If Leah Remini and Mike Rinder can help get one criminal conviction on the Church of Scientology through their “Scientology and The Aftermath” reality series, or help one lawsuit succeed against them for real injustices, no one will be happier than I.
But when I see another Ex-Scientologist flip into nightmare mode on who they used to be as a Scientologist, and even forget what they used to believe, I have to speak up.
Lying about the other side is what Scientologists do, not Scientology critics.
Tony Ortega wrote last week:
“We were glad to see ‘Aftermath’ make a reference to a notorious quote from Scientology’s “bible,” L. Ron Hubbard’s 1950 book Dianetics, a quote we’ve spent some time trying to publicize: “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. There must have been an earlier experience, possibly prenatal, which made men or kissing very bad.”
Here’s the quote from “Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health” (May, 1950) in context:
There are two axioms about mind function with which the auditor should be familiar. I. THE MIND PERCEIVES, POSES AND RESOLVES PROBLEMS RELATING TO SURVIVAL. II. THE ANALYTICAL MIND COMPUTES IN DIFFERENCES. THE REACTIVE MIND COMPUTES IN IDENTITIES. The first axiom is of interest to the auditor in his work because with it he can clearly establish whether or not he is confronting a rational reaction. 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. There must have been an earlier experience, possibly prenatal, which made men or kissing very bad. All departures from optimum rationality are useful in locating engrams, all unreasonable fears and so forth are grist to the auditor’s mill. The auditor, with the above law, should study as well, the Equation of the Optimum Solution. Any departure from optimum is suspect. While he cares little about aberrations, at times a case will stall or seem to have no engrams. He then can observe the conduct of his patient and his patient’s reactions to life in order to gain data.”
As you can see this quote Ortega and Remini have taken completely out of context and twisted it around to mean something it does not. Here it appears that Leah Remini, who was in Scientology for 34 years, is letting Tony Ortega, a guy who has never been a Scientologist, tell her what Scientologists believe.
Think about that. Leah knows that no Scientologists believe this about 7 year old girls and passionate kisses from adult men. She knows that Hubbard was training auditors here, and is using this as an example (A VERY BAD ONE) for an auditor to think about when “at times a case will stall or seem to have no engrams” in order to find possible areas to audit.
Leah Remini knows that Tony Ortega has taken this quote out of context.
Why does she know this?
Because she knows there is not one reference in all of Hubbard’s subsequent lectures & writings on the Second Dynamic, or on any other subject – for the next 36 years – where L Ron Hubbard endorsed or condoned pedophilia.
And she also knows the second High Crime in the High Crimes PL – the one that lists all the things that will get you declared and expelled from the Church:
It says this:
“Sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well-being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology, such as a student or a preclear.”
Leah Remini Used False Scientology Pedophilia Accusation to Promote Her Show
But Leah still tells the Hollywood Reporter that Scientologists believe in pedophilia in order to promote the 2nd Season of “Scientology and The Aftermath”. She uses Tony’s completely wrong interpretation of this quote, telling the Hollywood Reporter:
“They believe a 7-year-old girl should not shudder at being passionately kissed. That’s in Dianetics,” she says, referencing L. Ron Hubbard’s 1950 book that establishes core tenets.”
When you see Leah Remini lying about the beliefs of Scientologists in order to try to make them look like pedophiles to the general public, that’s the exact same kind of thing Scientologists do to “the psychs” and to their critics while “fair gaming” them.
Scientologists justify this type of behavior by saying it’s “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” to lie if it gets the product of a psych or a critic in jail.
Leah Remini knows that no Scientologist believes in pedophilia, and she knows she took that quote out of context to use it for inflammatory effect.
Why? Because she wants someone to go to jail. And the way she is going to get that product is to lie to inflame public officials into doing something they would not ordinarily do unless they believed that Scientologists were pedophiles, or terrorists, or something.
It’s the same anti-cult movement tactic of creating moral panic around “cults” in order to inflame the public and trick law enforcement and government officials into action.
The problem here is that Scientologists are not pedophiles. There are absolutely no beliefs supporting pedophilia anywhere in Scientology and plenty of beliefs against it.
And Leah Remini knows it. She has just flipped on her previous Scientology self after swallowing the beliefs of the anti cult movement whole, and without question.
Exposing the Truth About Scientology is the Whole Point in Being a Critic of Them
Whether you are lying about critics or lying about Scientologists, it’s the same behavior.
I opposed Scientologists when they lied, and that got me fair gamed by them for years.
I am not going to go through all that and NOT stand up for why I became a critic of Scientology in the first place: I want the truth to be told about Scientology.
I still want that, this many years later. But now Anti-Scientologists are telling the most hysterical lies about Scientology. Remember the lessons from history regarding “blood libel”?
So Leah – you know that Tony Ortega does NOT know more about Scientology than you do. Don’t take any more quotes from him, or interpretations of what Ron “really meant”. Tony Ortega, as a dedicated atheist, disrespects all religious and spiritual pursuits.
He has no business telling you anything about Scientology.
And you have no business letting him.
