Crusader Logic: Leah Remini’s Emotional Manipulation to Create an Army of Anti-Scientologists

Leah Remini's Army of Anti-Scientology

Her Desire for Vengeance Against David Miscavige is Palpable in this Picture. But Is This Really Your Fight?

Leah Remini began her emotional manipulation in Season 2 of “Scientology and the Aftermath” before the first episode aired with a promotional article in the Hollywood Reporter claiming that she wanted a federal investigation of Scientology, and then falsely accusing Scientologists of believing in pedophilia.

Since then, every emotionally manipulative episode has contained specious suggestions that Scientology caused people to commit suicide, with guilt-by-association claims that Scientology caused pedophiles to attack children, and then condoned the attacks afterward. And now Leah wants you to believe that Scientology causes parents to abandon their children.

Each incident that Leah Remini and Mike Rinder report this season actually happened – most of them decades ago. And the peoples’ lives they showcase certainly suffered the abuse they claim on the show. But these atrocity stories are not typical of what the overwhelming majority of Scientologists believe, or how they behave.

The point is that if you really want a federal investigation, and you are not simply trying to manipulate people emotionally, then you would present evidence of illegal activity and criminal incidents that David Miscavige or Church officials have engaged in which will cause a federal investigation to occur – something, anything, the feds can actually use.

Neither Leah Remini nor Mike Rinder are doing this in Season 2. They have instead opted for emotional manipulation of as many people as they can gather, in the hope that it will be the numbers of people who hate Scientology that will cause the federal investigation to occur, rather than having to present any evidence of any actual crimes themselves.

They want to amass a huge army of angry people who hate Scientology and other minority religions by telling them cherry picked, amped up, and decades old atrocity stories designed to inflame peoples’ emotions and to distract them from reality.

Season 2 of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath is a demagogic onslaught of emotional manipulation worthy of David Miscavige himself.

I loved Season 1 of the show. But this season, I am really ashamed of Leah Remini and Mike Rinder. They are obviously on a personal revenge trip against David Miscavige and they want to use every thing and every one else they can to get that revenge – no matter who suffers and no matter what is the truth.

I want to see David Miscavige in jail, too, but I am not going to lie about Scientology and Scientologists to do it.

Here are some further thoughts on what I think lies at the bottom of all this.

, , ,

Sort by:   newest | oldest
Allison
Guest

Alanzo I really don’t get you and I say that sincerely. I am not a Scientology scholar but just with limited knowledge I have it becomes readily apparent that LRH created a science fiction experiment and in order to get people to pay had to make peop!e scared of non scientologists. Now when you create those kinds of environments and things can happen.

I tweeted with you the other day about the passage in dianetics about passionately kissing a child. This issue is similar to Christians and the gay community. The bible clearly makes gay people out to be less than desirable you can’t really argue that. It’s the same with the kissing a child passage you can’t really argue that. Now you can say I as an individual will now follow that particular teaching but it is there in the book.

It doesn’t matter if random sientologiats don’t believe that but it is there and has fostered the environment wherechild molestation is hidden the same as the Catholic church.

Getting back to my first sentence. I have noticed you like to label people you speak out against Scientology as being hysterical and now emotionally manipulative, why. Is it impossible for you to believe that people want to tell their story, that people believe it will make a difference or that leah thinks she can make a difference. Why is it only your way or no way?

marildi
Guest

Allison, I’ll tell you my understanding. To start out, here’s the exact quote from the Dianetics book:

“The seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not computing; she is reacting to an engram since at seven she should see nothing wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one.”

First of all, the reader would already have an understanding of the context, which is a description of the reactive mind – a mind that is composed of all recordings (memories) of physically and emotionally painful experiences. It’s called the reactive mind because these painful recordings (called “engrams”) have the capability, at some point in time after the incident, to cause an automatic (stimulus-response) reaction when the person is “reminded” (consciously or subconsciously) of the past painful experience, due to the present environment having similarities to that earlier experience/engram.

Therefore, as an example, if a seven-year-old had experienced in the past something either physically or emotionally painful (or both) that involved a man kissing her – she might automatically shudder when at some later point a man kissed her.

BUT, on the other hand, if she has had no such experience/engram, then EVEN if a man were to kiss her PASSIONATELY, the fact that she is only seven and doesn’t really understand such things would not cause her to shudder and she would not see anything wrong with it. In other words, if she has nothing painful in her past to be “reminded” of by a man kissing her – whether it was or wasn’t a passionate kiss – it wouldn’t make her shudder.

Hope this helps.

marildi
Guest

Edit on the following to include the words in caps: “…the fact that she is only seven and doesn’t really understand such things MEANS THAT THE PASSIONATE KISS would not cause her to shudder and she would not see anything wrong with it.”

