscn zealotry from the late 80s to early 2000s can be traced back to Mike Rinder himself. Rinder ran Scientology PR so hard into the ground that not even outside PR firms were willing to try to fix its image, no matter how much they were offered.

Whatever he wants to claim now, Rinder was one of the very few key personnel, a gang which included Marty Rathbun, Guillaume Lesevre, Norman Starkey, among 3 or 4 others, who helped force out Pat & Annie Broeker in the weeks following LRH’s death in 1986, and revise LRH’s last will & testament under questionable legal circumstances, and in certain cases, outright illegal.

All senior Int execs from that point on were involved in actions that were likely illegal, but good luck finding even a single one willing to admit their complicity.

In all the brouhaha surrounding Debbie Cook’s resignation a few years ago, no one (as far as I can tell) in the “critic community” thought to question her claims and the circumstances that led to her falling out of favor with Miscavige and ultimately dismissed, which she attempted to explain away. Hint: her downfall relates to her pushing Flag regges to bleed every last cent from every visitor, even ones that were practically raw meat and barely in Scientology a few weeks.

When things got so bad that Flag regges & BSOs were discovered charging accounts of Scientologists who hadn’t even been to Flag in years for services not rendered, dozens of Basics,. Congresses & ACCs, $5000-$10000 Quantum meters, ALL built in 1996, that were already obsolete at Flag for years and about to become obsolete everywhere else… man, I could go on with this insanity. They were totally nuts to not think it would hit the fan and when it did, heads were going to roll and sure as hell did, beginning with Debbie Cook, who still hadn’t learned ANYTHING from what had been done to senior Int execs between 2001-2007.

The point is people like Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun, Debbie Cook, Jefferson Hawkins, and others at senior management level (and not just at Int Base physically but globally), they really don’t like to take full responsibility, or even any responsibility. They have to dump it all on others. Miscavige was originally the favored target since he makes for a very convenient scapegoat and after all, he is the one who raised the cost of services & materials so stupendously high that only a handful of Scientologists could afford to do Scientology anymore without putting themselves into massive credit card debt. Miscavige is the one who pioneered the now infamous “wallet biopsy” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7CVXO2pBLc] back in the late 80s where regges would literally try to get you to lay out all your credit cards on the table and max them all out.

I could keep going. Lots of examples! So we all know Miscavige was and still is a royal bastard. But you know what? He’s just one bastard. Alone, he’s just another joe schmo like the rest of us mere mortals, and a chronically constipated one at that. I don’t even think Tony O has the kind of bowel troubles that Miscavige is rumoured to have.

Alanzo mentioned in another comment that it takes a certain kind of people to follow the kind of orders that come down from senior execs. Just because an asshole like Rinder tells someone to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge or risk being declared SP and their “eternity” taken away from them, doesn’t mean anyone will do it. And most didn’t, which is what eventually led to his falling out of favour with the Grand Poombah hisself, since nothing Rinder ended up helping Scientology but just made public perception of it even worse than it had ever been before.

You don’t hear much today about all the contradictions in management in the 80s and 90s, but before 2001, Miscavige was not a micromanager. LRH hated micromanaging with a passion, but he eventually became convinced that he was the only one in Scientology capable of managing competently. Thats why there are many HCOPLs on virtually every conceivable topic and why in 1965 he deified himself as the only & only Source of Scientology. He did all that because he got fed up of having to micromanage and tried to set up a system where orgs could run close to “automatic” without him having to have any direct contact or being there.

LRH was right about the hopeless incompetence in Scientology. The higher up you go the chain of command, the stupider they get. I can’t stress that enough. These morons couldn’t and still can’t even deal with ridiculous anti-scn picketing clowns like AnonOrange and AGP without making Scientology look even worse & more sinister than it already is portrayed in the media. Look at their videos for heavens sake. How is it possible that a MULTIBILLION dollar operation like Scientology can’t even effectively deal with goofs like that? Like I wrote in another comment, like many others I gave up in spite of staying in the Sea Org for years and years and genuinely wanting to get the outside world to look at Scientology from a different, more positive viewpoint than the over-the-top negative one presented in the tabloids & media. I genuinely believed and still believe there’s a lot of good, useful data in Scientology, and I was always skeptical about it when I first joined up.

But there’s some kind of fatal flaw in Scientology, like a benign tumor that won’t kill a patient but if not kept in check could potentially grow large enough to invade surrounding tissue and actually become cancerous. That tumor is KSW and the other authoritarian type HCOPLs & EDs, in other words the authoritarian personality cult surrounding the person of LRH that came to dominate the Sea Org after the birth of the Commodores Messenger Organization, which Miscavige joined at 16 years of age and quickly became its most senior officer. Sea Org was authoritarian before Miscavige’s rise-to-power but he took it to a whole ‘nother level, but didn’t jump the shark until after LRH died.

And who helped Little Big Man jump the shark and turn Scientology into a lunatic fest where tens of thousands of dollars were/are spent each MONTH on private investigators; crush/gang regging Scientologists to the point of bankruptcy, sometimes even into deliberate bankruptcy, most notoriously demonstrated in the case of Richie Acunto; using pathetic tools like Grant Cardone to harass the hell out of elderly Scientologists who refused to worship Miscavige like Milton Katselas; list goes on and on and on.

And this thing with bullying Katselas. That actually started with Mike Rinder in charge of “handling” Katselas in the 90s after Milton kept getting KRed by the likes of Jenna Elfman on bogus charges seducing young women attending his Master Class at the BH Playhouse. No one in the senior exec strata at Int liked Milton, and Miscavige was personally very jealous of him because Milton was one of the very very few Scientologists who maintained direct correspondence with LRH himself, even after he began living in a Bluebird trailer in his final years. Meaning that LRH personally read and replied to Katselas by hand via post. I’ve seen the letters myself personally. From what I’ve been told by old-timers, the only other people who had that kind of genuine friendship with LRH were Gene Denk, his personal physician, and the Broekers, though in this case they were in direct face-to-face contact with LRH, whereas Milton’s ties to LRH were purely through letters. From what I’ve been told, the few other people who enjoyed the privilege of handwritten correspondence with LRH directly were all non-Scientologists like Forest J Ackerman. If true, this explains a lot about Miscavige and the type of person he would become.

When you look at all the people Miscavige tried to permanently shun out of Scientology, you’ll find a pattern that all connects back to this issue of friendship with LRH. LRH did think quite highly of Miscavige, but he never considered him a friend and definitely did not consider him sufficiently worthy and competent enough of running the whole show as its undisputed global leader.

The only reason Miscavige has had virtually unchecked control of Scientology worldwide is because of overzealous lapdogs like Mike Rinder who were willing to get their hands bloody in order to curry favour with Little Big Man. But not even Rathbun, Starkey, Lesevre, Jentzsch were scummy enough to do all the rotten things Rinder was more than willing to do, and its also why he is so willing to turn to the other extreme and deliberately promote utter bullshit that he knows is totally, unequivocally false like accusing LRH of being a pedophile and accusing Scientologists of being complicit in child sex abuse due to a single quote deliberately taken out of context from a book written in 1950, which was a radically different kind of culture than ours today. That quote doesn’t mean what they’re claiming it means, and Tony O is trying to milk the hell out of it to distract from all the child sex allegations against Backpage.com which he helped run while at Village Voice. It says a lot about what kind of person Tony O is based on his use of the bullshit phrase, “underage prostitution.”

Sorry, but as others have verified, there’s no such thing as “underage prostitution” and its a disgusting term to try to legitimize or explain away allegations that children have been forced into prostitution by way of Backpage. And I’d like to know why Mike Rinder and Leah Remini refuse to address these allegations and why they try to distract from these issues and the scandals Tony O was involved in by always bringing up straw men and deliberately misinterpreting LRH quotes out of context.

In all the articles & books critical of LRH & Scientology I have not found one that even mentions this quote and I’ve read everything from George Malko, Russell Miller, Jon Atack, Paulette Cooper, and many more. If its been brought up before in their works or in others, I’m not remembering it. Anyone know?

Richard
Guest

In fairness regarding the statement about vermin, Mike may have been thinking about the slime bags and top executives in the CoS Inc. that put out the smear videos after every episode of the Aftermath. Those things are designed to cut deep.

Otherwise I guess he doesn’t consider it fair gaming since private investigators aren’t tailing scn celebs and picking through their trash.

Head on battles with the CoS can be vicious. Arnie Lerma once described it as looking down the barrel of a shotgun.

On a more positive note, I think religious tolerance is part of the American psyche and governmental force is not forthcoming to eradicate scn in any and all of its forms.

marildi
Guest

Good comment, Richard. You are probably right that Mike had top executives (meaning Miscavige, actually) in mind when he called them vermin. I guess I had in mind that he and Leah have made statements about Scientolgists in general that aren’t true, and it seemed like more of the same – an effort to stigmatize the whole subject and those who practice it.

Richard
Guest

In my opinion it IS an effort to stigmatize the whole subject and those who practice it – and to wipe it out entirely. Mike’s blog and the Aftermath are heading in that direction if they aren’t already there.

“Captain America & Wonder Woman Battle the Evil Cherch of Scamology!”. . . Biff! – Boom! – Bam!

marildi
Guest

Indeed, Richard. Mike’s efforts to stigmatize all of Scn and SCn’ists is the one reprehensible activity he has been involved with that can be known with certainty AND which is entirely without mitigating circumstances. From the data I’m aware of, the actions he took in the church occurred as a result of the indoctrination and conditioning he had gotten since childhood – convincing him that there was a virtual war going on between the CoS and anyone who would get the way of it making a better world. So I’m not inclined to condemn him for it. But not so with regard to his current efforts; for those he is culpable, IMHO.

marildi
Guest

Alanzo: “The degree to which you refuse to recognize a person’s power of choice over the direction of his life, the more you dehumanize him. And the more you mask and hide the person he really is. Blaming brainwashing and mind control can be a way for an Ex to never confront parts of himself that really do exist.”

