Mike "I'm All About the Crimes" Rinder

[Emma]

Actually I'm going to answer that more fully.

I do have an agenda, and it is the truth. But I want the whole truth.

There are bubbles that people live in. The ESMB bubble. The Bunker bubble. The Indy bubble. The Aftermath bubble. The celebrity bubble. And then there are the people who don't live in any of the bubbles because they don't fit.

The people who don't live in the bubbles have a different perspective than those who do. They see things differently because they have no allegiances within the bubbles.

There have been quite a few posts lately that wouldn't have been posted if I hadn't burst the ESMB bubble. People saying they haven't commented before or were too afraid to post because their opinions would have just been shouted down. At some point we were not afraid to call a spade a spade. We could say that some parts of Scn were ok and others were bad, or that we thought a particular person was right or wrong, but now we have to follow party lines. We have to follow agendas. We can't speak out of turn. We can't criticise anyone who has status. We are told to believe things that are false. We can't offend anyone. The irony here is that the biggest critics of SJWs (on the Left) have become SJWs within Anti Scientology. The outrage, the offense taken, the microaggressions. It's all so politically correct. I'm not immune to this either but I'm trying to be.

If you live in one of the bubbles you don't get to see what happens between the bubbles. In the space outside the bubbles other thoughts are allowed. It's not always pleasant. It's hard to watch. It's brutal. It is a lot more pleasant to not to have to see it. It would be nicer to pretend that it wasn't going on, but it is. It's always been going on. These "factions" are always present and as each side digs in harder, the more extreme they get, the further from the truth they get. If we keep digging in, and never listen to the other side, the truth which is normally a mix, cannot be known.

So I'm sick of the lies, the agendas, the shore stories, the PR. Everything.

That's my agenda.

 

[Lulu Belle]

Actually I'm going to answer that more fully.

I do have an agenda, and it is the truth. But I want the whole truth.

There are bubbles that people live in. The ESMB bubble. The Bunker bubble. The Indy bubble. The Aftermath bubble. The celebrity bubble. And then there are the people who don't live in any of the bubbles because they don't fit.

The people who don't live in the bubbles have a different perspective than those who do. They see things differently because they have no allegiances within the bubbles.

There have been quite a few posts lately that wouldn't have been posted if I hadn't burst the ESMB bubble. People saying they haven't commented before or were too afraid to post because their opinions would have just been shouted down. At some point we were not afraid to call a spade a spade. We could say that some parts of Scn were ok and others were bad, or that we thought a particular person was right or wrong, but now we have to follow party lines. We have to follow agendas. We can't speak out of turn. We can't criticise anyone who has status. We are told to believe things that are false. We can't offend anyone. The irony here is that the biggest critics of SJWs (on the Left) have become SJWs within Anti Scientology. The outrage, the offense taken, the microaggressions. It's all so politically correct. I'm not immune to this either but I'm trying to be.

If you live in one of the bubbles you don't get to see what happens between the bubbles. In the space outside the bubbles other thoughts are allowed. It's not always pleasant. It's hard to watch. It's brutal. It is a lot more pleasant to not to have to see it. It would be nicer to pretend that it wasn't going on, but it is. It's always been going on. These "factions" are always present and as each side digs in harder, the more extreme they get, the further from the truth they get. If we keep digging in, and never listen to the other side, the truth which is normally a mix, cannot be known.

So I'm sick of the lies, the agendas, the shore stories, the PR. Everything.

That's my agenda.

OK. I wasn't going to say anything else, but I have to ask...


1) How does aligning yourself with Alanzo, the Agenda Poster Child, fit with this viewpoint?

2) What's an "SJW"?

 

[Tanchi]

I really don't care if karen was a prostitute before or not. It really doesn't seem to have impacted her current success much even if they did put this info out to ruin her.

I think there are few people that go to Scientology sites to find out about Karen and Alanzo putting it on his blog isn't going to make the info widespread.

It is likely, to me, that Alanzso schmoozed Emma so he could get back on the board so he could use it to spread the Karen disgrace as far and wide as possible because ESMB was so popular and he likes messing with people anyway.

i think Emma with her adversity with Karen wasn't wholly against rubbing Karen's nose in it because karen is being successful and far be it for anyone who was in Scientology to be successful at exposing the church. Fr whatever reason there seems to be some vengeance going on on her part as wel as Alanzo's "destroy utterly and shudder into silence" campaign.

If this is the way you want ESMB to go out then that's too bad, but really it's been like that off and on through its history. Someone says something and the next thing you have is "how dare you?" and war ensues. This seems to be the #1 thing people dragged from Scientology, KR tech, even though when in Scientology they probably didn't write them when in, it is used now that the onus of ethics isn't a factor.

Alanzo doesn't want to believe that paedophilia is connected to Scientology but wants to believe Karen is trash because she was hot and a story about her being a prostitute is just too tempting when one is so jealous of everyone else as Alanzo is.

Does anyone here really care if Karen did that? Was your life so pure and morally correct that you can shame her publicly? Isn't the shaming more damaging to society than what she did, if she did it?

Crushing people for sexual impropriety is as old as man but are the shammers any better? I don't think so.

I don't care who is a prostitute. I wish Ida been paid for some of my adventures. I would be crazay rich!

 

[Veda]

Ah! The Veda comes out in support of Alanzos position!

The end times are near, miracles abound.

That's been my view for years, and that's stated clearly.

I do not support Alanzo's circus act.

Your mischief will end in two days.

 

[Bill]

Well, I have certainly had my eyes opened these last few weeks. Obviously, I have not been paying attention. Now I find:

• The biggest and most effective critics of the Church of Scientology are all evil.
• Criticism of Scientology is bad.
• Criticism of any and all critics of Scientology has never been done before and now must be done.
• Church of Scientology web sites are good references if one wants to know the truth.
• Critics of Scientology are all "tribal ninnies".

Consider me "woke".

 

[RogerB]

Emma, good post yours above #681 . . .

Would have been good had you actually stuck to what you wrote there instead of doing the Alanzo-like altering or selectively quoting or misrepresenting what, for example, I have posted of late. These Alanzo-like posts by you only served to forward Alanzo's and the cult's attack on Karen.

As you might have observed, my posts on this issue have been on the facts of the matter to correct the crap that has been posted.

Hence I agree the good sentiments you expressed above.

And the ESMB denizens will be watching to see that they are followed.

 

[Emma]

OK. I wasn't going to say anything else, but I have to ask...


1) How does aligning yourself with Alanzo, the Agenda Poster Child, fit with this viewpoint?

2) What's an "SJW"?

I'm not aligning myself with Alanzo. I don't agree with a lot of what he says or thinks. But because I don't disagree with everything, I must be aligning myself. It's just not true. I think he's way off with the "Karen was an intelligence officer" scenario. I also think Roger is way off with "the pictures were photoshopped". So who am I aligned to? Just the facts thanks.

SJW = Social justice warrior. A virtue signalling, politically correct at all costs, easily offended snowflake.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I also think Roger is way off with "the pictures were photoshopped".

You might want to go back and read what Roger actually wrote.

You’re misquoting him here.

 

[Emma]

i think Emma with her adversity with Karen wasn't wholly against rubbing Karen's nose in it because karen is being successful and far be it for anyone who was in Scientology to be successful at exposing the church.

Huh?

What does this even mean? The most successful exposers of Scientology from day 1 have been exes (there are 1 or 2 exceptions).

 

[Dave95694]

Oh yeah, he's really backing Alanzo's mission. Did it look like the door was open even if just a crack?

Alanzo just said marty laid it all out about what happened with Lisa McPherson but somehow Dave is not in jail. So Mike is the only credible one to "spill the beans" ?

Well Rinder is one of the few who IS credible. Even if he isn't fully forthcoming. I don't blame him, but there still is a certain hypocracy in being "not fully forthcoming" while attacking an opponant doing the same.

Not that Rinder is "the bad guy", just flawed as most of us are. He is doing good work in exposing the flaws of the church too.

But Rinder isn't playing defense, nor is the church. Perhaps "Attack, never defend" is a valid course. Both sides seem to have a never negotiate with a terrorists attidute though. So it seems it will be a grinding battle until both positions are worn to nothing. Not my game.

