You may have seen this Los Angeles Times article mentioned on Tony Ortega’s blog yesterday.
A lone outlier precinct in Hollywood voted for Trump — the precinct that has half its registered voters living in “Big Blue.”
So what is the lie?
“The Church does not engage in election activities and cannot do so,” Scientology spokeswoman Karin Pouw said in an emailed statement. “Such decisions are not a matter of faith. The Creed of the Church makes clear that Scientology is open to all. This would include anyone regardless of their race, color, creed or political affiliation.”
Well, let’s start there.
As everyone who has ever been in the Sea Org knows, they cannot access normal media. So they do not have a CLUE about the issues or who to vote for. So, they are given a briefing “about the issues” and it goes something like this:
“Hillary Clinton sees a psychiatrist and has supported 30 pro-psych bills. Her husband is a notorious philanderer. She supports abortion and gay rights.”
“Donald Trump is a self-made man who is drug free and has raised a drug free family. He believes in protecting the First Amendment and the Constitution. He is against social welfare. Oh, and he called a psych “sad” on Twitter.”
The Sea Org members are then allowed to “make up their own mind.”
This is NOT an exaggeration.
Technically, it is not telling someone how to vote. But it is in fact doing just that.
Which is why the next statement is an even bigger lie:
Pouw said that nothing in The Times’ analysis of results “suggests a significant difference to the general leanings of the American people,” noting that Trump won by just a few votes, with neither candidate landing a majority. She also said the Times’ findings “inaccurately suggest a unique trend about a single religion.”
“Scientologists live and work in many other precincts in Los Angeles,” Pouw said. “The Church remained neutral in the presidential election as we always do. We support this country’s electoral process and America’s representative form of government, and respect the right of parishioners, our staff and clergy to vote for the candidate of their choice.”
Well, it was a SIGNIFICANT shift in the leanings of people in Hollywood. Like REALLY significant. In fact it is virtually impossible for this precinct outcome without almost every single person who listed their address as L. Ron Hubbard Way voting for Trump. As always, the obfuscation is clear. Ms. Pouw KNOWS that all those people voted for Trump because that is how they were steered. But she doesn’t want to say that because it will look bad to the IRS.
Not even owning up to their convictions — her statement could have been “Of course Scientologists prefer any candidate over a pro-psych person like Ms. Clinton has proven herself to be” — or whatever the pitch was they used to “brief” the staff.
And of course, they make things worse by harassing the reporters sent to speak to people on the street. How typical.
But the one scientologist they did manage to get to agree to speak told the truth. In Pouw’s mind that person is a traitor and next time they need to do better keeping the damned merchants of chaos away from from their people. The guy who said “we don’t speak to the press” is getting a commendation today.
Scientology is SO defensive and scared of its own shadow it lies even when it doesn’t need to. If they simply had the conviction of their beliefs they would be seen as a bit strange perhaps but would not be constantly exposed as liars. They’re anti-gay but won’t admit it. They practice disconnection but won’t admit it. They don’t believe in being a Christian and a scientologist but won’t admit it. Etc etc etc for some reason they think this is “good PR.”
And just a note for any elected officials out there. Scientology will not tell you they don’t influence voters, instead they will tell you they have a captive audience. That you can appear at a “voter forum” or “candidate briefing” or whatever and give your pitch. For those they favor they will tell you what to say to convince the scientologists to vote for you. Tip #1 “psychiatry is evil” is always a crowd pleaser, as is “all drugs are bad and marijuana should not be legalized” and a total vote grabber “L. Ron Hubbard was a great humanitarian”. It’s a game of political grab-ass. Every now and then you see some politicians falling for it like insects to a Venus Flytrap. Pam Bondi, looking at you.
But you would do well to remember, that if you say the wrong thing, associate with the wrong people, support the wrong bill, are seen with SP’s, don’t rave about a Tom Cruise movie, say Mission Earth was garbage – or any of a myriad of offenses – that “support” will turn instantly into enmity. And you will become their target. And believe me when I tell you, scientology reserves its most hateful and vicious attacks for those it considers once supported them and then became traitors.
I was in the SO in 2011, and we would have had to CSW to vote IIRC. Maybe it’s different for people at Pac Base. I was at Bridge. I think the majority of us did not bother voting. I don’t recall having been briefed or encouraged to vote one way or the other between Obama/Romney. Again, mileage at Pac may vary.
Susan, you can watch them at Rutube.ru search for leah remini
Thank you!
Hi Mike, My DIRECTV didn’t record the show Tuesday night for some reason. The Ask Me Anything that you and Leah are doing. I only got Part 2. Not #1 and not #3 or whatever it was. I waited patiently all week and then, NO recording. Is there anywhere to watch all episodes and the all of the Ask Me Anything. Odd it didn’t record. Are you aware that on YouTube, anything Scientology, your name, Leah Remini, Mark, any and all related to this cult…an advertising strip appears at the bottom of the video on YT that is from Scientology. Talking about all of the great stuff they do. You have to X every one of them.to get them off the screen. SO annoying. Thanks for any info with viewing all of the (1-8) and the Q&A shows. Rock on! What you and Leah &all) are doing about this awful ‘religion’ renews my faith in humans.
Mike — I felt your point did get a little lost in the fray due to our overall political-commentary-exhaustion.. Mention Trump, Hollywood, and Scientology in the same paragraph, and it could leave some who support Trump feeling attacked. I think it’s just a very sensitive time in our nation — and people are on edge. I was worried you were drifting into the darkside. lol Now that I’ve read your replies to the comments here, I’m more clear on what you were saying. Although not Scientology – a family member was lost to a cult for a very long time, and it was horrifying. Politics played a huge role in his “church” – as did conspiracy theories, paranoia, “prepping”, etc. So the topic is very interesting to me. Thank you for bravely speaking out – you and Leah both.
“Mention Trump, Hollywood, and Scientology in the same paragraph, and it could leave some who support Trump feeling attacked. ”
Could public awareness of a single sentence disclosing Trump’s own choice to have been present at the Hollywood Scientology Celebrity Centre “Fourth of July celebration” really “leave some who support Trump feeling attacked”? (Seems out of character, I would think)
Very interesting. Thank you for all your hard work and for the help Leah is giving trying to help these people. We are blessed to have you guys!!
Thanks for this blog post Mike. This answers a lot of questions for me.
Very interesting data, Mike. My evangelical relatives in the south, God help them, were instructed to vote for Trump. Their pastor tells them; I imagine he gets his orders from the higher ups and so forth. This is how it is in cults. At least the evangelicals admit it. They’ll tell you. They vote as a block. They do as they’re told. They admit it. Not so our favorite cult. As for me, I’ll go to my grave this lifetime wondering how it is that 60 million of my fellow Americans voted for this sewer rat.
Trump is a ‘sewer rat’ huh??? Well Hillary is a genius. A genius at lying badly!!! And other stuff too! Tons of stuff! Or whatever… I love political debate.
Hubbard (and Miscavige) is a textbook (think: “The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout) psychopath. What is fascinating about many exes is an inability to distinguish between a ‘charming’ sociopath and authentic flamboyancy or magnanimosity. Some exes display an uncanny ability to climb out of the frying pan and then jump right into the fire; possibly hardwired blind spots that contributed to a vulnerability to scientology in the first place. Superficial “facts” just don’t substitute for the real deal of knowledge. At best, some would prefer to only engage in semantics. Fortunately such fields as mindfulness and other cognitive processes are increasing in popularity.
Which is why, after numerous investigations, they have not one scintilla of actual wrong-doing on her par. Thanks for clearing that up.
Four to sixteen years.
