Critics of Scientology Question Direction of Season 2 Scientology and the Aftermath

67 thoughts on “Critics of Scientology Question Direction of Season 2 Scientology and the Aftermath”

1. Reading through Tayler’s FB messages (and her mother’s call for friends to unfriend/shun), it is clear to me she was given a Non Enturb Order and/or was at risk of being declared. This in itself is an inexcusable form of oppression against a fragile mind and one who is clearly crying out for a help that never came. I do not blame the mother, nor do I believe Leah/Mike is either. There is much that is unknown and possibly any number of variables that could have either directly or indirectly lead to Tayler committing suicide. What is known, however, and what can be reasonably inferred imho, is that a cult that claims to be the authority on mental health ultimately failed her. She felt betrayed by her org. She was told to stfu by her scientologist friends and family (to protect the cult’s PR). That, I believe, is worthy of criticism – if nothing else. “The group is all. Protect it at any cost.”

   Cathy is a victim, just like her daughter. Just like all those who told her to shut up and to keep her grievances “off public lines”. They are victims of the cold, clinical world view one inevitably assumes (to greater or lesser degree) following active participation in Scientology.

   Reply

   • Excellent comment, Mwesten. I have always valued your commentary over the years.

     Welcome to AlanzosBlog.

     Reply

   • “Cathy is a victim, just like her daughter.”
     ^^^^^^THIS!!!!^^^^^^

     The above statement is exactly what I thought after watching the episode about Tayler’s tragic story.
     I’m not a Scientologist or ex and have never met one in real life.

     My heart grieves for Cathy that Scientology indoctrination has so twisted her mind and crushed her God given motherly love that she would put CofS PR before the welfare of her daughter.

     The insidious indoctrination also appears to have robbed her of her ability to even grieve the loss of her precious daughter.

     If any of Tayler’s friends or family read this, please accept my sincere condolences for your loss.

     Reply

   • Mwesten, I’ve always admired your posts, and have considered you a very smart and balanced individual. In my opinion, you are among the top 5-8 commenters of different Scn related blogs who possesses a great critical thinking ability and a well balanced viewpoint on things. I not always agree with you, but you usually present a different angle/perspective from which to look at an issue, or a better clarification of what is being discussed.

     Having said that, this particular time I have a bit of a problem with a few of your assertions regarding this subject of episode 2 of The Aftermath, season 2, and I will take one by one and explain the errors either in logic, or in terms of too much of an assumed thing, but presented as a fact.

     “Reading through Tayler’s FB messages (and her mother’s call for friends to unfriend/shun), it is clear to me she was given a Non Enturb Order and/or was at risk of being declared.”

     That’s an assumed thing. If you would have used the word/phrase “perhaps”, “might have”, etc, instead of “It is clear to me…”, then that would have been much better. The fact is that you don’t know, and there is absolutely nothing from the FB posts, texts, or hearsay from Lauren, that indicates that. It falls within what is probable, YES, but still it would be just an assumption.

     IMHO, it is this sort of practice of assuming things without having enough data to do so – not having enough solid premises in which to base the inductive conclusion one is making (“It is ‘clear’ to me”) – the one responsible for a big portion of the hate and the hostility towards the church and towards the Scientologists at large, by the Never-ins and even from the Media. And this results in the unfair and unjust attitude of declaring someone (or a whole group) “guilty” even before a proper “trial” had been held. Correct justice presupposes that one is innocent until proven guilty BEYOND any reasonable doubt. That’s the very foundation of any legal or justice system that takes very seriously the protection of our civil and Human Rights.

     Without enough evidence, and MOSTLY using mere assumptions and hearsay, Cathy and the WHOLE church was blamed for the death of her daughter. No honest effort was made to look for more evidence, instead of hearsay and texts, either taken out of context, or interpreted without the proper context because it was unknown. Nobody pay ANY attention to Cathy’s version of what happened. In fact, most people think that she is just lying about it all. Her loss OBVIOUSLY wasn’t even taken into consideration as this had been the THIRD TIME that the death of her daughter had been made widely public; two by Ortega and one in The Aftermath.

     “I do not blame the mother, nor do I believe Leah/Mike is either.”

     Then I am afraid that you didn’t watch the episode carefully, Mwesten, because I posted in GREAT details the exact things that Leah, Mike, and Lauren said (showing the specifics time taps where those comments occurred); and it is kind of obvious that the 3 of them blamed Cathy for the death of her daughter. I can’t even believe how plain English can be misinterpreted by the use of pure rhetoric. Their comments were clear enough and not open to interpretation. That you apparently feel that they are open to different interpretations, only show that you must have missed something, because if you would have read my post, it should be evident enough. It is not about “believing”, Mwesten; it is about what WAS said. No more complex than that, really.

     “This in itself is an inexcusable form of oppression against a fragile mind and one who is clearly crying out for a help that never came.”

     Again, you are ASSUMING things when you said, “….a help that never came”. You just DON’T know that for sure, and neither does Mike nor Leah. Cathy said on her video that she DID tried to help her daughter, many, many times. Why would you believe Mike and not her? Because she is still a Scientologist? You just DON’T know what was done or not by both Cathy and the org to help Tayler.

     “There is much that is unknown and possibly any number of variables that could have either directly or indirectly lead to Tayler committing suicide.”

     This is the only truthful part of your post. The rest is mere assumptions and your personal opinion.

     “What is known, however, and what can be reasonably inferred imho, is that a cult that claims to be the authority on mental health ultimately failed her.”

     AGAIN, this is YOUR assumption. Just because she decided to take her life, doesn’t mean that A) She didn’t received any help from others, and B) That her mother or the church abandoned her. There is just not enough evidence to support that claim. People decide to take their lives even under the care of hospitals and allegedly “professional” and “real” doctors. That it happened in Scientology can not be immediately inferred that it was somebody’s fault. Without having enough evidence to evaluate, and without being willing to take an unbiased look at ALL versions and viewpoints, to state an opinion in ANY direction, is irresponsible, IMHO.

     “She felt betrayed by her org. She was told to stfu by her scientologist friends and family (to protect the cult’s PR).”

     I saw those FB posts, and what most of her friends told Tayler was to handle her issues internally instead of going public about it. Except for some exceptions, most of those posts weren’t hostile towards Tayler. They were basically complaining of going public about it. As to “protecting the PR of the ‘cult’ ”, just about ANY group (or church) would oppose – and with VALID reasons – the handling or discussion of their conflicts, publicly. That’s not an “outpoint” as you are making it look. I challenge you to work for a big corporation like IBM, Boeing, etc, have a disagreement with employees or with management, and start going public in FB about it, and see what happens. They’ll probably be all over you to stop that. But if Scn does it, then this is “bad”.

     I want to make it clear for everybody here, that my comments in this thread does not mean that I think that in Scientology no abuses occur. In fact, they DO occur a LOT. But when trying to determine if an abuse has in fact occurred or not, the right thing to do is to look at ALL the evidence (which CAN’T be hearsay at all), hear ALL versions and parties involved in the conflict, and based on THAT, make an INFORMED opinion or judgment. That just WASN’T done in that episode. No by a loooong ways.

     Mike and Leah are leading the “testimonies” to fit with their specific narrative which has already been decided long before the filming of the episode. This silly statement from them that the show is not “scripted” is just another game of rhetoric. Perhaps it is not “scripted” as such, but it should be VERY clear that what is presented in the show has ALREADY been discussed with the ones who offer their testimonies long before the filming of it. And strategies as to what to say and how to say it, are also followed. Just pay close attention to the whole narrative, and it should be evident that some detailed preparation occurs BEFORE the actual filming. Whether to call it “scripted” or not is a matter of rhetoric.

     Reply

     • I did read your commentary on the episode, tc. Whilst I understand your specific concerns I feel that your argument is ultimately reductive. You too are guilty of the very things you are blaming others for: assuming things and “filling the vacuum”. You have attached significances to the literality of certain statements without any seeming regard for context (or lack thereof). You have then assigned sinister motives to Leah/Mike based on those assumptions. Prejudice with a halo.

