The Truth Hurts

@ExposeNetwork’s Scientology fueled paranoid madness continues in a recent series of tweets that leave us shaking our heads.

Cut a deal? Seriously?

Coming from someone with no credibility whatsoever defending a cult with a proven track record of deceit, the hypocrisy of calling out an award winning journalist is laughable.

As for the asinine claim that Ben Schneiders “cut a deal” with either Leah Remini or Mike Rinder, this is just more Scientology stupidity.

A deal for what?

Schneiders has reported on the growing concern by members of Australian government over the how, where and why of Scientology’s millions in relation to their dwindling membership. In addition is the question as to what, exactly, is the cult’s “charitable” contribution to justify their exemption.

Unlike Scientology sycophants who write for Stand League, Ben Schneiders has responsibly collected and sourced facts. There are no tricks.

It really is quite simple.

According to Australian Law, in order to maintain charitable exempt status, Scientology must account for themselves and their massive income. Given the influx of millions with no corresponding growth of membership, questions have naturally arisen.

That @ExposeNetwork finds this process, built in to the Australian system and applicable to all who have charitable exemption, the result of some dark and insidious personal vendetta directed by Remini and/or Rinder (or the mysterious and shadowy “Other”, unnamed Big Pharma maestro handing out checks to all and sundry) shows exactly the rampant Hubbard paranoia infecting it’s adherents.

Scientology has never been warmly welcomed in Australia. Certainly it has it’s own detractors right there Down Under. Why would Schneiders have to look to the U.S. for someone to strike a deal with?

Ryan Prescott? Is that you?

What discredited stories has Ben Schneiders written of? The only ones attempting to cast doubt on the facts is Scientology, itself.

Schneiders’ articles are clear. He doesn’t dissemble or equivocate. As for the claim he is writing about something he knows nothing of, beginning with his April 3, 2021 article any reference to Scientology appears carefully researched and correct. @ExposeNetwork makes these vague, spurious, statements but falls far short of providing any foundation for them.

Accusations that someone is being paid to attack Scientology as a way of explaining away the uncomfortable truths has long been a go-to cult tool. Adopted as a favorite line by Lyin’ Ryan Prescott in his multiple insipid scribblings, The Check is as illusory as OT super powers.

As illusory as Scientology’s protection of Freedom of Speech.


Exactly how Schneiders is being kept “on a rope” is unknown. @ExposeNetwork never gets around to exposing Schneiders’ constraints. One can only assume the details are as top secret as the names of the Big Pharma syndicate passing out all those checks.

@ExposeNetwork cannot seem to decide whether Schneiders has cut a deal with Remini and Rinder or is being controlled and “on a rope”. Either Ben is working with them or he’s caught in their grasp.

Consistency is not a Scientological strong suit.

Frankly, these baseless Dead Agent attacks against Ben Schneiders goes a long way to answer another one of their tweets; “Is Scientology hostile to the press?”

Ben Schneiders finds himself in the bullseye of Hubbard Policy in action and it isn’t due to a lack of credibility.

Ben Schneiders is being handled, but not well…

Dead Agenting’s whole purpose is to mislead a journalists readers into disbelief. If Schneiders were not touching a nerve Scientology would not be squealing so loudly in pain.

Ben Schneiders is very credible, his recent articles addressing Scientology are obviously threatening by their veracity and this is the best possible proof.

7 thoughts on “The Truth Hurts

  1. Even though not attributed, I strongly suspect from their tone that the texts reproduced in these tweets are Hubbard quotes. Needless to say, Hubbard had an opinion on everything; usually one that would resemble that uncle that no one wants to invite to family gatherings because after a couple of drinks he becomes the barstool expert on anything he decides to hold forth on. A guy whose ignorance tempers neither his volume nor his condescension. An irritating bore and embarrassment for the whole family.

    Unfortunately, as usual, Hubbard’s/Prescott’s opinion is not very well thought out and lacks coherence.

    Namely, “attacking scientology always gets press because scn interests a great many people.” This is like saying “attacking football gets great press,” “attacking family BBQs gets great press” or “attacking getting laid gets great press.” Huh?