NO Evangelical church, or otherwise, tells their parish how to vote. They might encourage. They might discuss which candidate more closely aligns with their beliefs on pro-life, religious freedom, etc. But I can assure you – these churches are JUST as divided as the “whole” of America. Go to any Catholic church and take a poll — you’ll find it leaning less to the right. Jews vote Democrat, notoriously. So please let’s keep bigotry to a small roar on this blog. As a Christian – I support the efforts to shut down Scientology and other cults NOT because of my faith, but because no real religion ever forces their followers to do ANYTHING. Be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, what have you — they all have “free will” – the freedom to practice their faith as they see fit, and to even disagree with the church, etc. Note I left Muslim out – that’s because many practice Islamic sharia law – which, as we all know, is severely oppressive.
I’m so sick of this practice of intolerance by the “party of tolerance” folks – and the hypocrisy – it’s just mind blowing.
Mike – I hope you’ll leave politics out of it. I did some research on this one lone precinct that went Trump. It has leaned right in other elections, and no one was particularly surprised. If Scientologists have been misled to believe that Trump would protect their cult activities, they will likely be sadly mistaken. He will most likely see them as similar to Islamic Sharia – which detests (as most of us do). Did I vote for Trump? No. But the anti Trump bs has become overkill. I was really hoping it would not creep into the Scientology discussions — but alas, it has. And it will cause many to tune out. You might want to rethink going down this path – people are exhausted by the political discourse.
I agree Kim. People are indeed exhausted by the political discourse. That is not the purpose of Mike’s blog. Let’s get this blog back on purpose.
Kim, I beg to differ. “Real religions” force their followers to do things all the time. Its possible you are conflating spiritual philosophy with religion. They are not the same.
Mike, I am fairly new to your blog, I had no idea that this kind of voter suggestion still went on in this country, like it does in some other countries like Russia. I guess we can’t be surprised by anything now. I do want you to know that the work you and Leah are doing is very important and want you to know that the ordinary people like myself are behind you and interested to see what is going to happen next.
pc, that type of voter suggestion goes on in many types of groups. Whether it is a church, the local atheist get together club, etc. Politics is a subject that gets people passionate, illogical (see Aquamarines post above), angry, happy..
True, that. Good point, Mike W. Besides religious groups, plenty of other types of groups have their political axes to grind. God bless America.
Aqua I will defend to my death your right to have your say. 🙂
Remember, politicians promise stuff to get votes. They survey buttons and push them. Whether it is a “chicken in every pot” a la Bernie. Or, security & jobs, Trump or 8 more years of the same bit only more, Hillary. The one who gets the buttons more correct usually wins.
Right back at you with that, MW 🙂
The ultimate cognition in Scientology: the realization that Ron is mocking it all up.
Would that be the “Clear Out” cog?
yes
That’s why LSD is a BIG NO NO. It causes all sorts of creations that get out of hand, and pocket too. Keep it one source only, more controllable that way..
The EEE PEE of Scientology and to get it to stop persisting is to realize
Ron mocked it all up! Scientology, that is!
i know the scns living in clearwater were expected to vote for trump. i don’t know if they were yold this or it was e mailed to them. some went out torally for himtoo.
Religious groups can easily be manipulated by politicians. Religious groups and their members really need to have their guard up and not be taken in by political sales pitches, empty promises, and appeals to address their group’s hot button issues.
Sad
For anyone who missed it, this was satire because “sad”is a littlle word Trump uses sometimes at the end of a sentence.
What’s “sad” is having to explain your own joke. :\
Kim, English is not Cat Daddy’s first language so you might want to cut him a little slack.
The exact same thing happened at the int base. They used to (don’t know if they still do) have the big fancy public reception area in BUilding 36 act as a voting location. They had the machines and volunteers come in. So all 600-700 people on the base, if they were registered, could just go over and vote and not leave their posts for too long to drive out somewhere to another location. It doubled as a “public service.” BUT, Muriel used to hand these fliers out about all the candidates and what their views were or what they had done or whatever. That is ALL we had to make up our minds.Just part of the brainwashing in the bubble. So it makes complete sense that that neighborhood would vote for Trump—just based alone on his stand on gay rights and women’s choice. For a philosophy that promotes tolerance and understanding, it sure is a little weird.
Great job Mike & Leah for showing us this huge disaster to all who join this cult. Thank you please continue your efforts.
Hi Mike. I am new to your blog and have really enjoyed reading all your posts. This question is really not related to this post, but I’m hoping you (or a former member) will answer.
I am curious as to how former members feel about Hubbard, and how much of what he taught they continue to believe (Xenu and thetans, etc.)? It has been well documented that he was not a trustworthy individual, but I understand that many former members still use his tech (I guess that is the correct term) independently.
Is Hubbard still worshiped by former members?
What teachings are carried over to the “free” world and what is left behind?
From everything I have seen and read, DM and Hubbard share the same traits when it comes to abuse and greed, but you don’t really hear many former members speak about Hubbard in the same derogatory way they do DM.
There is no single answer to this. Everyone sees this through their own experience. There is no good or correct answer that applies generally.
People come out in various stages of ‘knowingness’ about L Ron.
Some have to believe in him so they can cope with getting duped beyond belief.
Others go down the rabbit hole quick and find out the truth.
I went “clear” in about one hour once I made the decision to LOOK.
I hate that fucking con monster criminal asshole.
I’d pretty much have to guess there would be pretty limited “worshiping of Hubbard” outside of the Cof$, even by the pro-enthusiasts, but some are pretty full on gung-ho. Mike is right there is no simple answer that covers all but a similar scenario could be drawn using a teacher or instructor one had earlier in life. You take out of that experience what hopefully works for you, it doesn’t mean to have to emulate that person or worship them just because they showed you how to do or view something. But with Scientology, a massive discrimination exists in that as a subject it professes to lead you to self-determinism. However in actuality what is practiced within that group under control of a mother Church it is any but friendly toward self-determined members and punishes them at the first opportunity if they don’t tow the party line.
Hi, Samantha, and welcome.
I can speak only for myself, and maybe a few friends.
When I first got out, I still held Hubbard and his tech in high regard. I read Marty Rathbun’s blog and felt that the tech was available outside the Church so I wouldn’t lose my eternity by avoiding the official Church.
But because I was out, I went ahead and started looking. When I left, I didn’t know what OT III was about, or about Hubbard’s lies in his biography and his theft of valor (falsely claiming military awards and decorations that he did not earn), and a lot of things. But as I found out the real story, I came to consider Hubbard a garrulous liar and his “tech” utter BS. I think there is a special place in Hell for those who steal valor, and I came to consider Hubbard with contempt when I found out about that. This was within maybe 6 months.
The reason I left was my perception that the “church” had deviated from the Fatman’s “tech” and that Miscavige was an A-hole. Once I found out the rest of the story about the so-called “tech” and the charlatan who invented it, I abandoned the subject entirely.
I now have nothing more to do with it. But I’m really angry that I wasted my prime learning years on Fatso’s dreck. I didn’t study much philosophy or psychology, or history, because “Hubbard knew better” and therefore I knew better. Now I feel the holes in my education and it really bothers me.
I’m trying to catch up, but it’s harder when you’re older and have to work for a living – the school years are so short and I wish I could get them back. I read and take online classes to try to make up for it.
Now, there are many people who lost a lot more than I did! See: Everyone on Leah’s show, and many, many more. Learning things is important to me so I guess having wasted so much time “learning” that blowhard’s BS at the expense of a more useful education is my own kind of pain.
Most of the people I know who left are completely done with it. But I know 3 people who still think the “tech” is valid even if Hubbard and the “church” are flawed. Another person still thinks Hubbard was a genius but won’t go near an Org.
