December 17, 2015

The Un-Forgiven


There was a discussion on an internet forum, that started with a poster talking about Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder’s accountability for what they did/oversaw being done to children.

This happened not long after my post talking about the fact that Mike Rinder knew that the main dirty ops guy that scientology’s Office of Special Affairs used – Dave Lebow – had, of all places in the world, established himself and his business right in my backyard, Spokane, Washington. Spokane is literally a ‘stones throw away’ from me, I’m looking at the Spokane Valley from my house right now.

When we left the Church in 1999 and informed everyone about the six-month check of OT’s not being per Hubbard scripture – which was one of the key things that turned Leah Remini when she found out about it, by the way – Lebow was obviously involved in the black ops that began on my children who were never very active at all in scientology and had never done a thing to them.

Which means Mike Rinder knew.

This video of Mike Rinder talking to Dave Lebow (who is supposedly now hired to harass and investigate Rinder) is qued to where Mike confirms that Lebow worked for him – meaning when Rinder was in charge of OSA and it’s dirty trick harassment operations.


Lebow – Cuz I’ve committed no criminal acts – [unclear] worked for over 15 years…

Rinder – I know and when you worked for me, I made sure you didn’t and now you are off-the-rails buddy.


This, of course, putting Rinder in charge at the time black ops began being run on my family and friends.

What kind of black ops were run on my children? Well, let’s take Rinder’s “nothing illegal” mantra here. My youngest daughter was under 18 when Lebow/Rinder (together with local handler Keith Fozzard) hired a man to approach her at an exercise place to be her boyfriend.

Statutory Rape still has teeth in many states – and an example of “I made sure (you did nothing illegal)” would be instructing the male hooker basically, to not have intercourse with my daughter until she turned 18 – but yet anything else mind-fuck wise was ok..

See how their logic works?

After she turned 18, they then proceeded to try and turn her into a hooker/porn actress.

Now I ask you, should Rinder or Lebow be forgiven for this?


no shaking head


Because they did it, and they knew what they were doing. Think you we should try and re-write history and say they didn’t?

  • I was in a cult…So what?
  • I didn’t know what I was doing…Oh yes you did.
  • I believed you deserved it(because I was in a cult)



“I” deserved it – so if “I” deserved it why were they targeting my children?

woman question mark

Try explaining that to a judge.

judge with questioning look - disbelief
Parody – “Let me get this straight – because of what Mike and Virginia “did” to you, you tried to turn their children into strippers, prostitutes, and gamblers – and this was supposed to do what, exactly?”


CIA agent.

Not much you can say.

How many mothers out there think to themselves – gee, I hope my daughter grows up to be a prostitute – ? Pretty much none.

So, obviously part of the point is that this was supposed to devastate the parents (us) in some way, or in scientology parlance, “cave them in” so that they were rendered ineffective and stop what they were doing.

But another, and probably more important point, is that it would (or could) be used to then point to the parents and say – they’re children are (prostitutes etc.) so they are….you get the idea. To use it as part of a propaganda campaign to try and turn public opinion away from the person.

Of course, that means real public opinion was already with the person or they wouldn’t even bother. And it still is.

morticia - wink.

That’s the problem, the thing they can never figure out. Why do we have such pull – it’s such a mystery to them.

So, to this day there are still efforts to try and control that perception – that all important “image”. Maybe one of these days they’ll figure out that it’s all that ‘image’ concern that is their problem, but on that day they’ll have become one of us so it’d be a moot point anyway.

Funny how that works.


Forgiveness – as it has come to mean – has no part in responsibility, nor in justice. The very action of trying to act like you weren’t “you” (when you did the thing supposedly needing forgiveness) proves that you haven’t changed the very reason why you did the thing in the first place.

Whatever went wrong (that you allowed) then, is still going on now. The most simple expression of which is – “I” didn’t do that, it wasn’t really me.

Oh, yes it was.

Woman-Pointing-Her-Finger-now now.

In that way, to forgive someone is to help them continue to lie to themselves about whatever it was. It’s like people don’t want to know just how deep and varied their true self really is – capable of a huge range of actions, emotions, ideas, etc., as if that’s a bad thing. It isn’t, but lieing about it is.

Why would we want more of that? It was that, that was the problem in the first place.

Case in point, Mike Rinder. I’m sure he was indeed the victim of a lot of bad circumstances, and that he does want to get on the right side of things.

But, if that was really true, it conflicts with the simple burning question –

burning question

Why won’t he talk about that he did (or allowed) these things to our children?

Not even privately.

  • Is he worried about public image?

Then he’s still the same way he was in the Church of scientology.

  • Is he worried about accountability?

We specifically told him we have no wish to drag him into court over it.

The facts of the matter are that if he (or Mark Rathbun) were to truly expose all that he knew of this, it would be devastating to scientology and it’s handlers – and only scientology and it’s handlers.

A true whistle-blowing like that takes courage, and that courage is pretty universally recognized when it’s the real thing.

So, why doesn’t he becomes more of a testament to that he has not changed his ways and doesn’t want to change his ways in some pretty important areas – than it is to any supposed ‘fear’ about what will happen to him if he does.

It just doesn’t line up with what his supposed intentions are now towards scientology, and people are starting to see that a little too well for comfort, apparently, and are starting to ask questions – hence this discussion forum little show.


How can one suspect a man who talks peace of having the opposite intent — without incurring the wrath of public opinion?