       They were basically complaining of going public about it. As to “protecting the PR of the ‘cult’ ”, just about ANY group (or church) would oppose – and with VALID reasons – the handling or discussion of their conflicts, publicly. That’s not an “outpoint” as you are making it look. I challenge you to work for a big corporation like IBM, Boeing, etc, have a disagreement with employees or with management, and start going public in FB about it, and see what happens. They’ll probably be all over you to stop that. But if Scn does it, then this is “bad”.

       False equivalence and a ridiculous argument, if I may say. These were her (so-called) friends. Friends! Not employees of a business! [sic] Real friends are loyal, sincere and have compassion. They don’t give a shit about PR or “enturbulation”. This is exactly what the show was highlighting. This is what every show has been highlighting to date. The cruel, compassionless scientology attitude to those who don’t toe the party line.

       Again, you are ASSUMING things when you said, “….a help that never came”. You just DON’T know that for sure, and neither does Mike nor Leah. Cathy said on her video that she DID tried to help her daughter, many, many times.

       She’s dead. Ipso facto. Whatever “help” Tayler received was clearly not helpful enough.

       Reply

       • Hi mwesten –

         You wrote to thetaclear:

         “Whilst I understand your specific concerns I feel that your argument is ultimately reductive.

         Which specific concerns do you understand in ThetaClear’s argument?

         “She’s dead. Ipso facto. Whatever “help” Tayler received was clearly not helpful enough.”

         Yes, and you will continue to blame a mother, despite her attempts to do whatever she could for her daughter, for her suicide?

         I have to keep asking this to self-righteous anti-cultists who come to AlanzosBlog to lance their unthinking cruelty: Have you ever buried a child, Mwesten?

         Why would you publicly shame a mother who lost her daughter to suicide by telling her that she was ‘clearly not helpful enough”? Is there something inside you that you are trying to purge with such a statement? Have you hung around anti-Scientologists so long that this kind of unthinking cruelty is acceptable?

         You will need to answer these questions before I am going to allow you to shame a mother for her daughter’s suicide again here on AlanzosBlog, mwesten.

         If you don’t answer, then we can all see that you can’t justify your unthinking cruelty to Cathy Tweed, and you will have become ashamed of yourself.

         Which, while awaiting your answer, I think should be the case: In your unchecked self-righteousness, you should be ashamed of yourself for what you have written here today.

         Reply

         • I have no idea what has triggered you, Alanzo. I do not blame the mother. I think I’ve explained my position very clearly. Suicide is a tragedy and one that is particularly close to me. I’m sorry if I have offended you.

           Reply

           • “I have no idea what has triggered you, Alanzo. I do not blame the mother.

             I quoted what you wrote.

             You wrote:

             “She’s dead. Ipso facto. Whatever “help” Tayler received was clearly not helpful enough.”

             So if this wasn’t blaming her, what was it? Second-guessing her?

             How is that any better?

             And I am sorry for your connection to suicide. I am also connected to suicide in a way that teaches me, very clearly, that blaming someone else, and even second guessing them after a suicide – especially a mother in Cathy Tweed’s circumstances – is a very cruel thing to do which is so illogical that it is almost always a false accusation – adding to its cruelty.

             Do you agree that second-guessing people around a suicide is cruel? Disagree?

             Why or why not?

             Reply

             • You’re right, I was being snarky. My apologies. What I meant was, even with the help Tayler received, it is a shame it was not effective enough to prevent her death.

               Reply

               • Agreed. It is a shame. As it is with all suicides – even those who have had all the best psychiatric care in the world.

       • You know, Mwesten, I expected that an individual as brilliant as you are, would come with something better than this :

         “Appeal to emotion: Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.”

         But as soooooooo many individuals from the anti-Scientology camp, you let your emotions to cloud your Critical Thinking ability. Unfortunately, I am working right now – some of us need to ACTUALLY work to earn a living, you know, 🙂 – so you would have to wait later on during this afternoon/night to get a PROPER reply. Besides, I am VERY much interested in knowing about your reply to Alanzo’s first – that way I can cover all your logical fallacies, 😉 So stay tuned! 🙂

         Reply

       • “I did read your commentary on the episode, tc. Whilst I understand your specific concerns I feel that your argument is ultimately reductive.”

         I am afraid that you would have to do better than describing my arguments as “ultimately reductive”, Mwesten. Which EXACT parts or statements of mine did you find “ultimately reductive”? Care to be more specific?

         “You too are guilty of the very things you are blaming others for: assuming things and ‘filling the vacuum’.”

         Really? Give me the SPECIFIC instances where I “assumed” anything, besides saying that Leah and Mike are after “destruction and revenge? I accept to calling that specific statement as an “assumption” and even as “reductive” to some degree, but only if you refrain from looking at their pattern of conduct over the years. What other thing did I “assume” according to you?

         “You have attached significances to the literality of certain statements without any seeming regard for context (or lack thereof).”

         I derived a DEDUCTIVE conclusion based on VERY exact evidence (the premises) using exact quotes from Leah, Mike, and Lauren, IN PROPER CONTEXT, and with the exact time taps for everybody to see it for themselves. The conclusion is EASILY and deductively arrived at from the known premises (their exact statements). I am afraid that you will have to be more specific than that, because, as stated, your “argument” is not even an argument.

         “You have then assigned sinister motives to Leah/Mike based on those assumptions. Prejudice with a halo.”

         Already explained above. “Prejudice”? Yeah right, as if they didn’t show that to Cathy and to SO many others in their show.

         “False equivalence and a ridiculous argument, if I may say. These were her (so-called) friends. Friends! Not employees of a business!”

         So now you want us to believe that “FB friends” is the same as “close friends”? Seriously?.

         At absolutely NO point in that episode was it shown that those “FB friends” were her personal close friends necessarily. In fact, most of our FB friends are not necessarily our closest friends. I have a VERY long list of FB friends, but perhaps no more than 10-20% are either family or close friends.

         And it is not unusual AT ALL that many of the employees of a business, to be also friends besides just “someone who works with us”. In fact, many become FB friends for that reason. The examples of this are just very obvious.

         “[sic] Real friends are loyal, sincere and have compassion. They don’t give a shit about PR or ‘enturbulation’

         OF COURSE, that close friends are loyal, sincere, and have compassion. In that particular part of your statement, you are right enough. The logical fallacy comes in this specific part :

         “They don’t give a shit about PR or ‘enturbulation’.”

         So, what you are basically saying is that friendship is above social responsibility and work ethics, isn’t it? That if a work situation is being discussed PUBLICLY in FB that could potentially affect the reputation of the company you work for and that FEEDS you, that it would be improper for you to tell your FB friends, “Please, handle this on the correct lines, and stop being public about your work conflicts”? How strange viewpoint, indeed!!

         Besides, Tayler’s FB friends (which CAN NOT be necessarily interpreted that all of them were actual close friends) basically asked her to handle her grievances with the church through the correct channels. They were not disrespectful to her, even though that Tayler’s FB posts were filled with lots of attacks, rage and hate towards them (which I am not blaming her for it at all. She was a girl in trouble which needed help). I don’t see the “disloyalty” or “lack of compassion” in their posts. Show specific examples, please.

         Please, DO notice that once Tayler apologized in her FB page, that they didn’t ignore her, because she received 55 likes!!! That’s quite a lot. I never receive myself more than 10-12, haha. They were happy – or so it seems – that she had dealt with that. They could have just ignored her after all the nasty things she said about all of them. But apparently, they weren’t into blaming her at all. They basically accepted her apologies with 55 likes!!!

         “This is exactly what the show was highlighting. This is what every show has been highlighting to date. The cruel, compassionless scientology attitude to those who don’t toe the party line.”

         Really? That’s the best you can do? Except for Lauren’s hearsay “evidence”, what specific actual evidence was shown in the episode regarding lack of compassion or cruelty? And what about the compassion that neither Leah nor Mike showed to a mother who had just recently lost her kid, by making PUBLIC, and for a THIRD time, the suicide of her daughter? What compassion did Leah, Mike, or Lauren, show for Cathy Tweed when they BLAMED her for the death of her daughter? What compassion did Mike show to Cathy when he TOTALLY dismissed Cathy’s version on the video made by her that the church put up? About 80-90% of the commenters at Rinder’s blamed Cathy when Mike dismissed Cathy’s version. How hypocritical of you to come here and talk about compassion when you are AGREEING with Leah’s and Mike’s methods of handling the narrative of this episode.