I now spend far less that what scientology costs taking classes in or reading about history, psychology, and foreign language. And traveling. For the price of one stupid E-Meter, I booked a business class seat to Rome! And I’ll spend about one Academy Level course having a nice time there.
The experiences of ex-scientologists run the gamut from my own relatively minor loss to the loss of fortunes, friends, children, parents, entire families, and decades of life.
While there are a few independent scientology types out there, I would say based on my own interactions that the majority of former scientologists want nothing more to do with Hubbard and his cosmology. I think the majority who get out get all the way out, and any vestigial regard for Hubbard eventually evolves into contempt.
Samantha, Mike is right that is no good or simple answer to your question – particularly in the absence of some sort of proper study or survey of ex-members.
There have already been several very articulate additional comments, that in my experience with quite a few people over an extended period of time, are generally representative. The “freezone” organizations are very small, so it does seem that few people end up trying to practice Dianetics or Scientology in the long term after leaving the church.
While most ex-Scientologists end up ceasing to idolize Hubbard, they often give him credit for putting a lot of work into something out of which they feel like they got at least a bit of good, but tend to see Miscavige (DM) as just an organizational functionary with no redeeming qualities who has ruined anything that might have been positive.
The other interesting underlying question, is who is an ex-Scientologist? It’s not the millions who ever bought a book or something, that Scientology uses to get the numbers it claims for members. I would make a ballpark guess based on various figures that I’ve seen, that it amounts to somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 people in the United States who are still living, who at one point considered themselves Scientologists, and a similar number worldwide. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) tracked religious identification at several points in the past, and produced surveys showing numbers of self-identified Scientologists that seemed to fit with estimates based on information provided by defectors and discernible by other means, of 45,000 Scientologists in 1990, 55,000 in 2001, and 25,000 in 2008. There does not seem to be a newer ARIS survey available, but current estimates seem to point to a hard core of about 15,000 members remaining in the US. That gives you an idea of the rate at which ex-Scientologists are being made, though it’s more than simple math, as Scientology recruits heavily but leaves a lot of people disaffected, so there is quite a bit of turnover on top of the numbers going either up or down.
Samantha, I know about 15 ex’es (I have been out of the church a long time). None of those think but ill about Hubbard or his “tech”. I don’t know many people who recently left. So mabe it is a gradual thing with some who leave. Step by step learning the real truth.
Mike wrote:
But you would do well to remember, that if you say the wrong thing, associate with the wrong people, support the wrong bill, are seen with SP’s, don’t rave about a Tom Cruise movie, say Mission Earth was garbage – or any of a myriad of offenses – that “support” will turn instantly into enmity. And you will become their target. And believe me when I tell you, scientology reserves its most hateful and vicious attacks for those it considers once supported them and then became traitors.
Very true, Mike and thank you. You’d better vote for or support whatever proposition seen as acceptable to the thinking within the church. There is no, “I this is what I think about X…,” especially if it favored legalizing marijuana or gay marriage. You would be shot down real quick.
As for the ex-Scientologist, no one is held more in contempt. Even LRH wrote about ‘the Backslider’ whom he called “the worst of the worst.”
The issue that ‘trumps’ all issues when voting is psychiatry. I believe the second would be drugs. If a candidate is viewed as being even remotely favorable to psychiatry, they will be shunned. It doesn’t matter what the issues or the proposed policies are. It is not only the Sea Org, it follows for all Scientologists. In the 2000 election, Scientologists overwhelmingly were against Al Gore because of Tipper Gore’s extensive involvement in mental health. Just hearing that Trump may want to negotiate lower pricing for pharmaceuticals for Medicare part D is good enough for them. Scientologists generally do not tend to be especially politically aware or involved. They have a big enough game to play in their own little world, and are more than satisfied with a ‘briefing’ to be brought up to speed on what president or propositions to vote for.
The tabloid Daily Mail today has resurrected the Ramana Dienes-Browning story that originally appeared in the Village Voice in 2011. They gave it a lurid headline about her being held captive below deck at 16 for not satisfying her older husband while Cruise partied aboveboard. What is the follow up with her?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html
I know the main lie being discussed here is their statement about not engaging in election activities. But also, per Karin Pouw’s statement: “The Creed of the Church makes clear that Scientology is open to all. This would include anyone regardless of their race, color, creed or political affiliation.”
Karin, that phrase you just used that Scientology is “open to all”, as CoS also mentions on their website?
Does that include psychiatrists and their family/friends? Does that include the LGBT community who are 1.1 on the Tone Scale (Covert Hostility)? Does that include anyone with mental disabilities (as opposed of just helping “the able”)? Does that include people who are poor, or who are homeless, or who otherwise might not have the time or the money to give to the church for auditing? Does that include Mike Rinder and others who are on the ever-growing list of so called “Suppressive Persons”?
Just what exactly is your definition of the word “all”? Take your time before answering that if you need to “word clear” that one in the dictionary.
P.S. While we’re at it with our Word Clearing, can you also look up the definition of the word “open”? And that doesn’t just apply to being “open” to everyone else outside of the organization. I’m mostly trying to figure out if you’re truly “open” even to your own members (or if you’re even being “open” to yourself Karin)….
I saw this item on Tony’s blog yesterday already. But even after reading both Tony’s and Mike’s comments, I find these figures more confusing than convincing.
Yes, there is no doubt that the “church” can incite block voting (at least among the Sea Org). And in all fairness, other organizations can and will do the same; unions come to mind.
Nor is there a moment’s doubt that the “church” will lie about it if they so desire.
But there are several factors about this that don’t add up:
1. 2012 was not exactly Obama’s finest hour. And he was facing a formidable opponent. In other words, there was a real chance to put an end to his presidency.
So where was the Republican voting block allegedly provided by the CoS THEN? Obama represented quite a few political viewpoints that are detestable to the “church” and a victory for Mitt would have shown support for a contemporary minority religion, and perhaps opened new doors in Washington. Yet there’s no evidence that the “church” tried to make a difference in this district at that much more critical time.
2. The total number of voter turnout in this district increased from 551 to 691, a whopping 25%. The Democrat candidate gained 10% while the Republican surged by almost 50%. One possible explanation is that Trump managed to energize and win districts and entire states that conventional wisdom would have deemed out of bounds. It is fair to say that this achievement ultimately allowed him to win the presidency, as the electoral map clearly shows. Therefore, this anomaly in the generally blue CA map may mean fairly little.
3. More than any other president ever, Bill Clinton has been good to the cult. And having Democrat-aligned cult celebs such as Cruise undoubtedly helped.
The Clinton government was clearly (and would have presumably been again) very much a family affair. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that a Clinton WH would have been sympathetic. There is zero evidence that the same could be said for Trump.
Obviously, a tiny district in Hollywood was not about to sway the election in 2012 or 2016. But even if the cult had delusions of grandeur that would compel them to rally the troops (not an unreasonable assumption in itself), there is no plausible explanation as to why they would have abandoned Mitt, snubbed their past benefactors, the Clintons, and rallied for the Donald.
What IS quite clear is that the press in places like NY or LA has shown itself to be virulently anti-Trump. So what if the LA Times simply saw an opportunity to connect the name of an odious cult to the name of the President of the United States? As far as I can tell, however, the numbers do NOT make a solid case for such a connection.
This is an enormous amount of pointless speculation. The point is not whether the press is anti-Trump. I can pretty much guarantee you that those briefings were aligned to what the one scientologists who WAS quoted in the article said. And I would bet my hypothetical words of the briefing were pretty close to the mark. You seem to be arguing about whether Trump is good or bad or if the media is fair to him — not my point AT ALL. (And BTW — the idea of scientologists voting for an avowed mormon is pretty remote, they are viewed as cultists by scientologists)
No, I am NOT arguing whether Trump is good or bad but whether he can be speculated to be one or the other from the “church’s” point of view.