And if the same man starts a war, he can always say that the others forced it on him, that events proved stronger than his intentions.

Propaganda: the Formation of Men’s Attitudes by Jacques Ellul. You can read it here.


The wrath of ‘public opinion’ is alive and artificially well at that forum.

Karen De La Carriere couldn’t seem to stop pushing the ‘tin foil’ button for any posting that even vaguely went into the direction that I just described.

Tin Foil button (2).

An example from page 3 of “Are Rinder and Rathbun still guilty?” –



What is done with the question raised?


First of all, the propagandist must insist on the purity of his own intentions and, at the same time, hurl accusations at his enemy.

But the accusation is never made haphazardly or groundlessly.

The propagandist will not accuse the enemy of just any misdeed; he will accuse him of the very intention that he himself has and of trying to commit the very crime that he himself is about to commit.

He who wants to provoke a war not only proclaims his own peaceful intentions but also accuses the other party of provocation.

He who uses concentration camps accuses his neighbor of doing so.

He who intends to establish a dictatorship always insists that his adversaries are bent on dictatorship.

The accusation aimed at the other’s intention clearly reveals the intention of the accuser.

But the public cannot see this because the revelation is interwoven with facts.

Propaganda: the Formation of Men’s Attitudes by Jacques Ellul. You can read it here.  – Important note – its facts the way they do it – which is not how we (or normal people) do it.


Karen De La Carriere  – page one, post #5 – “For God’s sake let go of the hate and animosity.”



How about the hate and animosity Karen has for anyone challenging their (her) Party Line of “we’re all better now”?

That’s ok, is it?


Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree that hate and animosity are always ‘bad things’ – they have their place. But, you better be right about what and where you put it on because it’s going to backfire on you otherwise.

Like that just did.


The mechanism used here is to slip from the facts, which would demand factual judgment, to moral terrain and to ethical judgment.

Propaganda: the Formation of Men’s Attitudes by Jacques Ellul. You can read it here.


That’s exactly what she just did and she wasn’t the only one – check out Just Sheila’s ridiculous and crowd-directing reactions as well.


Modern man deeply craves friendship, confidence, close personal relationships. But he is plunged into a world of competition, hostility, and anonymity. He needs to meet someone whom he can trust completely, for whom he can feel pure friendship, and to whom he can mean something in return.

Propaganda: the Formation of Men’s Attitudes by Jacques Ellul. You can read it here.


Karen – page 4: (emphasis mine)


There are those post on these boards whose very posts unify and bring us together.

Then there are those that make posts that divide the board even polarize it.

Not only that they seek to make us hate others who are now major critics and high value targets of the church.

While I have not always been successful, I want my purpose known. I stand for unifying the critics and when all is said and done I do want to bring us together.

We are exposing a multi billion dollar cult and unifying is the winning formula. Divisiveness and fighting within is a loser. I will not hang on to past accusations and wars.

There was a time, 3-4 years ago when Mike Laws and I were accused of plotting to “take over the board of ESMB ” as “Indy OSA.” LOLOLOL

How’s that working out ?


Now besides the obvious attempt to look like everyone’s bestest and most loyal true-hearted friend, note the last bit  – “were accused of plotting to take over the board of ESMB“.

Karen not only sat by and said nothing in our defense when our son (working with OSA ops) attacked us with lies repeatedly on that board – all still part of that trying to create a ‘bad’ image of us and she would know that was OSA’s plan all along – she also did nothing about and even helped get us banned from that forum!

And then Arnie Lerma, who among other ‘unapproved of’ things, dared to respond to us in even a vaguely favorable way. He was banned shortly thereafter as well!


So, as to Karen’s rhetorical question of “How’s that working out?” – I’d say that worked out pretty damn well.

For her.

The taking over of that board in the ways that she did, providing money to fund the board, controlling that she should not be attacked through the board owner, (while it’s fine if we’re attacked, you understand) etc. etc. I could say more about that per records I have, but we’ll leave it at that for now.

Looking at that post I just excerpted, I’m going to go completely non-politically correct here and talk about the elephant-in-the-room in regards to Karen.

Scientology - The elephant in the room.

She has never denied that she was a professional mistress at one point, and as such it would be very true that literally her job would be trying to placate and please people, utilizing PR and propaganda to do so, in other words.

If you come across pictures or videos of her with male reporters and investigators, look closely at their reaction to her, it’s quite interesting. They invariably, if caught off-guard in a photo, look like little boys around their mother mixed with a little…something else.

I know there are some that will immediately jump up and down and say Ooh! She’s saying what OSA says she must be OSA! – which would be them employing the very propaganda tactic Ellul just described.

That’s the difference though, with them it’s propaganda, with me it’s not.

The bummer for them is that people actually do know the difference, by and large.


Propaganda can play only on individuals more or less intensely involved in social currents.

Propaganda: the Formation of Men’s Attitudes by Jacques Ellul. You can read it here.


And that’s why the ‘social discussion’ show. They wouldn’t need any of it if they would stop fracking around and trying to avoid telling the whole truth, I wonder how long it will be before they do?

That’s the real point here.

magic point - magic touch.

That’s the real ‘change’ needed – not ‘forgiveness’. Then and only then, can real healing can occur for them, for others – the kind that lasts.


Virg sig script

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


All that Spy Stuff, humor, Let's talk About You, perceptions


, , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: