The Rinder Cult

All one has to do is read the comments section of Rinder’s blog to establish the fact that he has become a cult and that his followers accept his word without question or dissent.

What’s so ironic is that he and his most ardent followers claim Scientologists respond that same way to what Hubbard says. In psychiatry they call this projection which is basically projecting those ideas, actions and emotions that one or a group manifests onto another or others.

For instance the minister or priest  who admonishes others about promiscuity and sexual deviance while secretly themselves being a pedophile. Very germane since much of what Rinder writes on his blog is supported by Tony Ortega. The man who promoted pedophillia through Back Pages when he was the editor and chief of the Village Voice.

Several years ago I noted that Rinder never used any supporting documents in his spurious attacks against the subject of Scientology or Hubbard. All he had to say was that it was so and therefore it was. Anyone who questioned his veracity by asking for documented corroboration was immediately ejected or is subjected to his form of “disconnection” in much the same way the current Church of Scientology responds to anyone who criticizes its current leadership.

Funny he and David Miscavige are so much alike in many ways much like say Stalin versus Hitler who were both totalitarians involved in internecine warfare.

Suggest that Scientology has any value and one is immediately attacked by Mike’s amen corner of Anti-Scientology extremists who have been nurtured on his pablum of half truths and lies.

Take the recent article about the Emeter written by one of his “guest” read ardent disciples.

I already covered the subject in a previous article but the fact is that even if there was a question of its workability in Scientology Counseling it is a relatively harmless device or religious artifact which reminds me of an old joke:

 

A Scientology auditor had just finished auditing a psychiatrist who then nods at the meter after the session and says: “How do you get such good results with such low voltage.”

 

Less than a volt passes through the person being audited compared to the hundreds of volts used in electroshock “therapy”.

Moving on after this we have Rinder in his next article attacking Hubbard for the introduction of his book Fundamentals of Thought first for the fact that he uses CE PHD as a suffix which he says Hubbard gave himself.

He’s already proven wrong right here by the fact that Hubbard did acquire a PHD from Sequoia University. Yes a university that many considered a “paper mill” because it gave degrees in what many “experts” considered Pseudo- Scientific subjects like Chiropracty, holistic and nutritional therapies which are frowned on by the medical establishment but so what?

CE stands for Civil Engineer. A certificate that Hubbard could have acquired as a reserve Naval Officer.

Going further we find another fib in Rinder’s presentation where he says that it was the last book that Hubbard personally wrote on the subject of Scientology. Actually the book like a later book New Slant on Life was a compilation of articles known as the “Translator’s Series” which can be verified by perusing the Scientology Technical Volume two of the original tech volumes.

The fact is that Hubbard himself didn’t personally have to write a book because he was very prolific in writing various Magazine Articles, Bulletins and Journals which the staff of the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International would compile into books of subjects already discussed.

All he had to do was pick and chose those things he had previously written about or discussed in earlier lectures to be published into a book.

In many cases he’d include original material that he’d written specifically for that book such as in the case of the Book of Case Remedies or later in Clear Body, Clear Mind which came out in the eighties published almost three decades after Fundamentals of Thought.

But anyone who actually studied the subject would have already known this revealing Rinder’s utter illiteracy in regard to the actual subject of Scientology.

He goes on with the old eight million canard presenting the false idea that Hubbard meant “members” when it was merely an estimate of people who actually applied some aspect of the Scientology to their lives.

Going on Rinder disputes the fact that the Church kept records known as “Success Stories” numbering in the hundreds of thousands of people who said they benefited from the technology. Yet this can be easily verified by anyone going through their central files. Something of course Rinder would never do probably because it would reveal his own Successes relating to the subject before he became such a carping critic.

Onward he dissembles about the fact that Scientology and Dianetics as far as I know are the only two methods of psychotherapy that have been rigorously tested using psychometric testing beginning with Dianetic Counseling given by auditors at the Hubbard Dianetic Research Center in Elizabeth New Jersey.

This is covered in the original introduction of Science of Survival. Yet Rinder ignores this fact.

Unlike Rinder you can verify anything I have written here by going through the references I have cited.

 

Addendum 

Oh my!

Seems like my lil’ ol post struck a nerve with “free bean” or something like that who’ll probably claim I’m infringing on his first amendment right for not allowing his or her histrionic diatribe in my comments section.

Anyway here it is with my responses:

A paper mill — i.e send them money and get a cert. So no, LRH had no legitimate basis for saying he had a PhD.

I put paper mill in quotations so as to use the word advisedly. However bean here disingenuously leaves out the quotes and uses a straw man defending Rinder’s lie that he gave himself the degree when in fact it was issued by as I said Sequoia University.

 

Could have gotten a CE? Really? My my how you stretch your wits to make LRH right.

 

Really? Obviously frizz bean seems to be stretching what little wits they may have trying to make LRH wrong here. Especially since he, she or it doesn’t present any evidence to counter my argument.

 

How do SS in a CF folder equate to “all sworn to (attested before public officials)”? It doesn’t and all your wishing won’t make it so.

 

Never said they were sworn to by public officials. I merely stated that they exist and that they should be researched by anyone who was interested.

By the way there are many that I know for a fact that have been notarized and have been presented in court.

Maybe bean head should have considered this possibility before blowing this comment out of their keyboard.

 

I see you aren’t touching the claim “trained in nuclear physics at George Washington University” — because it is a complete distortion of fact. One course in the subject which he failed. D’s in Calculus, D in Chemistry. Put on probation for bad grades and dropped out – never to get a degree there or at any other accredited college/university. 

 

Again an argument that bears no relevance to what I wrote and again is one of those logical fallacies known as a straw man.

 

Your use of the word cult to label those that post comments on Mike’s blog is laughable. CO$ is a cult. The fact that a group of people that trash others’ ideas that don’t agree with theirs does not make a cult.

 

Well let’s examine the word cult:

noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist,with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
My my we can see two that definitely can be applied to Mike Rinder and his loyal cult of followers such as:
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
Or the Anti-Scientology cult.
And of course:
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
Like say a group of people that trash others’ ideas that don’t agree with theirs. In other words venerating trash.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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