Also, I am questioning the LAT’s motives. They are generally fairly passive on the issue of CoS, and I find their argument more politically motivated than actually factually supported.
Ultimately, I don’t believe my arguments to be any more speculative than this article’s.
I don’t doubt that the cult would try for political influence or lie about it. So I am not questioning the point of your blog. I am, however questioning the LAT’s speculations regardless of the merits of the POTUS or his former competitor for the job.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that.
You were pretty clear. It was off topic to the blog and had the danger of swirling this into a debate about the relative cons (nobody ever talks about the pros) of Trump and Clinton.
Off topic, but the Daily Mail site currently has an “exclusive” story about an Australian ex-Sea Org member named Ramana Dienes-Browning, talking about abuses she experienced aboard the Freewinds.
That “exclusive” is basically a reprint of the story Ortega did years ago and I think either Bryan Seymour or Steve Cannane did a TV show about her too.
It is not the first, nor last time, a church has participated in a political issue. Remember the Mormon Church’s funding of the campaign for Proposition 8 in California? There were meetings at all wards where members were asked to cough up $1,000 each to fund the campaign, including phone banks set up in Utah, staffed with church members and supervised by lay leaders, to call voters in California. The mormons, at least, could explain their support for the Proposition.
Scientologists that I know gave reasons for supporting Trump as his plans to abolish ACA, which provides access to healthcare, including mental healthcare and vaccinations for children, lower taxes so people will have more money to donate to the church, and the unlikelihood of Trump supporting the IRS pulling the tax exempt status of the church. There was little regard for other issues or concerns regarding a Trump presidency.
Aha, interesting about the ACA.
Psychiatry and drugs are the boogeymen that drive scientology thinking. Always.
Interesting that you mention the IRS pulling the tax status. As of 2007 this was never mentioned as a threat. Now even Scientologists mention it? More of the outside world leaking in.
I think it may be relevant as there was a major scandal involving biased investigations into conservative political non-profit groups. If I am following the CoS reasoning (scary thought) Trump would be less willing to pull a non-profit status.
To be honest, that’s crazy talk. If Davey or other CoS people managed to annoy Trump, he’d stomp on them. Otherwise, I don’t think he cares about the CoS or even the targeting scandal.
It’s worth mentioning that a religious organization can still lose tax exempt status if they engage in political activity including candidate endorsement and a number of other activities. This is not simply limited to messages to a congregation (formally indicating a preference based on doctrine is also prohibited). While they may think they are being scrupulous about skating the line on this, it sounds like they are engaging in enough activities to either warrant an investigation or have a formal grievance or complaint filed against them. The tax exempt “victory” has made them lax.
They may not be able to bribe or blackmail the IRS next time especially if there are multiple infractions, especially if these infractions are accompanied by other litigation regarding human rights abuses, racketeering or similar crimes. Their collective nose isn’t nearly clean enough to ignore the law – regardless of what the current administration decides to relax. The rest of the world isn’t in the Orwellian bubble of information and mind control that envelops CoS staff. I think it would be interesting to collect and catalog the many examples of potential violations mentioned here from the last election alone and present them to the IRS for their inspection.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501-c-3-tax-exempt-organizations
Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other watchdog organizations may also be interested or helpful in putting together claims.
https://www.au.org/
Thanks for the information.Always good to know.
At this point it is probably worth noting that Trump repeatedly made promises to religious organizations that he intended to do away with the Johnson Amendment, so that religious organizations would be free to conduct political activity without fear of losing their tax exempt status.
You can find many articles discussing various aspects of this by googling “johnson amendment trump”
Two examples of many:
http://time.com/4406567/republican-platform-johnson-amendment-churches-political-organizing/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-trump-keeps-focusing-the-johnson-amendment
Absolutely right, Michael Bloom. He did say this repeatedly. It was his very effective ploy in cornering the Evangelicals who vote Republican as a block. (And before anyone else piles on, voting “as a block” does not mean that every single person in a given group votes the same way – OK? It means that the very large majority of them can be depended upon to vote a certain way.)
Mike and Leah may want to visit DC (cameras rolling) and use their decades of STATUS to personally brief Kellyanne Conway about what Dave does behind the CURTAIN of scientology. This might get the ball rolling on a Congressional Hearing and . . . maybe an Executive Order or two . . .
Kudos to Conway for adding “alternative facts” to the American lexicon. It makes sense to me when stating “studies show” etc. as facts. I vaguely recall an economics professor saying “Any statistic can be made to lie.”
Trump will never take on Scientology. Never. They outclass him in the time and money they’ll spend to vanquish an enemy. He’s no slouch in that department himself but he has nothing to gain and an awful lot to fear and plenty to lose in making an enemy out of Co$.
Ok, ok. Your confession to being completely schlonged is accepted.
I would like to see an accounting of actions by the IRS on this rule over the last 20 years. I’m afraid it’s not vigorously enforced.
Hi Mike! I was told by a still in that the CHERCH made ,10,000 OTs and the world is changing because of that lie. I’m UTR and this kind of be!ief really saddens, disgusts, and angers me.
Do you know how you can tell if a Scientologists is lying? Their lips are moving.
. . . and since scientology is not winning there is no need to howl; just take them out.
… or their fingers are dancing over a keyboard.
But none of this is discernable if they are merely stating alternative facts! Believe me!
outandabout, I think it’s plausible that over the entire history of Scientology there have been about that many completions of the first OT level – and as with every other count, the majority of those people are no longer practicing Scientology (and a good number are deceased). I’ve seen analyses that according to completions listed in Freewinds magazine, fewer than 2,000 have made it to the highest OT level, OT VIII.
It’s typical cultic thinking that somehow that number is changing the world, and they might even attempt to attribute some positive change (like decreasing crime rates in Clearwater – conveniently overlooking the rise in LA) to the supposed mysterious powers of those OTs. But on the other hand, don’t they often claim that the reason that people need to spend all their time and money going “clear” and OT, is that the world is deteriorating?
Logical/cognitive errors at work: wishful thinking, confusing correlation with causation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation )
the outandabout thing just sounds a bit off. Wouldn’t pay it no mind. The 10,000 on or Thru OT VII game is still going on. I have unhelped it as of recent, I am proud to say.
….what I came here to say, in response to your post… is …
when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union was dissolved…. it was heavily promoted that the reason was the release and effect of OT VIII. Betcha it’s still be credited thusly.
I buried my skepticism, hid it from myself and just tried to ignore it all.
True, secretfornow. Does anyone recall a promotional video fo OTVII played at one of the Events where it showed someone solo auditing and others doing it in other areas, and then a graphic of ‘theta’ moving outward, and then further out, panning out to the planet being covered with theta? I distinctly remember this one. It gave a visual of that if enough people are solo auditing on 7, there will be more free theta, thus bringing calm and dis-stimulation to the planet. This would have been after 2001, thereabouts.
I don’t recall that one, but it sounds just like the standard and usual type of “win” that is promoted about VII and included in all kinds of the wins I heard at Flag from the VII comps. Generalities about how things settle down and are calmer and more peaceful in the area of the VII. Trees bloom more brightly and so on.