         “She’s dead. Ipso facto. Whatever ‘help’ Tayler received was clearly not helpful enough”.

         You know that is soooo unfair to her mother and to all those who sincerely tried to help Tayler, that I won’t waste my time replying to that part. I am done with you. Keep holding on to your hate all you want. It is your karma, not mine.

         Reply

2. A commenter called “NonCultist” – who has been using ad hominem arguments to support his claims, instead of sticking to the KNOWN facts – commented on this blog as a reply to Alanzo :

   “No one blamed cathy tweed for her daughter’s suicide. Where was that said…got a time stamp?”

   Now this commenter either hasn’t really watched the episode 2 of the 2nd season of “The Aftermath”, or he is only being a troll, or he is consciously lying to “dead agent” Alanzo’s statement regarding Tayler’s mother having been blamed for Tayler’s suicide by both Leah Remini and Mike Rinder. What are the motives behind his OBVIOUS ignorance of the FACTS?, only he knows. My purpose here is not to personally attack him – though that’s EXACTLY what he had been doing since his first post – but to put in clear evidence the blindness which hate is capable of bringing about in others.

   I will be presenting different quotes from that episode together with the EXACT time when each one of those quoted comments happened so as make it impossible for the anti-Scn narrative to use silly rhetoric to confuse and to twist the facts as apparently Mike Rinder and Leah Remini have been doing since the beginning of this season 2. Besides proving that BOTH Leah Remini and Mike Rinder DID blamed Cathy Tweed for the suicide of her daughter, I will demonstrate how that episode was full of twisted “facts”, half-truths, unverified assumptions, and plain lies, to support their OWN agendas which clearly are not directed at the greater good, but only at a desire for revenge and destruction dressed up as “humanitarian objectives”.

   This is something that Lauren Haggis said at 34:50 mins of the show. The clarifications within brackets are mine, as well as the capitalization for emphasis :

   “But I was totally TAKEN OFF (referring to Tayler’s suicide) like…. I…I thought she was doing better. She had gone to college, was posting on FB. I I thought things were good for her. But NO ONE EXPECTED IT.”

   Here Lauren is surprised of the suicide as apparently Tayler seemed happier and more stable judging by her new posts and photos at FB, the fact that she had decided to go to college, etc. Notice that Lauren said, “….But no one expected it.”

   At 35:15 mins Lauren said :

   “From what I know now, Tayler has suffered from suicidal thoughts, and like she had tried to commit suicide SEVERAL TIMES throughout her life.”

   By Lauren’s OWN admission, Tayler had this situation since very long ago on her life where Disconnection – or the threat of it – had not been an issue. At least nothing that any of her FB posts, texts, or known communications with her friends, could demonstrate; and I am VERY sure that if such texts or communications among her friends had occurred, Mike, Leah, or Ortega, would have KNOWN about it since long ago, and would have used them as part of the show, or and article at Ortega’s.

   At 35:49 Lauren continues :

   “She never gotten to see a regular doctor, but she gotten to see homeopathic people and tried to handle her symptoms using vitamins and those types of regimes…”

   Leah interrupt at 36:02 and says : “Yeah, Scientology”. Lauren then continues with :

   “Scientology’s thing v/s medication, because in Scientology you… no, it is not an answer”.

   Here in the show they are trying to portray Scientologists as irresponsible and as medical “doctors” without a license, and trying to invalidate EVERY other forms of EFFECTIVE handlings and therapies that are not either psychology or particularly psychiatry, with SPECIAL emphasis on “Medication”.

   What Leah and Mike FAIL to mention is that there are MANY others forms of EFFECTIVE therapy besides those two, and there are dozens of studies done by medical doctors themselves about the many side effects of psychotropic drugs which INCLUDE, psychotic episodes, suicidal thoughts, and desires to destroy, among many others. This IS NOT an assertion taken out of a CCHR website; these are CLINICAL studies done by professionals. If I were to quote those studies, I would need more space than this blog has. But feel free to ask me for the links.

   Many individuals with some sort of acute and intense mental stress, have been effectively helped by alternative therapies; some members of my OWN family, for example, and people I have PERSONALLY known. And the relation between poor nutrition and mental stress is well known among doctors, so a well regime of supplements and good nutrition could help to make it easier for “Talk therapy” to work better.

   A responsible auditor, well trained and who really know his stuff CAN help with this, and in fact, I have done this myself when I was on staff. What MOST therapists do, is no magic trick at all. It mostly consist of LISTENING and really CARING. One doesn’t need to be a freaking scientist to do that.

   Then Leah uttered this big FALSITY and GENERALITY at 36:23 mins :

   “……. And ultimately you get kick out of the church if you say, ‘listen, I want to go see a regular doctor’, or ‘I want to go see a psychoanalyst, or a therapist, or a psychiatrist (Leah looks at Mike as if looking for approval or confirmation that she is saying the right things) – ‘I want to be put on medication’, they (the church) would say, ‘You are out’, and you would lose everything that you have ever known”.

   First of all, this is FALSE and a generalization. Try to go to Flag while being sick, and you’ll be kicked out immediately to go see a medical doctor. They won’t just take that risk even if only for protecting themselves from lawsuits. Many friends of mine, had to go back to their countries and wasn’t accepted until they went to see a medical doctor, and brought with them the EVIDENCE that they had done so, and that they had received treatment.

   One just DOESN’T get kicked out of the church for wanting to see a doctor, and not even for wanting medication from a psychiatrist. The WORSE that would happen is that they would try to handle you so you don’t, and declare you an “Illegal PC”, but NOT an SP. One would then not be able to receive auditing, but only training. The policies on this are very clear. A psychiatrist is not immediately declared an SP in Scn, not matter how much LRH might have hated them. If a psychiatrist is not attacking the church, and it is not engaging in any abusive treatments, he is not immediately considered an SP. I know of NO policy that says otherwise, and if someone knows of one, then please DO present it.

   Now, OF COURSE, that Scientologists would try to avoid all contacts with psychiatrists due to the “Scientology culture”, which is an entirely different issue. But I’ve known of instances that even a psychiatrist and a psychologist had even gone into Scn courses. Gee, one of them was a Mission staff who got kicked out not for being a psychologist, but because he was very “squirrel”. But he had been on staff for some years before he was kicked out.

   A friend of my daughter’s mother decided to begin studying psychology at the university. She is a Scientologist, even though she has not done that many courses. They tried to handle her, all right, but she didn’t agree, and she wasn’t kicked out of courses. Perhaps shunned in the social treatment towards her , but not declared nor expelled, nor anything like that. Some psychiatrists who are against the use of psychotropic drugs, even help CCHR and even support it. CCHR was actually founded or co-founded by one of them, actually, by psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, a professor of psychiatry. Leah has no clue what she is talking about. That’s why she turned to look at Mike when she uttered that nonsense.

   Leah continues her false line of thought with (at 37:40) ;

   “….. And you are evil (referring to her quote above), and then everybody that you have ever known leaves your life.”

   Really Leah? For seeing a doctor or another therapist? I am afraid that’s not a fact at all. Shunning you and sort of treating you like you don’t belong? Oh, yes, many WOULD do that, ESPECIALLY the low IQ ones, but declaring you or expelling you? No, that’s not a fact backed up by ANY known policy.

   Now the following is where Leah VERY cleverly leads Lauren to ACCEPT that the ultimate reason why Tayler committed suicide was because her mother had shunned her and disconnected from her, even though they showed absolutely NO evidence of this on the show AT ALL. This occurs at 37:26,

   (Leah) “The 2nd round (referring to when Tayler had opened a new FB page and seemed to be doing better) is like…. has this FB page, and she seems to be, you know, starting again…. This poor girl (Leah is trying to capitalize on emotions) keep trying to pick herself up and move on. Something happened that I don’t know (Leah put a face of “wondering” of “not knowing”), because…. I don’t know… I am hoping you have some answers.”