There is truth to both the fact that people have power of choice AND that their choice can be insurmountably influenced by circumstances. It takes a judgment call – not just by the person himself at the time but by anyone judging him later.

My judgment of Mike is based on my own experience of being totally convinced that Scientology was going to save the world, and that without it the world was doomed. Look at what people do in actual wars – where they know that some people are going to DIE, but are convinced that others are going to be righteously “saved.” In the case of Scientology, the belief was that the vast majority would be saved – and in the long run everybody would be.

The difference between me and Mike is that I was never put on the front lines of that war and had to shoot. I think you’re taking too hard a line here – and too absolutist – when you assume that he could have seen through his conditioning.

marildi
Guest

Aren’t you assuming that others had the same conditioning as Mike’s?

marildi
Guest

But was Mike’s brother actually put to the test on the front lines, as Mike was?

And yes, I do think conditioning is powerful. In act, I’ve learned that many spiritual teachers, both ancient and modern, consider what we believe to be our “self” is a conditioned fabrication – and that the path to liberation and enlightenment is through freeing ourselves of this false “self,” otherwise known as one’s ego.

marildi
Guest

I was using the same metaphor regarding war that I used above, which ended with this: “The difference between me and Mike is that I was never put on the front lines of that war and had to shoot.”

With regard to your question about “some kind of environment that we are assigning the power to supersede and overwhelm all moral decision making?” – no, not at all. That environment had/has its own moral code.

marildi
Guest

This is basically the same point as before, Al. And I still say you aren’t giving enough credit to the power of indoctrination and conditioning – which, more often than not – depending on how well it conforms to the individual’s personal sense of purpose – takes effect for a very long time, if it is ever surmounted at all.

marildi
Guest

“OK, so how do we determine the POWER of conditioning? Have you ever examined this?”

Yes, and I’ve observed the extent of its power. I’ve seen that people generally have the same basic attitudes, beliefs, opinions, etc. – even the same responses and behavior patterns – as the culture they grew up in. This would apply to the different world cultures right on down to the unique culture of an individual’s own family, schools and other sources of education and conditioning, including the overall culture around them.

Regarding mind control, from what I understand the difference is that it is far more coercive than general conditioning and indoctrination into society. It would have to be coercive – to the degree that it differs from the person’s lifelong, prior conditioning.

marildi
Guest

“So when a person gets into the Sea Org and does shit that no one’s conditioning ever saw coming, why would they end up doing the shit that Rinder did as head of OSA, if prior conditioning was more powerful?”

Their prior conditioning included the utter conviction that Scientology was going to save the world. Thus, despite the fact that the shit Rinder and others did violated some of their earlier conditioning, it aligned with what they were conditioned to believe was more important than anything.

I’m not trying to defend Rinder or anybody else. For all I know, his purposes weren’t that noble but instead were to achieve super powers – and the reason he left was because he decided this was not going to happen. The point is that we don’t know and therefore shouldn’t judge.

Just to drop a name, Jesus said “Judge not lest ye be judged.”

marildi
Guest

“I do not put NO power into these choice-annihilating constructs, but I have seen too much value and personal insight in dumping those constructs and saying ‘I did it because I wanted to do it’, and for very few other reasons. You would not believe how many valuable things come from that viewpoint after Scientology.”

Whatever we did, we always did it because we “wanted to do it”; the question is, based on what? A person who is still at an egocentric stage of development has a different point of view and sees things very differently than someone who is ethnocentric or worldcentric. Would you judge a 10-year-old the same way you would judge a 20-year-old?

In any case, I fully agree with the wisdom of a person taking responsibility for what he’s done. (This is also Scientology tech, btw!) However, in my view the data a person was operating on should be taken into consideration in our holding him responsible as well as in his taking responsibility.

Where Mike (or anybody) is concerned, and this gets back to what I was originally saying, Mike is the one who has the true data, and ultimately it’s up to him to determine what he needs to do in order to responsibility.

Next topic: “After all these years, this is where I’m at. I used to be the one talking to you about the ‘technology of brainwashing’, remember? And you would deny it existed.”

I do remember. But that was on an entirely different topic: You were saying the tech itself involved brainwashing, and I still say you were wrong about that. So how can I possibly believe you are “sinless.” 🙂

marildi
Guest

Exactly. Our minds meet! 😀

marildi
Guest

p.s. If by “power of choice” you mean free will that doesn’t necessarily align with conditionioning, this is a factor too, and it would have to be based on universal spiritual values as opposed to values one has attained extermally, one way or another.

marildi
Guest

Fair enough.

Gib
Guest

if there was a clear and OT, I’d still belong to the religion known as scientology,

I’m logos speaking without any pathos or ethos.

Richard
Guest

Someone once said “Seek balance of intellect and intuition” and “Harmonize reason and compassion”
I thought that was good advice.

wpDiscuz

Created by Alanzo

Clicky