Allison
Guest

I find it very very difficult to believe that you believe that?

marildi
Guest

p.s. Another thing just occurred to me. By making the example one of a seven-year-old, LRH was implying that if it were an older girl it would be different – since she would have a greater understanding and thus might very well shudder even if she didn’t have an underlying engram. This is actually evidence that he did NOT think it was okay for a man to be passionately kissing a seven-year old – which is basically the opposite of what the anti’s are inferring.

Doloras LaPicho
Guest

I always said to Ortega that he should do Rathbun the courtesy of taking his statements at face value, so I will do so for him. He says on Twitter, and I believe that he believes it, that Scientology is committing all many of crimes for which there is plenty evidence and the only obstacle to a Miscavige perp walk is lack of political will. One way to create political will is to create public outrage. Hence, _Scientology: The Aftermath_ is now designed to create that outrage, just as Fox News is designed to win older white people to conservative politics. It’s not journalism or entertainment, it’s PR meant to tell an “acceptable truth”. Something Mike Rinder might have experience with?

Richard
Guest

Fox News is less hysterical than CNN. I use fewer Tums and my stool softener works better if I watch Fox News rather than CNN.

John Doe
Guest

Ok my two cents.

Note: I have not watched the episode of Aftermath highlighting the paragraph from Dianetics about the passionate kiss of a 7 year old. I’ve only read the passage in the book, and comments from people talking about it in the last several weeks.

First of all, if there are people inferring that this passage in the Dianetics book is interpreted by scientologists so as to encourage or approve of child molestation, no. Just, no. Does NOT happen.

But the fact remains that this passage (still in the book evidently) is utterly wrong. And it is not made less wrong by assertions that it is being taken out of context, that the wrong definition of “passionate” is being used, or that its intent is to illustrate a point about the nature of the reactive mind. No, no, NO!! Just STOP it with this line of argument! You’re trying to defend something that is indefensible.

As far as a 7 year old girl shuddering from a kiss particularly a passionate one, that is a completely correct response from the 7 year old.

What comes to mind is an account I heard some years ago by a young woman who was molested by a relative years earlier. Her statement went something like this:

“I used to have fun goofing around and wrestling with my uncle, but then it started to feel ickey.” (Italics mine)

If one were to adopt Hubbard’s statement about the 7 year old, then the above statement by the girl above about it feeling “ickey”is rendered to be:

1. Not validly a response to a threat in the actual current environment, but to an “engram”.

2. This “engram” is posited to exist based not on any actual knowledge or evidence of it, but solely based on person who believes in Dianetics observing a young girl’s emotional response to inappropriate contact with an adult, and concluding that “something must have keyed in on her.”

3. Because this engram resides in the girl’s engram bank according to Hubbard, and also according to Hubbard, this engram bank is undesirable and must be cleared from each person, the inference is that the fault or deficiency is with the little girl for having such a bank! OMG, please!!

The only defense I can think of for Hubbard as to why he would write such a paragraph might be that he was so enamoured with how awesome he and his theory were that the terrible optics of what he wrote escaped him.

What is more troubling is that this is a little glimpse into the mind of Hubbard and all that implies.

marildi
Guest

“As far as a 7 year old girl shuddering from a kiss particularly a passionate one, that is a completely correct response from the 7 year old.”

I thought about that too, and there was actually a similar example in one of the Aftermath episodes (amazing if no one brought it up!), where a little girl – even younger than seven, I think – knew that what was happening wasn’t right and she apparently shuddered, too. So I would say that even though the example given in the Dianetics book did illustrate the point being made about the reactive mind, it was a poor example for more reasons than one.

It’s hard to believe that LRH would not have been aware of the fact that small children don’t necessarily have to be educated about certain things to know that those things are not right. But I don’t think many people back then (1950) were aware of such things. Everything in life was probably understood to be mechanical and materialistic, including the mind. I doubt there was much awareness of “knowingness” about anything that wasn’t directly taught to an individual. Children were blank slates to be written on by their elders.

John Doe
Guest

Alanzo, while I side with you on the idea that countering the abuses in Scientology through manipulation of emotions of the general population is untoward, there is something you add that is troubling to me and I wish to comment on it.

It seems to me that you hold the idea that unless any particular criticism of the church or its methods will somehow forward the prosecution of Miscavige or other culpable church officials, then this criticism is less valid, or less important, or even shouldn’t occur. If this is your opinion, that would seem to be an arbitrary yardstick of what criticism can or should occur and therefore would be fallacious.

Can you clarify your position on this?

Created by Alanzo

Clicky