   Here Leah is being TOTALLY dishonest. Mike Rinder being the consultant producer of Leah, must have clearly genned her in , in all the details of this, as what Lauren tells Leah afterwards, had already been posted at Ortega’s with great details and TWICE. But yet, Leah is acting as if “she didn’t know anything”, and wants Lauren to “enlighten” her. What a horse shit is this? Leah is ONLY leading the way to the “Punch Line” for the end of the episode : BLAMING Tayler’s mom. But don’t take my word for it; see it for yourselves :

   At 37:42 a photo of Tayler’s mom, Cathy Tweed, is shown before Lauren says this :

   “The Scientology part of the family, her mom SPECIFICALLY, for every time that Tayler did something and spoke out, her mom would distance herself from Tayler financially, and that was Tayler’s only support. She was not self… (self-sufficient, she meant). She was a musician; she was not on her own; she wasn’t working. She completely depended on her parents.”

   Now, oddly enough, many of Tayler’s FB posts and texts from her phone were showed in the episode as “proof” that supported their claims, but absolutely NO texts were shown that supported Lauren’s assertions above; NONE. We are supposed to take as true Lauren’s word when she herself had admitted that she only kept FB communications with Tayler since they parted away. How did she “know” that Tayler’s mom “distanced herself from her daughter emotionally and financially”? Who told that to Lauren? Her friends? Where is the written evidence of that? How convenient that they presented “evidence” of other things, but not about this. As far as I know hearsay evidence is inadmissible at almost every court of law in the planet, and for EXCELLENT reasons.

   Then at 38:01 Leah interrupts with , “So she (Tayler’s mother) would withhold her financial support?”, and Lauren replied, “….And her emotional support”.

   Notice how Leah is trying to establish a point of guilt and blame regarding Tayler’s mother. Then very cleverly, a FB message from Tayler’s mom is show on the screen :

   “You may want to unfriend Tayler Tweed, my daughter. She is posting entheta comm about church members and an org. I’ve been trying and trying to handle. There is much going on than this, but this is over the line for our group, and she has been warned repeatedly to not be public. Her REAL upsets are not with the church, under it all. But she gets keyed in and does this. Best to distance yourself, is my thought.”

   “Please, don’t comm with her about this or she will only get louder about it.”

   “Thanks,
   Cathy”

   Now, I don’t know about you guys, but does ANY of the above seems like a “Disconnection” to you? Her mother said, “You may want to unfriend Tayler Tweed….”, ONLY meaning ,in FB parlance, “To block her as a FB friend”. To block someone on FB is NOT PUBLIC. in fact, an individual without much knowledge of FB, might not even realize that he/she has been blocked. Her mother didn’t say, “Disconnect from her as friends”, or that she had been declared suppressive, not even that she was ACTING suppressive. She only suggested to them to “unfriend her on FB” because Tayler was acting emotionally unstable, and she was trying to deal with her daughter.

   In Scn – and in ANY close group, for that matter – disagreements are EXPECTED to be handled INTERNALLY, not PUBLICLY, as this might creates unnecessary bad PR for the group in question. I would FIRE immediately any employee of mine who instead of trying to work things out with me, went ahead and started to write FB posts about it. I take my reputation very seriously.

   Her mom was clearly trying to handle her daughter’s emotional instability, which she thought wasn’t really related to Scn. Now, we know that she had been under drugs, and that she had had a very painful break-up with a BF. We also know that she had had problems with suicide thoughts before. It was not strange for a Scientologist mother – knowing quite well that her daughter could get into trouble – to try to handle this situation from getting out of hand.

   What I see is a mother trying to help her daughter in a way expected from a Scientologist. But Leah and Mike are using this quote to “prove” that Tayler’s decision to end her life was due to her mother “disconnecting” from her. In a court of law, Leah and Mike would have been mocked by this.

   Then to keep “proving” her “Punch Line” for the end of the show (led by Leah), Lauren says at 38:24,

   “Her family (Tayler’s) was very, very important to her”. And then immediately, a photo of a 2-3 years old Tayler is shown being hugged with mom.

   Clearly this photo is intended to appeal to the emotions of the audience, and to emphasize how “bad” was Tayler’s mother by “withholding” her support to her daughter. This tactic from “The Aftermath” is REALLY, REALLY disgusting, to say the least.

   Ok, at 38:28 Lauren says :

   “She loved her mom and she loved her family. So it was very tough on her to be going through what she was going through in her own experience with the church (which WAS NO LONGER AN ISSUE AT THE TIME), and then to have to deal with the DISCONNECTION, back and forth, back and forth, with her family”.

   In the first place, ABSOLUTELY no “Disconnection” had been proved in the show, much less a “back and forth, back and forth” one. This is merely hearsay evidence from Lauren. And in the 2nd place, Lauren is here clearly ESTABLISHING the cause that got Tayler to end her life : Her mother, according to the THREE of them, NonCultist. Do you understand any English????

   Then – this is the “Punch Line” of this Mediatic show, where Leah Remini, Mike Rinder, and Lauren Haggis, BLAME Cathy for the death of her daughter – Lauren at 38:42 says this :

   “And what got me is …… she was living on her friends’ couches, and I had HEARD (again HEARSAY evidence) her mom was calling her friends and saying, ‘Tayler is in a Suppressive Person kind of stage [ Leah interrupts, “Enemy of the church, she is an anti Scn”], and it is not good for her for you to house her”.

   This is the most IRRESPONSIBLE form of “journalism” that I have ever witnessed. EVERYTHING is hearsay without showing not even ONE single document, or FB post, or text about this. Why didn’t the production of the show brought a former friend of Tayler to confirm this? Surely, there must has been at least one available and willing to talk. Where are they? Why isn’t Ortega interviewing all of them. I mean, he is a “journalist”, isn’t him? He is not obligated to show his “sources”. He has come with that lame excuse before when he has been asked for “proof”. So why are we not seeing any articles at Ortega’s interviewing these “friends”? Do they even exist?

   And to continue, Lauren added :

   “…… And this happened at the last house that she was staying at, and she just ended her life”

   Now if this isn’t DIRECTLY blaming Cathy for the death of her daughter, then I must be stupid or something, because it is so stupidly OBVIOUS. And at absolutely NO moment does Mike or Leah tries to correct Lauren, or to even infer mildly that perhaps Cathy is not to blame, and that there might be others reasons. At 39:15 Lauren made it even more clear that Cathy was the one who had DIRECTLY caused her daughter to decide to end her life :

   “….. Which didn’t feel like she had anywhere to go ( inferring here they Tayler’s friends had taken her out of their houses, and that she was now “homeless”). She just……… ALL ROADS LED TO THIS” (TOTAL blame for Cathy).

   Then as ALWAYS in the episodes, Leah got her eyes watery with “sorrow” (she is a good actress, there is no denying that!), and finally Lauren delivered the “Punch Line” at 39:19 ,

   “….. And at Tayler’s funeral, Tayler’s mom said, ‘I am at peace with my daughter’s decision’. It was like a week after she killed herself”.

   Then a small pause is premeditatedly done, for Lauren to then repeat at 39:28,

   “I am at peace with my daughter’s decision”.

   The idea here was to get the audience to perceive Tayler’s mother as an insensitive monster who is so “brainwashed” by a destructive cult – who not even the FBI can find ANY evidence for prosecution – that she can’t even feel any pain for the loss of her own daughter. And to make it worse, the great “humanitarian” Mike Rinder; the “savior” of all those “brainwashed” souls, delivered the “Effective Blow” needed for the perfect ending of the episode :

   (Rinder) “This is a microcosm on the Scn ‘prison of belief’ and mindset that makes it acceptable to destroy someone for the ‘greater good’. We have to do what L. Ronald Hubbard said, so we are going to disconnect from you despite your emotional problems.”

   At 39:40 Rinder continues :

   “That belief system is toxic, is dangerous, and (put up a surprised face) is DEADLY”.

   IMMEDIATELY on the screen is shown a quote on “Disconnection” from the Scn website. Then at 40:05 Leah added :

   “Her mother (Tayler’s) told her friends to publicly disconnect from her”

   Now, do you need more proof, dear NonCutist??????

   Leah Remini and Mike Rinder in their OWN personal agendas to DESTROY the church for REVENGE – but dressed up as “only wanting to end the abuses” – became the Judge, jury and executioner of a mother whose pain over the loss of her child must be insurmountable. Mike Rinder and Leah Remini dishonestly used those two ladies to push the emotional buttons of the audience, and to tell them a story full of half-truths, hearsay, unverified assumptions, and even PLAIN lies. They ABUSIVELY made a mother to be publicly exposed to the death of her child for a THIRD TIME; two at Ortega’s and one in the show. And all to support their OWN PERSONAL agendas and their “Anti-Scientology narrative”. Shame on you, Leah Remini and Mike Rinder; shame on you.

   Reply

   • And to add my OWN “Punch Line” to the narrative, I ask you this, Leah Remini and Mike Rinder : what would you say (and DO) if, due to your irresponsible actions of PUBLICLY exposing this mother (Cathy Tweed) THREE times to her daughter’s death, she decided to hurt herself due to her loss? What would you do, then Mike? Would you choose to keep on blaming the church? What would you do?

     Reply

3. Peter Torres from Puerto Rico,
   Wow, What a post!!!
   Even though I agree with only 90-95% of it… nevertheless, it is A MASTERPIECE!
   Ans so I am left speechless! For a while….
   Hemi

   Reply

   • Great to see you here, Hemi!

     Reply

     • Great to have you back Alanzo!!
       We all thought you have reached Enlightenment… 🙂
       Well, even Ellightend ones, always come back to work here. Much to do.
       You’ll be surprised, but your return is…my postulate come true! How so?
       For weeks and months I’ve been thinking: “The net has only extreme blogs and sites regarding our subjects, that’s not ok!” where is a blog where deep and original thinking can occur, which has at its core spiritual agenda as well??? People like you (much respect for your brave ability to change and keep seeking truth!), like Peter (What a great mind and spirit), and others. Why should such people sneak shyly into blogs that are universes below their level of beingness??
       So… there you are. You just had to come back!
       OK, it was your intention too… 🙂
       Good luck man!!!
       Hemi ♥

       Reply

       • Wow. Thank you so much, Hemi.

         Reply

   • Hi there, Hemi! Good to see you here!

     5-10% of disagreement is perfect, 🙂 That keeps healthy levels of “randomity”, haha.

     Thanks for you validation! Namaste, 🙂

     Reply

4. Alanzo,

   I had forgotten to thank you for your words of support regarding my post at Rinder’s.

   In my journey to unravel myself of different conditionings brought about by my OWN ignorance, I’ve met a few people who became KEY turning points in my life due to their unique approach to truth. The moderator of the now gone, “Scientologists Back in Comm” was one of those key ones. Mark Sheffler was another one. Geir Isene was another, and you also became part of the list, but in your specific case, TWICE!! Some few years ago, and recently as well. So THANK YOU! It is soooooooo refreshing communicating with someone who really is a free thinker and who couldn’t care less about following the “group think”.

   Reply

   • Well thank you very much for that, TC.

     Reply

     • You are most welcome, Alanzo; and thanks for the “Thought Grenade” that you very cleverly threw at Rinder’s, 😉 You don’t think that I didn’t know what you were attempting, right? Haha. Well, that grenade exploded right in my face; shame on you, 🙂

       Reply

5. I’m not that interested in the background of Rinder or others. The Aftermath took a wrong turn from the start of season 2 when they implied that scn causes all scn parents to be neglectful or even abusive of their children. Maybe A&E had some input on that, wanting to make the show even more controversial and attention getting. Look at the picture of Leah promoting the show. She almost looks demonic or like a thug.

   Reply

   • I didn’t raise my kids to be Scnists. You think they want to do a show about me?

     Reply

     • You don’t force your kids to graph their stats on their bedroom walls or present their conditions write ups every day?

       What kind of a scientology parent are you?

       Reply

   • Like in EVERY other group besides Scn, we have members who exhibit different levels of morality; some are more oriented towards compassion, fairness, and the greater good than others. Some are great parents and some are very lousy and irresponsible ones. Scn is not its people, and it is not necessarily what its members do and how they specifically behave.

     I was the kind of parent who would say, “FUCK OFF!!” whenever a SO recruiter wanted to interview any of my stepsons, or my stepdaughter. I had a very bad temper (I still do, haha), and I just wasn’t a guy to be fucked with, because I couldn’t care less about “Enturbulation Orders” or about “SP Declares”. Some SO recruiters attempted to get me into Ethics trouble by reporting my “uncooperative” approach to their bullshit, but none of their efforts were ever successful as I always was an “Upstat staff who could get away with crime”, haha, and I took that policy very seriously, 🙂

     My “handling” to make sure that nobody could fuck with me was A) To always have my statistics up, and B) To be always a lot more “right” (especially about sane policies) than anybody else. I was taught that “handling” by the ED himself who was one of the most fucking smart guys that I had ever met, and my “handling” always worked except for very rare instances.

     I understood then, that a great percentage of Scientologists just DIDN’T get LRH right, and were incorrectly interpreting many of his policies and “Tech”. Of course, destructive and stupid policies DID existed (and exist), but the majority of the problems in staff were caused by misapplication and by misinterpretation, and not by those destructive policies themselves.

     You could say that a LOT of assholes got onboard on staff lines, and it were those assholes the ones that made the experience of being on staff a total nightmare.

     The Scn culture then, and the one of today (especially after the late 90s and beginning of 2000) is VERY different indeed. As more and more suppression from DM and his crazy robots was occurring, more and more of the ones who had better critical thinking abilities, more self-esteem, self-respect, and better moral values, just decided to get out. The ones that remain in, are still there due to their OWN lack of discipline in their lives, and their affected critical thinking abilities.

     They are there not because of any insidious and hidden “cultic Influence”. They are there because of their OWN choices based on their OWN levels of morality, self-respect, self-esteem, and use of critical thinking.

     Cut the head of one cult leader, and another head will grow in its place, as the problem it is NOT the leader himself. This is a situation endemic to the condition of being human, and if we don’t attack it on its roots – by educating others on critical thinking abilities – then no possibility of winning is possible. The CofS might very well be brought to its knees as an institution, it could be bankrupted, but the result won’t be liberated souls, as those now segregated souls would still have within themselves the seeds and attitudes that got them trapped in the first place.

     And thus, “The Aftermath” season 2, is a betrayal of REAL help. It is not a solution to ANYTHING, but merely a Mediatic show intended to capitalize on human emotions to carry out personal agendas of destruction and hate dressed up as “humanitarian” objectives. It is all about revenge, even if that attitude is not a conscious one, which I think it is not. They believe in what they are doing. I don’t think of Leah and Mike as “bad” people, but just the opposite. But they fell into the abyss of extremism, and are only using the things that support their OWN confirmation bias, and that help their own personal agendas.

     Reply

   • Look at the picture of Leah promoting the show. She almost looks demonic or like a thug.

     Your agenda is evident, Richard. Shame you thought attacking her looks makes her experiences any less valid.

     But your script is straight out of the Scientology attack hand book. Tommy Davis woukd be proud.

     Reply

     • Non-cultist, you don’t really know who you are talking to here. There are no Scientologists here, and for the most part we are all Ex-members of Scientology who believe there are more nuances to the discussion of the subject than Leah Remini’s show is portraying.

       I understand that you are angry and out for justice because of what you have seen on Leah’s show. But, between the people here on this blog, there are many many years of experience with Scientology. Read my bio, for instance, that’s on the front page of this blog – at the bottom left.

       I agree that there have been human rights abuses committed by the Church of Scientology. And I want those abuses exposed where they can’t be prosecuted. And where they can be prosecuted I want them prosecuted.

       But the human rights abuses are not the only thing to know about Scientology. Which, I know you don’t care about. But, you are kind of wading in and making yourself look foolish.

       Lurk moar before posting.

       Please.

       Reply

       • 1. It’s not Remini’s job to portray all the nuances you deem important. Thats your job. your beef with Remini and Rinder seems to be personal and not ideological. And that’s a shame bc your ONLY focus should be stopping the abuses.