The actual stated goal was: “10,000 on or through Solo Nots.” It was thought that by some mathematical equation, that 10,000 was “the magic number” based on population of earth etc and that if 10,000 were on or through OT VII, it would tip the entheta to theta ratio on the earth and all would be turned around and hunky dorey. BUT I saw a posting some time ago on Mike’s blog by a SO member newly out, an auditor or CS who said that in actuality more people were OFF the level than were auditing on it. And that about 1/3 of those on VII will be off it soon due to various reasons such as no money, blown from the level, ill, dead, out of Scn etc. How about some of you CSes such as Silvia and Ronit and Greta and others tell us what the stats are on the number of people on OT VII?
If this is accurate, this is a brand new lie by the cult. The lie used to be “10000 on or through Solo NOTs”. Now they’re saying 10000 Clears are bringing benefits? First of all, their Clear number is sitting around 65000 or so. They passed 10000 decades ago. Second, we all know the 10000 on or through Solo NOTs is a lie, since their own numbers say they’re at a little less than 7000. So what lie is being demonstrated here? If it’s “10000 Clears are changing the world”, that’s a mammoth move of the goalposts. If that’s what’s being spread around among the membership, there’s something big going on.
This might be worth further investigation.
Clear or Solo, Clear or Solo?? Whatever is the flavor of the month in marketing or a new drive on an old theme for more donation money. They have multiple carrots in Scientology but dwindling donkeys.
Mike, being boots on the ground so to speak I tend to agree with some of the people interveiwed by the LA times. I doubt that many staff at big blue voted. The locals that live there did. Most were influenced by their fellow members and social media between members.
There is no big push for staff to vote as it takes them off post. I’m sure that there was some kind of briefing to staff, including the caveat, if your stats are down you do not have permission to take off to vote.
I do agree Mike that the Cherch lies about all this as scientologists don’t do anything political unless it aligns with Blubbard policy or interpretation of policy by Miscavige.
In California mail in ballots are common. Staff wouldn’t have to leave post, just mark the ballot and put in return mail. Its good PR to have staff appear to be good citizens (as evidenced by their voter registrations).
The paranoid might think that maybe the church simply marked all the ballots, but that would be voter fraud! And in favor of Trump no less, who goes on about his perceived slight, not having a majority due to the same…
🙂
The polling station for that district was literally inside of Big Blue. Wouldn’t have been too much of an “off post” burden for 300+ staff members to vote when they’re already there.
It’s the LA Times for you. But most in LA font read it . They used to have people st supermarkets trying to sell subscriptions!
It’s been my experience that Scientologists tend to lean right. It wouldn’t take much of a nudge to get them to vote in that direction. I remember Lucy Cole, wife of Scn lawyer Rosser Cole, used to send out a personal newsletter during elections giving her ballot recommendations. In the public sector, Scios make a conscious effort to present themselves as a voting bloc. PR, you know.
When you look at Hubbard’s conservative 1950s worldview, including specifics such as the biases against drugs and homosexuality, it’s hardly surprising that Scientology attracts members with a socially and politically conservative bent. Though typical of cult leaders, Hubbard seems to have practiced differently than he preached.
The Unification Church (“moonies”) are also noted as a group that attracted baby boomers who were “seekers” but who nonetheless had a more conservative bent, with a doctrinal emphasis on a version of “family values” including marriage. And again the leader, Sun Myung Moon, seems to have had his own self-serving internal doctrines about things like sex and divorce.
My initial reaction to your post Mike was ” Hold on there Jethro!!!! I’m a deplorable, voted Trump and I despise what Scn stands for. ” However, after rereading both the article AND your comments, you are totally correct. It’s the lie that’s the thing. They didn’t need to, which speaks to the permeating paranoia inherited from LRH. The Trump win of the precinct could just as easily mean that four Clinton supporters felt she had already won and stayed home.
What I don’t get about CoS is why, in California of all states, would they even try to insinuate which candidate their people should vote for and put their tax-exempt status at risk in the Electoral College system we have? I have voted in the presidential election since 1992. For the 1992 and 1996 elections, I lived in Mississippi (very red). From the 2000 election until now, I’ve lived in Maryland (very blue). I’ve always known which candidate (or more accurately, which political party) my state was going to give its electoral votes to when the electoral college met, even though I still voted knowing that no matter what I do or how hard I try, nothing is likely at all to change the outcome for my particular state.
California (since Bush Sr. in ’88) is a 99.99% certainty which party they’ll give theirs to as well. Why these people, in California, would even risk their tax exempt status that is so precious (and absolutely necessary for their continued and sustainable existence), boggles my mind. But then again, you would think that I would have learned by now to quit trying to understand logic and reason when it comes to this group.
Mick, by telling the SO members how to vote they put nothing in danger. You are thinking of a Minister at the pulpit telling a congregation who to vote for.
If they are in their capacity as an SO leader (such as a minister in their capacity as a minister) and they endorse a candidate, I’m pretty sure that it can most certainly jeopardize their tax-exempt status if it’s anything like in a Christian church (based on my experiences dealing with this very issue).
I’m a Methodist and Lay Leader for our church, and we had an issue just a few months ago where an Associate Pastor (appointed by our conference) was talking to some of the other staff members at our church and he was telling them why they should vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump. Regardless of how we personally felt about it (even if he was endorsing Trump), and even though it wasn’t from the pulpit (he can talk about “issues”, but not “candidates”), he was in his official capacity as an appointed Pastor talking to other staff members (most of who are also church members).
We had to talk to him (he’s young) and explain to him that this isn’t allowed, but that he was more than welcome to do this as a private citizen (attend rallies, post on his own Face Book page, etc.). Ministers certainly don’t lose their First Amendment rights as a private citizen. They don’t “technically” lose those rights as a Minister either, but it could definitely jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the church if they choose to exercise those rights in their official capacity.
That’s why we talked to him about it, so it could be documented in case someone ever raised the issue about it. He was cool with it and understood, but I’m pretty sure that it’s the same situation as an SO leader telling his SO subordinates how to vote (even if it’s just the “wink wink” stuff). I’m a never-in, so I may not understand the structure of the Sea Org, but based on my limited knowledge, it seems that it would warrant extreme caution.
Although on the other hand, it’s not as though any SO would tell on them or that they would retain evidence of doing this (see McPherson, Lisa) without a really good excuse. I’ve learned that it’s just all part of the sham that is CoS, based on Mike’s post here and everything else I’ve read about.
Mick, apples and oranges. Employees at a church you are talking about are NOT equivalent to SO members. Think instead of cloistered monks. That is what all SO members are. The head monk talking to them about candidates is NOT going trigger that that reg.
Mick, no Sea Org member is going to complain to the authorities if he or she ordered to vote for a certain candidate for political office. Co$ does the research on the candidates as to how the cherch’s interests will be furthered and protected, or not, as the case may be. Then they’ll do their best to “safepoint” themselves with that candidate by meeting with him or her and delivering a briefing on what they need and want. In return they offer campaign donations and votes. Candidates know that the organizations “opinion Its a negotiation between the political candidate and the organization. One hand washes the other. Then, they “brief” the Sea Org members, org staff and public as to why the Scientology religion will be best served by electing So and So as mayor, governor, senator, etc. Of course, these briefings will vary in tone – public Scientologists will receive “suggestions”, not orders.
In fairness, as Mike W pointed out, other religious organizations have their lobbyists who do the same thing, and, as well plenty of non religious organizations do this also. Quid pro quo, the more you pay the more you play, that’s American politics all the way. T
Edit: Candidates know that the organization’s “Opinion Leaders” will deliver the votes and the money.
Correct Aqua. In 2012 Eric Holder and the ACLU held HUGE seminars for Black Pastor’s on how to stump for Obama from the pulpit without triggering IRS violations. EXACT wording to use or not use, etc.
In fact, Clinton beat Trump in CA by 4 million votes. Maybe its that belief that they have millions of members, so the SO can tell their relatives in other states who to vote for.