 

[Caroline]

The question I had asked of you "How do we know he's lying?" applied specifically to the line of yours I bolded in my post:

View attachment 15885

My intent was to ask specifically about how do we know he is lying about
"Rinder is saying he IS coming forward, he IS doing something about it"

Are you saying that there is evidence that he lied in the past, so we know he is lying about this as well?


Caroline, I certainly am not trying to isolate you or invalidate you as a person. On the contrary, I posted earlier that I hope both you and Gerry come to the new board.

And I've never made the claim that Rinder "told all" or that he never lied.

I was just challenging you on the point I raised.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

The answer is no. I wasn't saying that Rinder is lying about coming forward. Obviously he is "coming forward." What he does and says when he comes forward is in question. Obviously he IS "doing something about it." I have excellent reasons to question his motives.

I'm also not saying "there is evidence that he lied in the past, so we know he is lying about this as well." There is of course plenty of evidence that he lied in the past. If he has not corrected his past lies, his malignant PR for the corporate Scientologists, then those lies and black PR persist. Just as Hubbard's lies persist. Gerry has written about this issue:

[Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder] have not corrected their lies and black propaganda. Because of black PR’s nature, they remain black propagandists for the Miscavige conspiracy. I have noted this in a number of published communications. Black PR does not end when the black propagandist stops talking or hits “send.” It goes on theoretically forever. What black propagandists like Rathbun and Rinder must do is denounce and correct or remedy their black PR. Then they become repentant black propagandists. Right now, they remain unrepentant black propagandists. They spread years and reams of black PR in service of Hubbard, Miscavige and Scientology, in service of their criminal conspiracy.

Being a black propagandist is comparable to being a murderer. When a murderer stops murdering, he or she remains a murderer. There is no such thing as an ex-murderer. There can be an ex-hitman if he leaves the hitman trade. But he’s still a murderer. He can be a repentant murderer or an unrepentant murderer.

Repentance is fairly straightforward. Wikipedia says:

“This typically includes an admission of guilt, a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong, or in some way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible.”​

Rathbun and Rinder have taken none of the actions indicating or involved in repentance concerning the black propaganda they originated, disseminated and made others disseminate to destroy the reputations, credibility, livingness, “ARC,” or “theta” of their black PR targets, like me. Rathbun and Rinder remain unrepentant black propagandists. And their black PR serves the same malevolent interests they started serving decades ago. It would be beneficial for everyone if they were to become repentant black propagandists.

By not correcting their black PR — while pretending they have made amends and corrected the wrongs they perpetrated — they now attempt to generate an illusion that their lies were not lies and their black PR was not black PR, and their most fair gamed victim deserved it. What I deserved, they communicate, is an illegal, conscienceless, filthy rich, criminal conspiracy depriving me of my rights, and even my person.

If I didn’t deserve their victimization, it would reason — now that they present themselves as truth-tellers, as whistle-blowers, as understanding, compassionate, courageous and capable — they would have said my victimization was undeserved, and they would have acted to undo the undeserved victimization.

Beyond argument, they both know, but will not admit, that what they did and made others do to silence or destroy me was undeserved. It was undeserved by common human social and legal standards, by the Scientologists’ own published public scriptures, and by God.

After leaving the Sea Org, Rathbun and Rinder did not just step away from the black PR they had propagated for their conspiracy, and leave their black PR to continue to work its evil. They have actively originated and disseminated more black propaganda targeting me since claiming, post-Sea Org, to be telling the truth. They have actively continued criminal frame-ups they know are criminal frame-ups. They have continued to apply the same PR tech they learned from Hubbard and applied all their years in the SO. There has been no moral U-Turn.
http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong....our-victim-speaks-up-part-2-february-20-2018/

As you know, you have never corrected the black propaganda you disseminated and made others disseminate, and you have never spoken up to remedy injustices you perpetrated and made others perpetrate. You have made no effort to communicate adult-to-adult with me, but have treated me with contempt, just as you treated me when it was officially your job in Scientology to hate and silence or destroy me. I’ve written about these matters both publicly and to you directly.