         Angry and out for justice? LOL All i did was challenge the the logic of the OP. Even you agreed he went too far. According to the OP….Rinder is at fault….bc the production quality of the videos have improved? This is the logic you’re defending.

         I have read your bio…..and you missed my point entirely. Ex Scientologist or current….both were taught the same “curriculum”. With all due respect….it’s clear these children/teens/2nd generation Scientologists arent taught anything.

         But this, Alonzo, tells me everthing i need to know.

         “But the human rights abuses are not the only thing to know about Scientology. Which, I know you don’t care about. But, you are kind of wading in and making yourself look foolish.”

         Uh…..Whats more important than uncovering human rights abuses? Its a shame. You claim to care abt human rights abuses and your blog focuses on criticizing those who are doing just that.

         It’s clear your beef with Remini and Rinder is personal. As long as that is your focus, Alozno, you are failing the people who are currently in danger. Shame on you.

         Reply

         • I spent many years focused on the human rights abuses that are repeated over and over on the internet.

           But I began applying the same questioning to anti-scientology that I had earlier applied to scientology and I found that most of these human rights abuse stories are like hysterical nightmares repeated over and over.

           It’s very very emotional. When you look closely and really examine many of these claims, like scientology causes suicides, you find they evaporate.

           Reply

       • Alanzo, I am writing a very detailed post/reply/comment with SPECIFIC quotes from the episode 2 of the the 2nd season of “The Aftermath” where BOTH, Leah Remini and Mike Rinder CLEARLY established that the alleged “Back and forth Disconnection” that Taylor had allegedly been the victim of by her mother, was what got her to kill herself. I will be including the EXACTS times where those quotes occurred so anyone can EASILY locate them and see it for themselves. And I will show how this allegation was TOTALLY assumed when there was absolutely NO evidence to support it, and in fact, there was at least some evidence AGAINST it presented in the show itself.

         When I did, AGAIN, this exercise of carefully watching that episode while taking notes, I literally felt like throwing up because what I realized is that the level of immorality and injustice from both Mike and Leah, are way, way worse than I thought regarding this episode. So much the case, that I have made my decision to write to the producers or executives from A&E and file a formal complaint about this during this week.

         Make no mistake you all people who know about me; I will go so far as to HELP the CofS to DO something against this show if something similar gets aired again. My loyalty is with TRUTH and FAIRNESS. It is not with any one specific group nor individual. And I am not someone to be toyed with.

         Reply

     • NonCultist – Hello. I think there may be a miscommunication in my comment. I guess I wasn’t clear. I’m not at all attacking Leah’s looks. My point was that the suits at A&E want the ratings and the advertising revenue to stay up. With all the glamour shots Leah must have, the suits decided to portray her in that dark, to me, way in the main promo piece for Aftermath. Leah has 550,000 twitter followers and who knows how many other fans. They might have no interest in scn but be curious as to why she is presented that way and tune in. Just speculation on my part.

       I also question how much influence the suits had in steering the show in the current direction. There’s no way to know, but what’s next on Aftermath? Murder, extortion, black mail, human trafficking? We’ll see.

       Reply

       • Hopefully we’ll have some actual criminal activity that Scientology actually caused.

         Reply

       • P.S NonCultist – If you thought I was using that weird promo piece to trash Leah’s appearance, then someone else probably thought the same thing. Thanks for pointing it out. I learned something about internet communication. 🙂

         Reply

   • “I’m not that interested in the background of Rinder or others.”

     But that background becomes important, Richard, when the person starts attacking the SAME actions that he was guilty of in his past, that he was the ORIGINATOR of, and that he has remained SILENT about . Something for you to think about, 🙂

     Reply

6. This whole thing with Mike Rinder becoming some kind of anti-Scientology “human rights” hero is seriously Twilight Zone surreality. This is supremely weirder than even the flipflopping rollercoastering antics of the goofballs masquerading as the Executive Branch of the USA.

   Mike Rinder was and is a psychopath, or “Suppressive Person” in Scientology parlance. Funny how back in the 1990s he was the second most hated person among critics, and in some respects even more hated than Miscavige since Rinder was himself directly responsible for the dirty tricks campaigns from the moment he was put in charge of OSA up until he was unceremoniously demoted a number of times in the early 2000s following the Battlefield Earth fiasco and numerous other PR flaps related to Rinder’s shoddy and incompetent handling of leaks of confidential documents and critics on Usenet (alt.religion.scientology) and the Web.

   We’re talking about the man who pioneered the “one-man picket” against critics, using out-ethics (out-2d to be specific) Scientologists to “protest” critics outsider their homes and places of work, the most notable and ridiculous example being the Mark Bunker incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjeS6sNBFqw — ironically, it was this type of stupidity that inspired Bob Minton to obsessively picket Scientology in front of the main entrance to Flag in Clearwater many dozens of times.

   This is the same guy who, like Rathbun, has promoted (quite successfully) the false claim that he had no real power in Scientology and he was just following Miscavige’s orders and that Miscavige micromanaged everything. He takes no responsibility for turning OSA into a more lightweight version of Guardian Office.

   The idea that Miscavige is this James Bond type supervillain who can micromanage a multibillion dollar international organization has always been patently absurd. Critics today grossly overestimate the level of control Miscavige actually had back then, and even today. He has serious self-esteem issues and does not have a very thick skin, and after being bullied by Ted Koppel on Nightline, he did not want to deal with the media ever again and contracted a major PR firm to handle that, which fell through since the firm and the other big players also represented pharmaceutical companies and after finding out Scientology was shopping around, they pressured all the top PR agencies to blacklist the church, forcing Scientology to handle their own PR internally.

   Enter Mike Rinder, who was granted unprecedented autonomy to handle PR and direct legal affairs, in spite of the fact that he had no PR skills and like Mary Sue Hubbard, had no legal expertise and thus had no business bossing around church attorneys. The only qualifications Rinder had was most likely the fact that he is a psychopath.

   One can very easily contrast the PR and legal strategies of Scientology today, which is primarily directed by non-Scientologist attorneys and consultants, and Scientology during Rinder’s tenure. A world of difference. You can even see the massive difference in the quality and presentation of promotional videos and other materials, which before the 2000s were always horrible and very camp, like the ridiculous and childish remodeling job at L.A. org in the late 1980s/early 1990s and a few other orgs, which was Rinder’s idea to help make Scientology appear more “friendly” to new public. Instead it just looked stupid because Rinder’s idea was itself based on the aesthetic of teenage television shows like “Saved by the Bell.”

   it is not a coincidence that the zealous push for Ideal Orgs began at the same time that senior execs like Rinder were being demoted or taken off post entirely, to correct a lot of these aesthetic mistakes and let actual professionals (who aren’t Scientologists, and this was a specific directive mandated by Miscavige) to handle interior designs and layouts. Someone who hasn’t visited L.A. org since the 1990s/early 2000s would be shocked at how much better it looks now. The Idea Orgs aren’t seeing much traffic, but at least they look professional enough that staff aren’t being visually harassed every second by ugly ass interior design.

   Rinder will never talk about this stuff or take any responsibility for his psychopathic behavior. But its not surprising at all that with all the problems facing the world today, Ortega/Rinder/Remini promote their insane anti-Scientology propaganda and conspiracy theories as if the church is a bigger threat to humanity than ISIS and warmongering politicians like Trump, Putin, Merkel and Theresa May.

   Tony Ortega’s blog, as far as I can tell, has not even mentioned, even in passing, any commentary regarding the Barcelona, Berkeley and Charlottesville rampages, or about the growing problem of white supremacy and police shootings of innocent civilians and everything in between. We’re living in a society where a police officer in Minnesota, a Somalian immigrant, shot to death in cold blood the woman who called the police to report a possible sexual assault in the alleyway behind her home. She was murdered by the same cop who was responding to her complaint! Harassment and bullying of gay and transgender school kids is higher now than it ever has been, and this is in supposedly “liberal” areas! And this is to say nothing of the sharp uptick in suicides that I mentioned in a previous post.