Ohio Buckeye – well said. Many people switched away from Hillary who had voted for Obama (Michigan is the perfect example). Many people were too afraid to admit they were Trump supporters because of backlash (being called racist, etc). I think a statistician would be able to nail down why this precinct went Trump -and it would be interesting, to be sure. I understand what Mike is saying – and I’ve been curious about Scientology and voting/politics, so I found this very interesting. I worry about politics being injected into the Scientology battle – as it could cause some to feel under attack, and they’ll back away from supporting Mike and Leah’s cause. I live in CA – and I can tell you Trump won our precinct. If you look at a map of counties that voted “RED” – it’s a pretty significant amount for what is notoriously a “BLUE” state.
I think Scientologists tend to sound “alt right” – however – I cannot imagine the Hollywood Scientologists daring to go to the Right. :\
Huh, whaddya know. Trump was right. The election was rigged. Rest assured knowing what this proves is that Scientology is ineffective outside their own bubble since all 55 of CA’s electoral votes went to Hillary. I’m sure they’ll claim it as some moral victory, anyway.
Another observation one might take from this is that Scientology technology is being considerably outpaced by real-world technology and it’s only a matter of time before the charade is over. Keep Working, Scientology.
Once Trump sees this district in the heart of Hollywood voted for him he will want to come meet his fans. He will be very much disappointed when 1.5mil Scientologists don’t show up in support.
#alternativefacts
I believe a salient factor is that Scientologists are predisposed to following a group opinion and stance. It’s embedded in their very fiber by being a Scientologist. Following Hubbard devoutly – each and every word gospel truth, the huge pressure of group ethics/justice and agreement with such.
This is a group wherein someone wanting the OT levels will write up “liability formulas”, confessing to their Un-Group like behavior, documenting their massive “amends” for such, and beneath that, a request for the other group members to sign their formula and to allow them to be “back in the group”. (the good group, the people who don’t do these bad ungrouplike behaviors)
Staff and public alike do these “lower conditions”, which can be very debasing and awkward. This is NORMAL stuff.
At any event or graduation there are untold “standing ovations” given to each and every speaker, the biggest and longest saved for the standing O given to the portrait of Hubbard whenever his name is mentioned. (practically) …….. just TRY sittin that shit out. You’ll get a little interview PDQ. We’re here and we ALL AGREE.
Embedded is the requirement to AGREE. To go with the written words and go with the group. Facebook was so littered with the Scios mouth-piece-ing Trump rhetoric leading up to the election that I ended up hiding or deleting them all.
Make no mistake, in the halls and events and social media – scios made it clear that 4 legs Trump was good and 2 legs Hillary was bad. IT’S STILL going on on FB.
They don’t have to hold a meeting and tell everyone who to vote for. It’s so much easier than that.
Secret, you made me laugh. The reason they made us give standing O’s all the time was to prevent us from sleeping thru the entire event. Up and down, up and down… I know I would have dozed off it had been possible. Most events were 3 – 3 1/2 hours long. For the first 90 minutes I’d be ok. then the booming music and the visuals would – I don’t know – start DOING something to me (mild hypnosis, perhaps?). I recommend these event videos for anyone with sleep apnea or insomnia, seriously.
We were all so overworked… you dim the lights and ….ZONK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sitting 3 plus hours on a metal folding chair in a stuffy little class V org event room…the air redolent of sweat, sore arses and boredom..
… just think, soon it’ll be over and we can all go out and nibble the pot-luck snacks (mayonnaise salad left out the past 4 hours)
There’s that old joke about the Chinese guy whose only known English word was “fried rice” so when the waitress askes him what he would like to drink with his meal he says, “fried rice”. That’s the church of scientology. It only knows how to lie. Lying paved the way to its great success but now that nobody believes its lies it’s strategy is to do the only successful action it has ever known. Lying.
You have to give them credit, though. They do practice lying religiously. When I was in the Pasadena Model Idle Morgue, I did the 200 question personality test. When I finished, I said to the young man, ” This feels like it was written in the 50s!” The young man replied, “We made it that way on purpose.” Which, of course, was a lie.
Lying comes very easily to cult members. Actually, it’s a way of life for them.
In response to your mention of the Pasadena Idle Morgue, a friend of mine was walking by with his partner and a staff member offered him a pamphlet. My friend asked him if he was sure if he wanted to give it to him because: “I am gay and I am very open about it.” The young man pulled the brochure out of his hand and turned away. A moment of honesty there.
After posting and sharing the Leah Remini TV series and my anti-scientology Comments I received two private messages to take down my so called “crap” and one was unfriended the unfriended one wants to meet with me he’s been in Scientology 42 years, not sure why he wants to meet with me, while he had me on the phone he was trying to interrogate me very slightly and defend Scientology but I am meeting with him Tuesday at 10 a.m. at Starbucks in Dunedin Florida his name is Alan Graham. does anybody want to come? I know him in person through a very close close friend Alan Graham is a writer and his doing ghostwriting for my close friends book.
You may also have a few IPs (interested parties) from the friendliest place in the world showing up to supervise. Let us know how it goes JC! Excellent work you do!
PLEASE let us know what happens!
If the man you meet is a pale, unassuming fellow now in his sixties or early seventies, that would be long-time ASHO Foundation Sea Org Qual terminal Alan Graham. I suggest you “use Scientology” in your talk with him.
Here is an excerpt from a mid-50’s article entitled, “A Manual on Dissemination”:
The way to handle an individual minister of some other church is as follows: get
him to tell you exactly what HE believes, get him to agree that religious freedom is
desirable, then tell him to make sure that if that’s the way he believes, he should keep
on believing that, and that you would do anything to defend his right to believe that.”
Now, imagining that you still have “something of a Scientologist” in you (meaning that you might have retained a smattering of respect for some of this information), here’s something you could consider doing in your meeting with Alan – use Scientology! Treat him as if he is a minister of the religion (when he was staff at ASHO he was quite fond of wearing his ministers’ garb). I would say that he definitely qualifies as a “member of some other church” in that the current C of S is hardly recognizable to anyone anymore who has some familiarity with its “better days”.
Go ahead and follow the little “how-to” in the paragraph from the article.
Alan was also, as any self respecting Qual terminal would have been, very big on word clearing. Suggest: tell Alan you were sent a bunch of references from someone who thought they would help get you more on Source. Ask Alan if he could word clear you on the issues. Bring with you all the issues that are referenced in Debbie Cook’s famous email! Get your word clearing! Word clearers often have cognitions as they read along.
Might be a good caper for Indies in org areas. Have free word clearing events for Scientologists at your homes or centers, Invite people to come in and get word cleared on all the Debbie Cook referenced issues!
“Use Scientology to Solve Scientology” as we used to say.
Sounds like fun! Just don’t bring your wallet or checkbook, these $cilons are very well-trained in doing the ol’ reach-around, both from the front and from the back 😉
Alan was the flag rep at la foundation. Originally a body router from sfo. I am surprised he is still in. His father wrote a column called graham crackers that I believe was nationally syndicated.
Joseph C, this is exciting! I wish I were in the area, I would definitely go with you. And you’re getting sound advice from the people here!
At Flag all the staff that were eligible to vote would be called to the auditorium. An OSA rep would hand out a sheet of paper with the names of everyone running. Those that are more pro Scientology and its agenda are clearly noted. The OSA staff member makes it clear that the cherch can not tell anyone how they have to vote but can only help to provide information about the candidates so we can all make our own choices. Wink, wink. Literally – wink, wink. Other than that piece of paper, we have never heard of these people before. On election day we are all piled into cherch buses and brought to vote with the OSA write up in our pockets. Total information control. Total robots.