It is obvious that your refusal to correct your black PR — now that you are publicly producing “deep regrets,” newfound “compassion,” and the idea you are “doing something about it” — is to generate the illusion and false impression that your black PR for your conspiracy was not black PR at all, but the truth. Generating false impressions in people was one of your key functions for decades inside Scientology, and it has remained your function since you have been claiming to have left.

If black PR is the truth, logic says, it therefore needs no correction – by the compassionate, the honest, the sincere, the just. If black PR is the truth, whatever evil, in anyone’s eyes, was done to your black PR victims, was justified. Consequently, in this psycho-philosophic “reasoning,” the victims seeking truth or justice are “proven,” just by your snubbing their approaches or requests, to be as bad or undeserving as you black PRed them and made others black PR them when you were officially inside the Hubbard-Miscavige sect. Your refusal to address your black propagandizing is more black propaganda, implicit black PR.
http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong....our-victim-speaks-up-part-1-february-18-2018/

Rinder has apparently convinced some people that he's not lying now, or that his lies are okay and/or reasonable defenses, or that his "good works" make up for his refusal to help the Scientologists' undisputed enemies that he fair gamed, including the ones who are still able and willing and are asking him to help. Or the people he apparently convinced he's not lying are lying.

 

[RogerB]

Emma wrote:
I also think Roger is way off with "the pictures were photoshopped". So who am I aligned to? Just the facts thanks.

Type4_PTS wrote:
You might want to go back and read what Roger actually wrote.

You’re misquoting him here.

Yep, 'tis true, and is an example of what I noted in my last post. Emma altering what is actually posted to use it to then push her thing.

I was explicit in citing THE one picture I see is a photoshop job . . . but Emma tried to discredit the fact I had introduced by referring to all the other photos (plural) buried later on the OSA hit piece.

/

 

[Wilbur]

Yep, 'tis true, and is an example of what I noted in my last post. Emma altering what is actually posted to use it to then push her thing.

I was explicit in citing THE one picture I see is a photoshop job . . . but Emma tried to discredit the fact I had introduced by referring to all the other photos (plural) buried later on the OSA hit piece.

/

After, what is it, 12 years providing this board to help the ex-Scientology community, and with only 2 days left of the life of the board, is there any chance that we all stop criticising Emma, and allow the last two days' posts on this board, which will be available for posterity to look at, to be confined to discussion of something useful?

 

[Alanzo]

OK. I wasn't going to say anything else, but I have to ask...

1) How does aligning yourself with Alanzo, the Agenda Poster Child, fit with this viewpoint?

2) What's an "SJW"?

"Aligning yourself"

Again, you see things in allegiances; in loyalties to other people, rather than to the facts, or to the truth - no matter who believes it. This is yet another example of the blind stupidity that is WAY too prevalent now on ESMB.

While getting themselves out of Scientology, I believe any Ex Scientologist should have learned why it's more important to be loyal to the truth, rather than to any person or group.

But the people who got stuck here on ESMB never did learn that lesson, and they drove off anyone who did learn it. Being stuck, these last dregs of the ESMB Dead-Enders sought to get others just as stuck as they were. That was never the purpose of ESMB. And that's why I agree with Emma that ESMB has run its course, and should be closed.

ESMB has now become a place to get stuck, rather than a place that can be used to evolve and to grow after Scientology.

That's the main reason I think it is highly constructive that Emma is archiving ESMB, preserving it on the Internet forever, while also making sure that no one else can ever get stuck here again.

​

 

[Type4_PTS]

After, what is it, 12 years providing this board to help the ex-Scientology community, and with only 2 days left of the life of the board, is there any chance that we all stop criticising Emma, and allow the last two days' posts on this board, which will be available for posterity to look at, to be confined to discussion of something useful?

I an truly grateful to @Emma for creating this board and maintaining it over the years, and will be posting something about what it's meant to me personally (in the "time to say goodbye thread")

I wish the last few days here were not like this. Because Emma has helped thousands of people here, and just by keeping the board in archive mode, will help thousands more in the future. And I would prefer that the focus were on that.