    Generally, people do NOT like to see what they love getting attacked. Just the opposite! A press that attacks people’s interests, pastimes and allegiances will only breed resentment and be out of business in a heartbeat! Even more so in our “cancel culture” where firestorms resulting from even trivial transgressions–usually public statements and reporting–can be sudden, fierce and destructive. So if a substantial group cares about scn, they’re staying awfully quiet about it.

    Consequently, “attacking scn always gets press” suggests just the opposite of what the quip tries to insinuate. It makes it clear that there are sufficient people who wish to be informed about the many negatives of this cult. In fact, enough so that it “ALWAYS” gets press by the cultie’s own admission!

    Never one to remain logically consistent for very long, next the argument is flipped on its head: Whereas before the unsubstantiated assertion was “people love scn, therefore the attacks” now it’s trying to sell the exact opposite: the “church” receives “bad pr”, therefore “thousands of people stream through the doors to find out what the noise is about.” The truth is a lot simpler: The insidiousness and corruption of the “church” has been reported consistently since its founding, but much more assertively in the last three decades or so. Even the “church” has stopped making specific claims about its membership numbers. However, by all independent accounts they have been plummeting precariously for the last 30 years as well.

    Were it not so, why would the cult attack its critics as viciously as it does (and as it should, given that’s exactly what Hubbard ordered)? Why try to squash news of all the “church” scandals and atrocities committed in the name of Xenu and rapacious greed? Why not just enjoy all the negative press and take all the fools who arrive as a result of the negative buzz for every dime they have?


    1. As I have become more informed about Scientology I have discovered that one certainty is that Scientology is consistent in its inconsistency. For every statement there will be, somewhere, an equal and opposite statement.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Scientology policy dictates that its sycophants never defend the religion, the actions of its organizations, or the veracity of its claims about the efficacy of it’s so-called technology. Its policy dictates a standard, predictable organizational behavior: option 1 is to simply ignore questions and crticisms, while option 2 is to attack those who question, challenge, and/or criticize the church and its policies and behaviors. Option 2 includes those yawn-inducing claims about the attackers being a part of some nebulous cabal that simply wants to stop the MILLIONS of humans reaching for scientological spiritual salvation because they are ess-pees, maniacally devoted to destroying this ne plus ultra of human betterment activity!
    All they can do, with minimal creativity and inventiveness, is to smear and harass those who publicly question their policies and “technology” and criticize their abuses and crimes.
    Individually and organizationally, scientologists are incapable of self-reflection; they can’t honestly and transparently apply their own principle of “pan-determinism”…And, yes, they don’t even perceive the irony of that…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Individually and organizationally, scientologists are incapable of self-reflection; they can’t honestly and transparently apply their own principle of “pan-determinism”…And, yes, they don’t even perceive the irony of that…”
      Which by itself proves that the oh so vaunted Hubbard tech is a farce and dismal failure.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, it’s a farce and a dismal failure…for everyone except Captain McSavage, who has profited from the fraud for decades, and it continues to feed his seemingly insatiable appetite for sadism, gaslighting, money, real estate, hair plugs, special reserve bourbon, and general criminal phuckery…


  3. Mark sez: “Yes, it’s [the tech’s] a farce and a dismal failure…for everyone except Captain McSavage, who has profited from the fraud for decades…”

    This doesn’t get talked about often enough but by all accounts Dave’s “bridge” progress, or even attempts at it, appears to be a thing of the way distant past, when he lacked the power to set his own priorities.

    The cult coerces every one of their marks to relentlessly fret about their “eternity”, and to expect phenomenal gains in personal ability every time they write another big check. However, the practice of what is supposed to be the cult’s raison d’etre is no priority to either the capo or the organization he commands.

    As they say: A fish stinks from the head on down…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Does anyone know how far up the bridge COB actually got? Seems hypocritical that he is the leader of a cult whose whole point is higher and higher levels yet he hasn’t gone Clear or done the courses himself.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s