Mat, they really need to get a life….bu, they never will. They’ll remain ronbots forever. What a life…
A similar operation was done up at Gold in the 90s. Muriel Dufresne would tell us which candidates were better for Scientology. She was for Bill Clinton then because of the help they gave Scientology during the issues with Germany. it is also true that the tax exemption was granted during the Clinton administration, though it was already planned at the end of the prior administration.
Then Muriel would say something like “of course we can’t tell you how to vote” (wink-wink). Muriel has a bit of the Monique Yingling eye-blink. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzL8P-GRayM
The Port Captain’s Office was always interested in local issues. They were lobbying heavily to have the Highway 79 route moved over to the other side of the river. So we were encouraged to vote.
The voting booth was set up in the front entrance of the Manufacturing Building, right inside the main gate. Non-Scientologists could drive in and vote.
It only takes moments to vote when the booth is set up just steps away from where you work. Didn’t they set up voting booths in LA Org or somewhere nearby last election?
Somewhere on the Internet there is a list of Golden Era staff members excused from Jury Duty. To be on the list for Jury Duty you have to have registered as a voter. So it is likely that at least some staff are voting.
Wonder what the numbers were for voting precincts in Clearwater, presumably they went overwhelmingly for Trump.
And they intend to find out on the very next sec check if you voted “ethically”
Don’t forget that trump promised to get rid of the law that prevents religions from participating in elections.
I wouldn’t mind learning a bit more about this. Can you provide a source, please?
Mike, I posted this elsewhere, and got an error, so I thought it had failed. I just saw that it hadn’t. My apologies for the dup.
Charities, Churches and Politics
The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.
In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one “which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
sidney, there is no such law in the USA. (congress is forbidden to write such laws) There is an IRS reg that is not Federal law and isn’t much enforced therefore.
I posted some info from the IRS website. You are mistaken.
Wrong again sidney, IRS regs are NOT laws. If you bother to read the ACTUAL Fed LAW, it states NOTHING about churches not being allowed to engage in politics.
I have a feeling that you are not from the US or you would know about the 1st Amend and the explicit bar on congress from writing a law stating such.
I think you would be well served to avoid any political comments…..you have a lot of people reading this blog…..some not even deplorable. Avoid one-sided thinking
If you think this is “political comment” because it mentions voting, you missed the point entirely.
The point was that scientology lies when they don’t need to. And that they DO promise politicians they have a bloc of votes they can influence. That is what should offend you.
Can you explain your last sentence about my one-sided thinking? I can only assume you think I slighted Trump because scientologists voted for him? Is that really what you took away from this post?
Mike, I felt that you wrote this without placing a slant on one candidate or party but purely demonstrated again how the cult barely stay within the boundaries of legality to accomplish their goals. They do this with every aspect of SCN and especially in their Fair Game tactics.
Not at all…I’ve read and enjoyed all your blogs and shows….you are doing a wonderful job. I just hate to see that door opened and have to read all the frivolous comments about politics…from both sides. I’m sorry, i meant anyone’s one-sided thinking. I’ve guess I’m so tired of all the back and forth…..this was one place I could read and just enjoy being informed…..a nice respite. So sorry if I offended anyone
It’s alright. Thanks for explaining. I feel the same way about the politics. I will try to avoid any partisan comments on this. I did not think it would engender any…
I agree, it’s not political. It’s about the constant lying. The point was Karin Pouw couldn’t tell the truth if she HAD to. She thinks she is telling “acceptable truths.”
Well, the world is now so wise to their BS. I was just checking out a new movie on Netflix, “Take the 10.”
Guy1: “Since when did you start smoking?”
Guy2: “I had to change things up. It was either smoking or Scientology and I can’t wear maritime style uniforms. They make my face look fat.”
No one is afraid of them anymore.
BTW, when I moved to Clearwater in 2000, OSA made it clear in briefings not to vote for Al Gore because his wife had a masters degree in Pyschology.
Exactly! The cherch can’t even demonstrate the courage of its convictions on such a minor matter, but feels the need to lie, almost as if it has become a reflexive response to everything.
By God, if your religion’s foundational tenet of belief is that it’s all the fault of a 75 million year old, evil, intergalactic ruler named Xenu’s, then just be up front about it! Similarly, if you truly believe that all of the negative aspects of your mind, behavior and personality are due to being possessed by hoards of very sticky space alien spirits that won’t give you a moment’s rest until they’re scientologically exorcised, then just be straight with your parishioners and the rest of the world about that bizarre sci-fi belief!
As I read your blog, I felt it was not only about the lying, but the continued brainwashing and manipulation of its members on all matters, including politics. Keep up the good work.
Mike: As someone who has posted on the LAT article (and found the attempted connection wholly unpersuasive), I do applaud your comments today. Frankly, I was disappointed by the Bunker comments yesterday (no disrespect meant to that blog) that seemed to buy the LAT scenario hook, line and sinker. I am glad you took a different approach and stuck to a much more important issue.Props!
Wow. Seriously? Mike’s article is not the least bit political. He was pointing out the manipulation and dishonesty of Scientology, not talking politics. Further, given that Mike Rinder spent over 40 years of his life dedicated, defending and loyal to Scientology but was still able to extricate himself, face the truth, turn away from everything he had known. Lost his children and family in the process but still stepped up, took responsibility, apologized and is now fighting with all he has to right the wrong that is Scientology- I would say that he is probably the LEAST guilty of “one sided thinking” on any subject! Sheesh.
This paragraph written by Mike in this article really sums it up, “Scientology is SO defensive and scared of its own shadow it lies even when it doesn’t need to. If they simply had the conviction of their beliefs they would be seen as a bit strange perhaps but would not be constantly exposed as liars. They’re anti-gay but won’t admit it. They practice disconnection but won’t admit it. They don’t believe in being a Christian and a scientologist but won’t admit it. Etc etc etc for some reason they think this is “good PR.”
The split between Tom and Katie was a huge slap in the face to the Church. But was it handled the same way if it wasn’t a celebrity divorce. Absolutely not! Unless I missed it, the Church should had put out a Declare order on Katie for blowing Scn and divorcing Tom in court and not in the Church. Tom without question must disconnect from both ex wife and daughter since the daughter is connected to an SP. And if I’m not mistaken he has disconnected and has been stated by media he hasn’t seen Suri in over 3 years. If Tom or the Church were confronted on this topic they would lie and say Tom is not disconnected from Suri and keep “good PR” again showing no conviction of their beliefs. Very spot on Mike!
Sea Org members vote? (I didn’t know they had either the time or the interest)
Wouldn’t that take away from clearing the planet?
347 votes for one candidate vs. 344 for the other? That’s a whopping three vote difference? Sure doesn’t seem like much of a story one way or the other.
When you see that in every other precinct in the area voted 75% in favor of Hillary Clinton, that is what makes it a story. Along with how the church responded.
Haha… very good spin
We support Mike Rinder.
Yes we do!
I’d vote for Rinder if was eligible.
Me too!
Scientology is defined as the study of knowledge.
Knowledge is good when it is based in truth or it is false knowledge.
Mike is exposing the false knowledge being promoted by the church because of fear of the truth concerning their policy and resulting actions.
Well done, Mike!
Mike, do you think Karen Pouw is even making those comments, or do you think it is Davey writing the responses and writing her name as the person when in reality it is him?
IN this case, it’s someone in OSA. COB is otherwise occupied touring hobbit country…
I guess the most remarkable point you make Mike is that they lie when they don’t have to…
It is a strangely odd lie-factory the Cof$, but then again, when you don’t have anything workable to sell it begins to make sense why they say what they say. It’s always a bit difficult to wrap your head around such criminality, especially when you’re not a victim of it.