6 thoughts on “Tony Ortega Confirms That Leah Remini Got that Out-of-Context “Scientologists Are Pedophiles” Quote From Him”
C’mon Al, don’t you know this is WAR! The ends justify the means. 🙂
Several months ago on Marty’s blog I suggested that he probably had enough material to write a new book, “Ex-Scientologists at War”
scientologists have always been at war with something or other, mostly by their own choice or misguided actions. Ron recognised that the easiest way to get his subjects to fall into line and stop asking questions was to declare that they were in a war and had to do ‘these’ things in order for ‘us’ to survive. He SAID that ‘they’ were against us. More correctly, they never saw us as worthy of notice and ignored his assertions that his unproven theories would replace them completely. He declared war against THEM and some rightfully defended themselves. now scientology or OSA and their attack spokes-puppets are creating discord where it need not be: If they just left scientologists to practice scientology the best way they can, there would be no war, just healthy competition. Of course, Ron COULD NOT compete, ‘may the bestgroup win’. He knew his bloated organizational mechanism couldn’t match INDEPENDENT scientologists NOT under his thumb doing just what was necessary to get the job done, and done with a SMILE, to boot! What he could not control, he feared and had to destroy UTTERLY. There was no middle ground, no allowing for the scientific method of differing theories fighting it out for supremacy. Had he been a tenth the scientist/engineer he claimed to be, something valuable might have resulted. Instead, he spent his time and effort defending his authoritarian rule.
The man who would WANT to ‘passionately’ kiss a seven-year-old child is himself too aberrated to trust around the child. Kids are, and should be carefully taught that an adult attempting to do ANY thing that the child is not comfortable with should be run away from — LOUDLY, if must be– Of COURSE she might have earlier-similars on the subject on thewhole track, OR she just naturally sees it as wrong (smart girl!). Girls and women have systematically been traumatized for ages, pretty much forever. That LRH saw nothing wrong with so badly misplaced (enforced)’affection’ is an indication of his deep and abiding disrespect and hatred for girls AND people in general. When you put in more context, the message is clearer, not diminished: He’s saying in part ” It’s okay to molest young girls; Their discomfort is merely a result of their confusing danger for DANGER. Do that to one of my young friends or my grand-nieces, and you’re likely to get smacked, by a niece as she starts to flee, or worse from my little friend’s parents/uncles, after which the’ll hold you for the police — not necessarily comfortably. Children MUST be protected from danger. To justify as not insane Tubby’s evil predilections such as that is to endanger all children connected to that evil study. Yes, the child might also have a past trauma on the subject, but that doesn’t mean an inappropriate act like that should be condoned as right and proper.
And later, he saw nothing wrong with locking a toddler into the chain locker, a very dangerous and dark, smelly, damp uncomfortable place, just the place to put the ‘fear of god’ into the child via a present-life trauma/engram. I sure hope the kid’s gotten proper counseling to help banish the experience to the trash heap of ‘things that shouldn’t have been’. Talk about capricious and arbitrary punishment that in no way fits the crime or ‘criminal’. It’s one thing to treat kids as reasoning beings, as my friends and I do and as we were when we were kids. It’s quite another to expect a child to know as much as an adult does about how not to ‘annoy the cranky old fat fart in charge’. Mistaking a child for a fully-functioning adult is the height of A=A=A, But when the Tubby one did it, THAT was Okay….
Can you give me one other place in the Dianetics book where Hubbard condoned or endorsed pedophilia, as you are saying he did in that one paragraph?
Can you show me one reference in all his subsequent writings on the Second Dynamic where he endorsed or condoned pedophilia, as you are suggesting he did in that paragraph?
In all of his writings over the 36 years after writing that one paragraph in Dianetics, can you provide one reference on how great or “OT” it would be to be a pedophile?
And how about the second High Crime in the High Crimes PL – the one that lists all the things that will get you declared and expelled from the Church?
It says this:
Why does it say that if Hubbard was doing what you say he was doing? You said:
Given the context I’ve provided for you, and which I am sure you are aware of but have for some reason forgotten, don’t you think you’re being a little hysterical about this one paragraph in the back of Dianetics?
Always the most confusing complaint for me. LRH was so anti-child abuse that he felt taking way children’s toys for their being badly behaved was akin to abuse (See Child Dianetics). But I digress…
The 1950s had a very different lexicon than 2018. Our vocabulary is so simplistic and low-tier nowadays, not to mention how we tend to manipulate definitions across the spectrum of complexity to suit our needs. I recall I once used the word ‘violently’ in a conversation to describe some political action I was analysing, using it to reference an extreme level of forceful action, and the individual I was speaking to accused me of calling this so-and-so ‘violent’ (as in meaning to cause physical harm).
“Passion” has a wealth of definitions ranging from the banal to the sexual. MW has the best example of this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion .. It can literally mean anything from ‘with love or affection’ to ’emotional’ to ‘sexual desire.’
TL;DR: It takes a certain kind of idiot to try to manipulate that one sentence into ‘LRH was a pedophile and endorsed pedophilia amongst Scientologists.’
Comments are closed.