Leah Remini Lies 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.

36 thoughts on “Leah Remini Lies to Create an Army of Anti-Scientologists”

  1. 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?

    • We’ve already seen criticism of Scientology on the Internet, and now in the movies and on TV shows like the Aftermath, which stays away from exposing any prosecutable crimes. These are the “warning the public” type moral outrage stories which are reported, and which Scientology gets vilified for. Morally outrageous acts, but nothing that is criminally liable.

      This approach to “exposing” Scientology has not produced one criminal charge against DM or any official in the Church since Mary Sue and 10 others were charged in the late 1970’s.

      David Miscavige is still in power.

      All those people who are in Scientology are still subject to his abuse.

      It seems to me that what is going to reform the abuse in the Church of Scientology is to apply enough existential pressure to DM to force him to change. That is done through the threat of criminal prosecution.

      He has been sued civilly dozens of times, and look – he’s still there.

      Tony Ortega even says he is still running a “modified version of the hole”.

      What good have these moral outrage stories done?

  2. 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.

    • “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.

  3. 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?

      • I let you have this purely political comment which has nothing to do with the topic or even scientology because nestled inside Doloras’ comment was a political example of Fox News. And this felt like a “shot” to you. So I let you have this one off-topic comment.

        Shirley there is a way to make on-topic comments without veering off into pure politics.

        And yes, I called you Shirley.

  4. 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?

    • It isn’t my way or no way. It’s the hystericalized version of Scientology vs. the truth.

      I’m pretty sure that you and I have discussed that less than 15% of Scientologists were ever in the Sea Org. And that the Sea Org runs a hystericalized version of Scientology. And that 85 to 90% of all Scientologists would never do the things to each other that Sea Org members – especially those 300 or so Sea Org members at the International Base – did to each other.

      There is a whole non-hysterical reality to Scientology that is being hidden by Leah Remini’s and Mike Rinder’s show. But if they presented that real, non-hysterical reality of Scientology, no one would get hysterical enough to be part of Leah’s Hateful Army of Anti-Scientologists. So they don’t present the truthful reality of Scientology, as it exists for the overwhelming majority of Scientologists.

      And that is simply not right, Allison. No matter how much you want revenge against “cults”, it is simply not right to fuel that revenge, over and over with things that are taken out of context, where the time is dropped from the story, and where the context is hidden so people can’t think rationally about it and use good judgment.

      You seem unwilling to understand that the quote that Ortega found in the back of Dianetics was simply never used by any Scientologist to justify any kind of pedophilia ever in Scientology. Any actual pedophile will use ANYTHING to justify his pedophilia, but no Scientologist ever used that quote to condone or endorse pedophilia ever.

      In fact, no Ex that I know ever remembers that obscure-ass quote being used or asserted, or even mentioned by any body for any reason. And there are plenty of Ex-Scientologists who recognize that, and very unfortunately, a few who are so hysterical that they won’t.

      The product of the whole anti-cult movement is hysteria over minority religions. I have come to see it as a toxic scourge on a free society where people’s ingrained tribal fear and hatred of “the other”, and their revenge seeking apostasy, is inflamed and exploited to very bad results for almost everyone involved.

      The anti-cult movement is bad news. And it should be exposed for what it is: religious intolerance and persecution of minority religions.

    • 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.

      • And, just for the record, it is my understanding that Marildi is a non-man. Or as we also say, a female, rather than a male, who is describing this passage from Dianetics. Tony Ortega has earlier made a big deal out of MALES “mansplaining” this passage away in one of the most blatant examples of exploitive sexism I’ve ever seen.

        I’m telling you, Tony Ortega, and Mike Rinder, and Leah Remini are ALL ABOUT the rhetoric and NOT about the truth.

        It’s the most disgusting display I’ve seen since Mike Rinder was the head of OSA and doing the same type of things against critics of the Church.

        • “I’m telling you, Tony Ortega, and Mike Rinder, and Leah Remini are ALL ABOUT the rhetoric and NOT about the truth.”

          I wonder how aware they are of this. I think Tony has to be by now. But I know that when I have done a similar thing, I’ve only been vaguely aware of it at best.

          The point is, i think it’s good that, hopefully, you are bringing it to their attention.

          And yes, for the record I’m a woman.

          • They may not be aware of it. They may simply want revenge and only see the logic and the facts that support what they want.

            Any recognition of counter logic, or counter facts to what they want would be “Q&A”, after all. And “doubt”. And being a sniveling pussy about the mission. It would be entheta, enemy line, counter-intentioned, and low-toned.

            It would be “being reasonable” and a panty-waiste dilettante – as Leah’s and Mike’s experiences in the Sea Org has taught them.

            • I’ve wondered about revenge being the motive, too, especially with Mike – it wouldn’t be hard to understand. But I still think their motives are mainly profit and status.

              Anyway, nothing a good session with a good auditor couldn’t resolve for them. 🙂

            • See this is where I think we are entering what I will call the Marty Rathbun experience, alanzo you left Scientology I have seen you call for stopping the abuses then really do nothing but attack those trying to shine a light. It’s counter productive to constantly attack the very people trying to bring about change.

              No one is going to fit your perfect non hysterical stereotype.

              • Actually it’s just not lying, Allison.

                It’s just doing your best to remain discipline in your reasoning and making a concerted effort to tell the truth about scientology and your own experiences in it.

                It does take discipline and learning about things like cognitive distortions and questioning your own reactions and the reactions of those around you.

                But it’s really just striving to tell the truth.

                After 18 years of experience with this, it is clear to me that the concentration must be on criminal and illegal activity. If there is no illegal activity then this must be made clear. The idea of scientology as a “criminal organization” should only be discussed if it’s true.

                Otherwise Exes get hysterical and stay in a toxic mindset. Over time this becomes very corrosive and you never actually figure out who you were then and who you are now. You just stay stuck in this vengeful hysteria.

                Allison, do you see any validity at all in trying to be accurate and non-hysterical and telling the truth about scientology?

    • 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.”

    • 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.

      • Yes, his example of a 7 year old girl is a very simple thing: he was trying to come up with an example of a person who would have no experience at something, and to say that if they had an emotional reaction to that something, it would be an area for the auditor to check out simply because they had no experience with it and therefore should not have a stimulus-response reaction either way.

        It is a horrible example. It is incredibly bad – in bad taste and everything else. It should be struck from the book.

        But it has become Tony Ortega’s little demagogic tricycle. And he’s going to ride that little thing down everyone’s throat until everyone agrees or they’re out – just like he did to Monique and Marty Rathbun, to Carmen Llewellyn, and all the other Exes and critics he has ruined for his own little fiefdom at the Underground Bunker.

        What’s amazing to me is how many people let him do it. Even Exes who should know WAY better than this. They just follow him and swallow everything he says. After my experiences in Scientology, that kind of sheep-like behavior makes me sick. I can’t believe that so many Exes are acting this way.

Comments are closed.