As the saying goes, it’s in their DNA to lie.
Hubbard lied when he didn’t have to. In the interviews with people who knew him in his early years, they all report that he told so many incredible stories about himself and his adventures that they knew not to believe it all – and that was with people who were his friends or who were close to him, and his obvious lying eroded trust in the relationship. Later, he didn’t have to lie about his life, he could have said that he went to Asia and flew gliders and sailed (just the simple truth of those adventures), but struggled like many people until he discovered Dianetics, instead of making himself out to be a superman. Also, he seems not to have really started piling on the worst fabrications about his biography until the 1950s, which leaves evidence in his own words (like early lectures) about things such as his failing courses at college, and in the big picture of the historical record he ends up painted as a documented liar.
Scientology lied when they didn’t have to when the Apollo pulled in to ports in the Mediterranean and Caribbean using the unlikely “shore story” that they were a management training company, and so ultimately people made the worst assumptions about the obviously suspicious ship full of people and they ended up getting attacked as being the dreaded CIA (which had a bad reputation for meddling in small countries’ governments). Port and local law enforcement authorities were probably never fooled anyway, having access to channels of information to determine what a strange ship really was. And so it’s gone ever since.
And, as this history demonstrates, they seem to lack the self-reflection to realize how their lying actually hurts them. When things go wrong the organization will accuse lower level staff and public members of “pulling it in” and make them take responsibility and blame for things that were even truly accidental, but following the example that Hubbard set (and typical of a narcissistic personality) responsibility and blame never go the other way and the leadership never concedes any error. This of course leads to an inability to self-correct that will ultimately be part of their undoing.
Lying comes as easily to cult members, as breathing comes to the rest of us.
In a way it’s good news. Should sway any celebs they may be trying to bring in. I would like to call Meryl Streep as a friend rather than $ci.
I agree, since Holiywood is majority Dems. Celebs may not like this.
Interesting since the Trump Administration, and Scientology are both living ‘Orwell’s, 1984.’
Totally agree they are sickos sorry Mike not you 🙂
The whole time I was in PAC, from 1979 to 2004, as a Sea Org member, I never heard anything about any, even soft peddling for a particular candidate. There were these briefings, sometimes every evening before we were let to go sleep that would sometimes go on and on and on and I would try but could not follow it all, so there could have been something that slipped by me.
We were never encouraged to vote, either. Not once. Every minute was to be on post, and nothing else. Going to vote probably would have meant being off post for an hour or so. That’s pretty out ethics! So, if votes are got from the PAC base area, not much of those are from the SO; they’re from the public.
So, if there are briefings where there’s patter like you mentioned, I am guessing it is from the dozens of little “confidential”, “mandatory” briefings that are continually being pushed for the public that are set ups to scrounge more money from them. The personnel associated with these things generally find out about something that they can jerry rig a reg cycle to. Like with the Hillary patter you mentioned, that would be precede a push for a status upgrade in the IAS.
But I don’t think many Scientologists vote at all. They have been completely indoctrinated into the idea that all the world’s governments and justice systems are corrupt and full of degraded beings and only the Scientologists can handle it (with their “superior tech” in which some spend big parts of the day writing blameful reports on each other and hold late night committee of evidences busting people from their posts and putting them into lower conditions and sending off people to the RPF for years.)
Perhaps that’s changed, but I would not think towards the better.
” Going to vote probably would have meant being off post for an hour or so. That’s pretty out ethics! ”
Problem solved Dan. Some staff member came up with the bright idea to offer up Big Blue as the voting headquarters for the precinct. Dave takes credit because it gets them good ‘PR’, cuts down the travel time for members of the Cult to vote and once again, shows the absolute brilliance of the mismanagement style of Dear Leader.
Move the voting station to another location and watch the vote change back to the ratios found elsewhere in the city. And if the Cult were snubbed,(happening rather frequently these days) watch for a briefing to explain the ‘out ethics’ involved with bothering to vote at all in our woggy society.
Yo Dave,
Have you received Your report on how Trish Duggan’s visit with the President went. Let me take a shot here ……I would guess that You have been Trumped good buddy! Now comes the thumping! Enjoy.
Oh yes Dave, A teaser for you. What do you and Caterpiller Inc.have in common?
Yes, you do both crawl with your belly close to the ground.
Yes, you do both wear the color of yellow. (yours is the ‘Back to the Future’ variety.)
Yes, your products are very heavy.
Yes, you both have had declining international sales for at least 49 consecutive months. Yours is likely much longer …by 47x or something!
Word has it that Kellyanne actually punched out some guy starting a fight at one of the Inaugural Balls; possibly Grant Cardone?
Curious about why they would register to vote if they’re discouraged from voting?
We weren’t fully discouraged. And I can’t speak for all of the SO in PAC, only for ASHO. If someone wanted to go vote, they could, and no one would probably have given that person a real hard time – other than “don’t let it be an excuse for your stats being down”.
But, everyone would have snickered to each other “why???” The idea was to keep on post and we’d be running the government some day.
At the int base part of helping us get to vote was so we could vote for local politicians who did or promised something or other for us. Like trying to get the speed limit of the highway lowered. Things that would help our location be more secret and less bothered by lookie-loos, and things that would “help” local officials look the other way regarding all the accusations.
Dan Locke, it is possible that things changed since you left the SO. One of the commenters here said that at Flag they were coached by IAS on how to vote and then SO busses would take them to vote. And if the place is empty like we have intel it is, there is no public to service anyway, so why not vote as a way to have sway over things?
N.B. the prohibition on clergy preaching politics ONLY applies to the congregation (or to the public in general) not their fellows within the religious order.
Just sayin’. She is lying about something that she doesn’t need to lie about. Which is funny in itself.
Such a dangerous cult. Will they come after me for commenting? I wait for the day that karma finds it’s way to DM.
No. Not that they wouldn’t like too, but there are too many folks commenting for them to be able to do so. It isn’t like Bad old days.
I think it already has Cindy. Notice His absence from making ANY appearances to anyone anywhere to respond to the claims of the apostates. He even has SuMP at His disposal …………. and it remains silent.
Yo Dave,
We await your appearance to set all things right good buddy! Speak up Dave, we all know and You know that You are the only one left in this sector of the universe who can do it. Or, are you waiting for El Con to return and save the day. Where have I heard that before?
That’s right, SuMP!!! Forgot about that since it’s never been used. The Cof$ has the most dramatic and wide sweeping dissemination tool of all time in its arsenal and it sits idle gathering dust, allowing itself to be electronically outdated by the minute.
Wonder what part of ‘sham,’ Scientologists are having trouble with this week? Same as last week I suppose.
“Wonder what part of ‘sham,’ Scientologists are having trouble with this week?”
LOL! Dave should assemble the masses for a “We Stand Short” singalong at SuMP. Tell the world how things really are!
Yo Dave,
Go gettem big boy ……………….. and don’t forget your cod piece! Ypou will find it in your shoe today.
(Music playing). Weeeee stand short. We’re on our knees, we aim to please. Weeeeeee stand short. We can’t stand up, or he’ll get rough. Hey laddly la, hey laddly we stand short….
scientology is all about Dave and his real estate portfolio of mortuaries and museums.
Cindy, do you want to go by “Cindy 2” and I can go by “Cindy 1” so that we differentiate who is talking?
Multiple Cindy’s? – that’s cool!
Politicians should ponder the meaning of a “captive audience” a little more.
Excellent point…..
Well said.
Some “endorsements” are not worth the votes you get.