   This is the kind of violent and insane society Trump’s America is becoming, and yet Ortega/Rinder/Remini ignore all of this and promote their ludicrous conspiracy theory that Scientology is the most abusive and violent organization on the planet.

   I don’t know about any of you, but I’ve never encountered any Scientologists, Sea Org or otherwise, throwing gays and drug addicts off rooftops or using their vehicles to mow down protesters and innocent civilians or torturing disaffected members or anything like that. They present all these allegations of kidnapping, human trafficking, torture yet in all these years not a shred of evidence exists to at least verify some of these claims. If Scientology is committing all these horrible crimes and never once getting in trouble with law enforcement and federal agencies in spite of countless investigations and crackdowns since the 1970s to the present, the church must be the most powerful and insidious terrorist organization in the world. There’s a very specific term for all of this: conspiracy theory.

   No wonder the folks over at American Atheists, Skeptic Magazine and CSICOP think Ortega is loony tunes and want no association with him. When even Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris refuse to be interviewed or even communicated with off-the-record by Ortega/Rinder/Remini, I think its fair to say they and their Bunkerites jumped the shark a long time ago. As unpleasant and hostile as she was, I don’t think Margaret Murray O’Hair was ever as boorish and contemptible as these three.

   It’s quite rich for them to talk about human trafficking when Ortega himself denied and continues to deny the reality of child sex trafficking (https://currentconditionsblog.com/2017/04/13/tony-ortega-busted-lying-to-the-press-in-child-sex-trafficking-cover-up/ – not a Scientologist blog, though Ortega will always slam any criticism as coming from Scientologists) — why don’t Rinder and Remini comment on this stuff?

   Most anti-Scientology people don’t want to acknowledge or confront the fact that the moment Remini decided to align herself with the likes of Rinder and Ortega is the moment she lost any moral high ground in her protest of Scientology. Even Rathbun has had the sense to walk away from these hucksters. I’d be surprised if Jason Beghe or Michael Fairman, among other high profile exes, are still connected to them.

   Reply

   • Wow. Spoken like a brainwashed scientologist. If you only knew how creepy your post sounded. Thank God for this show. Opened my eyes to this dangerous cult. Going Clear and the other docos didnt cover these horrors. Glad Remini did

     Reply

     • I agree that ZaneX’s post goes too far in condemning Mike Rinder and others, but I think calling it “brainwashed” is just your inability to understand his viewpoint.

       It’s a low-IQ, if very convenient, way for you to dismiss his ideas and avoid thinking about why you disagree. It’s the same level of hypocrisy that cultists engage in every day to keep themselves stuck in a cult.

       I think ZaneX’s post, as so many of them do, showed a very good grasp of the subject matter. His views are never allowed on the normal anti-scientology blogs and message boards. I’m glad to have him here.

       So, if you really are a noncultist, NonCultist, you can do better than that, can’t you?

       Reply

       • Alanzo – NonCultist has a viewpoint shared by many people. Denigrating anyone who presents a contrary viewpoint tends toward censorship. It’s a balancing act. Myself or someone else might have replied to NonCultist with a non personal rebuttal.

         Reply

         • I know. Sometimes I challenge people too strongly.

           And I will admit, when it comes to publicly blaming parents for their childrens’ suicides, I get very worked up.

           So, I apologize to NonCultist if I was too direct.

           What would have been a better way to challenge NonCultist’s ideas?

           Reply

           • No one blamed cathy tweed for her daughters suicide. Where was that said…got a time stamp?

             It’s cute the way you think you’re a direct person. Passive Aggressive better describes your posts. That’s me being direct. 🙂

             Challenge what ideas of mine? That I’m learning that Scientology is engaging in human rights abuses? It’s fact.

             Reply

       • Surely you jest, Alonzo. As I understand it, ZaneX is criticizing Rinder and others of not focusing on real problems in the world. The same question (and faux outrage) can also be directed at you and your blog, Alonzo. Why arent you focusing on ISIS?

         See…that’s the problem with most Scientologists. They’re not that bright (which can be attributed to the form of education they receive) and the flaws in their logic are easily detected.

         If these claims were false, (as the OP claims) the litigious-happy CultofScientology would have sued them into oblivion. The fact that her show remains in the air is a tribute to the veracity of their experiences.

         As you attempt to shame these people for sharing things that YOU PERSONALLY FEEL they had no right to share…well…none of you are the arbeiter of their feelings and experiences. The fact that you want them silenced is frightening.

         We clearly watched a different program. I saw Remini go out of her way to tell Tweeds friend that she was, in no way responsible for not could have prevented her suicide. Your need for confirmation bias let you ignore that powerful statement

         Reply

         • We clearly watched a different program. I saw Remini go out of her way to tell Tweeds friend that she was, in no way responsible for not could have prevented her suicide. Your need for confirmation bias let you ignore that powerful statement.

           I did hear her tell Taylers friend that she could not have prevented her suicide, especially since her friend hadn’t seen her in ten years, but I was looking for any kind of similar statement from Leah Remini or Mike Rinder to her own mother.

           Did you see a similar statement for her mother? Because it’s pretty clear leah remini blames her mother for Taylers suicide.

           Was that just my need for confirmation bias?

           Reply

           • More flawed logic, Alonzo. You havent specifically denounced Neo-Nazis….the clear IMPLICATION is that you support them. Is that your argument?

             And your silence when i mentioned the hypocrisy of your blog not covering the horrors of ISIS…didnt go unnoticed.

             Reply

           • I did hear her tell Taylers friend that she could not have prevented her suicide, especially since her friend hadn’t seen her in ten years,

             ——-

             Going back to watch that specific clip. Pretty sure Remini mentioned more than the time passage. Have you ever heard the term “lie by omission”? I suggest you look it up, Alonzo. At least have the courage to be truthful.

             Reply

   • I forgot that “Zane X” came up on an earlier topic. It was called into question whether he is in fact John Sugg, a known OSA operative. If so, his comments would not be typical of any current, Ex, or Independent Scientologist.

     Reply

     • We don’t know. So his claims need to be scrutinized just as yours, mine, and Tony Ortega’s do.

       Just because the church of scientology says it doesn’t make it false. And just because an anti-scientologist says it doesn’t make it true.

       Reply

       • Just as an aside, when I was a scn-ist in the 1970’s all I knew about the Guardians Office is that it was a branch of the organization (I never considered it a church) which had the responsibility to protect scn from attacks from outside agencies like the government and medical and psychiatric organizations. Naive, maybe, but I had little reason to question it. That might be the viewpoint of a lot of current scn-ists if they restrict themselves from reading anything negative about scn.

         Reply

       • Agreed. The anti sci group has become more Lord of the Flies than I can tolerate any longer. I was actually worried for Marty Rathbun & his family after reading so many hate filled, raving comments encouraging him to kill himself, posting photos of his home & address from Google maps, accusing him of being a murderer…and yet Ortega never banned any of those posters. Instead he fanned the flames and repeatedly claimed he had the inside story on why the lawsuit was dropped, why Marty was making videos and that he would reveal all as soon as people stopped asking about it. Yet he was still posting stories about Marty. And if anyone dared to say “I’m not a Marty fan but we don’t really KNOW what’s going on”, they were attacked, accused of being OSA or even of being Marty himself. Anyone who disagrees with anything Ortega or Rinder says is piled on and immediately termed the enemy and a church operative. I have to agree about the show. Why is this kind of salaciousness necessary when there are countless cases of documented abuses by the church that could be shown? Why do I now feel like I’m being manipulated into blaming and shaming without dox? Why do I feel like Mike and Leah got a taste of being “avengers” and so had to bump things up a few notches? Why do I feel like there is no longer free speech in the anti-sci blogs?

         Reply

         • Great post. You make extremely important points which are ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

           Welcome to AlanzosBlog, justmytwocents.

           Reply

         • Well said, JMT.

           It’s like the mob has tasted blood…

           Reply

7. I followed the conversation as it occurred on Mike’s blog and I’m glad Alanzo carried it forward here.

   Totally off topic, BUT . . .

   “What People Are Saying About Alanzo” Laughter!

   “Team Alanzo – The turd that just won’t flush , ,” LOL!!

   I’ll double up on my stool softener!