That said, Emma is the one who wanted completely free speech in the final days, to let it all hang out. She is speaking freely what's on her mind and I doubt she expects others to refrain from doing the same. If I see things written on the board I feel strongly about, and don't like, I'm going to speak out about them, and I'm seeing much that I don't like in the past month and a half.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Well @Alanzo, I suppose there is some good news ... you won't be getting 'stuck' anywhere apart from on your own blog.

Seriously, I have never read so much rubbish as I have since all this started around 7 weeks ago ... people are people wherever you go, we don't have to agree all the time and we aren't all tribal ninnies. Each person is being the person he or she chooses to be and will evolve (or not) at their own rate ... all of this earnest 'correcting, lecturing, hassling and teaching people how they should be thinking' has achieved nothing except to destroy the last few weeks on what has been an amazing board for 12 or so years.

It reminds me of the cult, I'm surprised you didn't issue checksheets.

 

[Caroline]

Just to add to what I wrote above:

Some years ago there was what I believed to be very unfair criticism leveled at Gerry here on ESMB. And I hit back pretty hard at the ones doing that despite the ones doing it were popular members of ESMB.

I don't know if you read that thread back at the time and/or remember it. I'll PM you the link if I can find it again.

Despite accusations to the contrary from some, I'm not part of a tribe that engages in group think.

Thank you, Type4_PTS. I also very much appreciate what Emma said about her agenda, ^, and her willingness to permit this open discussion at this time.

There were a number of attacks on Gerry, principally from the popular members of ESMB you refer to, who were behaving as "tribal" leaders. It came across as a vicious and agenda-driven pile-on, like when a hornet's nest gets stirred up. For some reason I dislike that word, "tribe," but I guess it's accurate.

Anyway, much of the offensive content was re-routed to a Members Only area called "Grudge Match." Gerry strongly disagreed that what was going on was a "grudge match" by any definition. He decided to spend his time and energy elsewhere. I really felt it was a shame, because he has so much to offer.

Gerry is undeniably the Scientology conspirators' longest standing opponent. He has an exceptional record of bravery and personal integrity, and deserves better than the ESMB reception he received in the past.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Thank you, Type4_PTS. I also very much appreciate what Emma said about her agenda, ^, and her willingness to permit this open discussion at this time.

There were a number of attacks on Gerry, principally from the popular members of ESMB you refer to, who were behaving as "tribal" leaders. It came across as a vicious and agenda-driven pile-on, like when a hornet's nest gets stirred up. For some reason I dislike that word, "tribe," but I guess it's accurate.

Anyway, much of the offensive content was re-routed to a Members Only area called "Grudge Match." Gerry strongly disagreed that what was going on was a "grudge match" by any definition. He decided to spend his time and energy elsewhere. I really felt it was a shame, because he has so much to offer.

Gerry is undeniably the Scientology conspirators' longest standing opponent. He has an exceptional record of bravery and personal integrity, and deserves better than the ESMB reception he received in the past.

I never thought of them as "tribal leaders", but yes, I did see it as vicious and agenda-driven. It was probably wise of him to stay out of the hornets nest. And yes, he deserved much better than the reception he received in the past on ESMB.

But others of us here are very aware of the importance of all he's done in exposing the truth about Hubbard and Scientology and are immensely grateful.

 

[freethinker]

Huh?

What does this even mean? The most successful exposers of Scientology from day 1 have been exes (there are 1 or 2 exceptions).

They're not exes?. They are not exposing the COS? What do you mean?

 

[Veda]

Just to add to what I wrote above:

Some years ago there was what I believed to be very unfair criticism leveled at Gerry here on ESMB. And I hit back pretty hard at the ones doing that despite the ones doing it were popular members of ESMB.

I don't know if you read that thread back at the time and/or remember it. I'll PM you the link if I can find it again.

Despite accusations to the contrary from some, I'm not part of a tribe that engages in group think.

Can you identify the participants? and give a date? Dates are important.

I can remember being "dog piled," but that was the exception to the rule.

How about linking to the thread?

Otherwise it just feeds Alanzo's narrative.