   Reply

   • LOL! I think that’s definitely the best quote so far!

     It makes me laugh every time I see it!

     Reply

     • Well I disagree! This next one if by far the best :

       “Wow, psycho, scamology sycophant Alanzo performs two insane posts inside of a week. I didn’t know that internet day at the asylum was more than once a week.”

       Reply

       • That was from “Wynski” if I am not mistaken. He is the best at pushing buttons, I grant him that, haha. Luckily for you, Alanzo, you’ve grown a very thick skin over the years, 🙂

         Reply

         • “Luckily” might not be the word.

           Something else maybe.

           Reply

           • I hear you!

             Reply

   • Generally speaking, turds that won’t flush are pretty healthy BMs 🙂

     Reply

8. Mike Rinder now “DEMANDS TOTAL COMPLIANCE” to his views and will “expel, declare and dead agent anyone who dIsagrees” ????????

   Really?

   “Zealous and hysterical”????

   Really?

   A wee bit over the top, wouldn’t you say?

   I personally had tremendous gains in my 35 years in Scientology. At the same time, I think that the abuses of the CoS need to be exposed in every way possible and the repute of the CoS lowered at every opportunity. And I think Mike and Leah are doing a good job on both counts.8hX

   Reply

   • I completely agree with you – except when they blame a mother for her daughter’s suicide.

     I don’t know why you overlook this. I know that you are an extremely reasonable and intelligent person, Joe.

     Maybe we just disagree.

     If that’s the case, then I am sorry for upsetting you and, as you probably would demand of me, I will be continuing to express myself, whether you agree or not.

     Is that all right?

     I value your contribution to my blog. So please keep communicating.

     Reply

     • Allen, you’re not upsetting me and I always appreciate your comm.

       I didn’t get that that they were BLAMING the mother for her daughter’s suicide. They were though showing how the mother, dramatizing the CoS’s attitudes toward ANYONE who is not in lock step in thought or action, acted in the “expected way” to remain in good with “the group” , which was to emphasize the group over her “troublemaker” daughter , rather than simply REALLY getting in comm with her and giving her the love and understanding she so obviously needed at that point in her life.

       The important point in this episode in really not about just these incidents and who was right or wrong in them, but that the incidents are truly REPRESENTATIVE of Scientologists’ attitudes and talking points with each other as they quite easily dismiss anyone, long time friends or close family alike, who is deemed for one reason or another as “not with group” any longer. They have all the answers as to what is wrong with other people … But ultimately cannot resolve what is wrong with their own lives.

       Reply

       • “The important point in this episode in really not about just these incidents and who was right or wrong in them, but that the incidents are truly REPRESENTATIVE of Scientologists’ attitudes…”

         I am sorry step in, Joe, but in the first place, not ALL Scientologists are like that, and by inferring that they are (which the show did inferred), we are stereotyping people, which is never a good thing. And in the second place, this attitude of shunning others who are not “with the group”, is not something unusual with most religious groups. But we are not taking them to national TV for it, are we?

         I read most of the texts of Taylor’s FB friends, and most of them were not being hostile towards her, but were basically saying to her to “handle it internally instead of publicly in FB”. This young lady apparently had great emotional issues since several years ago, long before those FB posts. I am not denying the possibility that part of those issues might been a direct result of her Scn experiences, but we can assert that in definitive ways with the data at hand. To do so, is to make irresponsible assumptions.

         The data is being manipulated and presented in a way to make a case point that does not necessarily applies to that particular case. Mike and Leah just DON’T have enough data to arrive at the conclusions they arrived at.

         And the other VERY important thing that you are neglecting here (or not giving it the attention it deserves), is that Mike and Leah decided to make public a suicide without taking into account the possible harm that the public dissemination of this could cause to Taylor’s mother, and Leah and Mike DID inferred – even if not in that many words – that Taylor’s mother had been part of the triggers that pushed the kid to kill herself. I mean, I can quote those parts if you need me to; I watched that episode while taking notes.

         Not only had Taylor’s suicide been made public TWICE at Tony Ortega’s blog (the last time accusing Taylor’s mom as “insensitive”, and bringing a “psychologist” to basically publicly “psychoanalyze” her), but now it was made public again for a THIRD time. Don’t you find that insensitive and ACTUALLY abusive, Joe?

         And what about Aaron’s widow PUBLICLY talking about a suicide that CLEARLY had a lot to do (even if there were some other reasons that made it worse) with the great psychological pressure of a court citation for “prostitution” (he wasn’t being attacked by the church in that period, not was undergoing any justice actions form the church) ?

         What right did Lauren had to publicly speak about the PRIVATE life of her ex husband without taking into consideration the possible harm that this would cause to Aaron’s mother? Doesn’t Aaron’s mom is entitled to privacy? The last time I check, she wasn’t a public figure. Would Aaron have agreed to the public dissemination of his private matters were he alive? I don’t think so.

         There are ways, Joe, to expose REAL abuses, without having to publicly talk about delicate events where a 2nd or 3rd party is NOT consenting to the public dissemination of it, and where its publication might possibly cause psychological damage to those parties. Ironically, the show is HYPOCRITICALLY talking about “compassion” when what they did was just the OPPOSITE.

         Reply

       • Joe – I often find extreme positions presented on the blogs to be beneficial. It often helps me define where I stand. I’m certainly not making any direct comparison, but Marty Rathbun and Alanzo sometimes present extreme positions and allow discussion on their blogs. (At least Marty did in the past.)

         Marty posted a topic about President Trump (yes, he is the President) right after he got elected. Marty outright declared Trump a fascist which totally pissed me off. I spent the whole topic countering bleats about Trump and portraying him as damn near a saint – laughter

         Reply

     • They are not blaming the mother. They are blaming the doctrines that inform her behavior.

       To me that is super clear.

       Reply

       • “They are not blaming the mother. They are blaming the doctrines that inform her behavior.”

         “To me that is super clear.”

         Sorry Brian, but I beg to differ. Have you read my looong comment at the end of this thread? Why don’t you do that if you still haven’t. I broke that episode down, bit by bit, posting exact quotes from it where, if it is not very evident for anyone reading it that BOTH Mike and Leah DID directly blamed Cathy for the death of her daughter, then I am afraid that the old saying, “None so blind as those who will not see”, applies here!!

         I hope that you are not the same “Brian” that write excellent posts at Rinder’s because if it is you, then I must confess that your unwillingness to see the obvious is a little disappointing coming from an individual such as yourself, 🙁

         Reply

9. Very eye opening. A lot of anti-scientologists (people with absolutely no knowledge of Scientology), frequently quote the “Disconnection” thing, not knowing what it is.

   Think about it… You are surrounded by assholes and getting counselling to get your life back on track. If you don’t disconnect from assholes that are putting you down, belittling you, treating you like shit, you’re not going to get very far with counselling are you?

   Take drug rehab centers. The reason they constantly fail is because after the few weeks in rehab, the guy goes back to his “friends” who sell and goad him into taking drugs. Then they’re back the revolving door that is rehab.

   A kid at school is constantly beaten down and intimidated by bullies for one reason or other, or just for the sake of the bully to show their victim they’re a threat to the bully’s insanity. The kid gets more and more depressed because they’re in an environment where the bully constantly is. They can’t escape, so commit suicide.

   So wouldn’t it make sense that if your life is becoming a mess because you continue to associate with assholes you should stop associating with them… to “disconnect” from them? It’s common sense.

   Reply

   • It can be common sense, yes.

     Personally, I don’t know many families who do not have a member or two estranged from another member or two – and this has absolutely nothing to do with Scientology. They’ve never even heard of the subject.

     When the Church of Scientology actually demands – in its own interests and not in the interests of the parishioner – that you disconnect from a family member or a business partner, etc, I believe that is going too far. And abuses have happened from Scientology disconnection in this way.

     But anti-Scientologists have now become “relationship cops” where they insert themselves into every Scientologist family and DEMAND that all Scientology family members everywhere all stay together no matter what. It’s crazy. And it’s the exact kind of violation of the private lives, and self-determined choices of individuals that they decry the Church of Scientology for.

     Welcome to AlanzosBlog, Choice!

     Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.