Why I Support Marty by Mark Bunker

Whatever Mark Bunker’s views, and whatever I may think of them, Mark Bunker is a decent, honest guy.  I thought so when I saw him in Clearwater in 2000 when he was the video guy for the Lisa McPherson trust.  I thought so when I saw his famous video beseeching Anyonymous to tone it down a few years back (garnering him the handle Wise Beard Man – or Wisebeardman).  I thought so when he volunteered to convert my original trashy one page webpage into a WordPress blog format.  And I think so today.  Bunker has kind of taken on the role of Little Switzerland, or Big Switzerland depending on your point of view, in the ecclectic community of ex-Radical Corporate Scientologists and never-Scientologists protesting corrupt cultic practices carried out in the name of Scientology.

Guest Editorial

 by Mark Bunker, aka Wisebeardman

It may be surprising to some to see comments from me on Marty’s
blog but I feel kind of at home here as a visitor.  I don’t agree
with everything Marty writes but I enjoy reading what he has to say
and I’ve learned a lot from following his posts.  I’m also indebted
to him for exposing a lot of newsworthy stories since this blog
launched.  It’s seems like virtually every day there’s some tidbit
that rumbles the ground at the Int Base.  Enough tremors keep
happening and he might actually shatter the locks on the doors and
free people like Heber Jentzsch from captivity.

I’ve been speaking out about Scientology’s deceptive and abusive
side since 1999.  In 2000 and 2001, I moved to Clearwater, Florida
to work with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks at the Lisa McPherson
Trust.  We may not have gone about it the best way possible (okay,
we didn’t) but we were there because we wanted to draw attention to
abusive practices like disconnection that are still hurting members
of Scientology today.  Even then, we were open to working with
people like Greg and Debra Barnes who still believed in Hubbard and
the tech but wanted to get their message out that management was
squirreling the tech, forcing six-month sec checks on people doing
OT VII and declaring them Suppressive for daring to quote Hubbard’s
policy to back up their charges.

http://www.xenutv.com/blog/?cat=176

I bumped into Marty once during that time and encountered Mike
Rinder on several occasions, notably during the first picket the
LMT did after opening our doors.  Bob’s message that night was
“Reform Scientology now. Dump David Miscavige.”  Years later, Marty
would tell me that another message that stuck with him from that
time was “It’s Safe to Look, It’s Safe to Talk.”

Bob Minton faced a global assault from Scientology until he
couldn’t take it any more and caved.  Bob made mistakes, as we all
do, and Scientology exploited those mistakes.  I witnessed the
assault and the heavy toll it took on him.  He was a good and
decent man and he was my hero.  I recently sat down and interviewed
Mike Rinder who oversaw the campaign against Bob.  Here’s a very
brief clip from that interview:

There are many critics of Scientology who can’t forgive Mike and
Marty for their actions while in Scientology.  I’m sure there are
many Scientologists who will never forgive me for speaking out
against Scientology.  I’d rather look past that black and white
attitude and find a way to communicate and curb the abuses that
brought Bob Minton into this fight to begin with and that are now
being hurled against people like Mike and Marty.

I said I felt at home here at this blog.  Part of the reason is
that I set this blog up for Marty.  I did it because I wanted to
hear what he had to say.  He had a webpage up that was hard to read
and I’m sure was hard for him to update.  I took a couple hours one
Sunday afternoon just taking the information he had published and
putting it into this blog format.  I sent him the link and told him
I’d be happy to walk him through using the site if he wanted to do
so.  We had never talked or met and I wasn’t sure he would welcome
my intrusion but he liked the idea so for a couple weeks I answered
his questions and cleaned up the formatting on posts he made, then
the training wheels were off and he was up and running on his own.
Since then he has dwarfed my site’s readership and changed
Scientology’s landscape, and I learn new things almost every day.

I’m currently making a feature film documentary about Scientology
called Knowledge Report. The basic point of the film is that people
can believe anything they want but Scientology doesn’t have the
right to behave anyway it chooses.  I’ve interviewed several
Independent Scientologists and plan to interview more soon.  You
may not agree with every aspect of the film but I think overall you
should be happy with the finished product.  Here’s a little sample
of some of the people who have agreed to be part of the film:

The film is being financed through donations at IndieGoGo.com.  If
you’d be interested in helping, you can make a donation here:

http://www.indiegogo.com/knowledge-report

If you have suggestions for the film you can contact me at
markbunker@gmail.com.  I look forward to your feedback.

UPDATE 9:36 pm central: Village Voice weighs in: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/07/scientology_apo.php

353 responses to “Why I Support Marty by Mark Bunker

  1. Wow, so you were the guy who converted Marty’s original, uh, Web site into this simple, straightforward tool through which this awesome community has evolved. Thank you for that, WBM.

    I have long wondered who that was. Marty described him/her as someone he’d never have imagined would be willing to help him that way. And there you have it — it was Wise Beard Man.

    Thanks a lot, Mark.

    JM

    • “Marty described him/her as someone he’d never have imagined would be willing to help him that way”

      Many forget this and should keep thier minds open to those willing to help and who do so everyday. Communicating with everyone is crucial as if it remains one-sided little is accomplished.

      Hugs

    • Communication is the universal solvent.

      Seems to be working well as a solvent on the CoM, anyhow.

  2. Wise Beard Man
    His words are Wise
    His Face is Beard

    • +1

      This WBM post is way cool!

    • I am not a kid. I “discovered” anonymous through the leak of the Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise video, which I was interested in because of Cruise’s attack on Brooke Sheilds on the Matt Lauer Today show interview. I became a committed “anonymous” activist because of WBM’s (and later video interviews of people like Astra Woodcraft ans Tory Christman, and his videos of the Clearwater protests. If it hadn’t been for WBM’s presence in those early days, I can say for sure that a lot of ordinary people like me would never have gotten involved.

      In those days, it would’ve been hard to imagine that some of us would find ourselves allied in spirit with people like Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun (!!!) – yet here we all are!

      Hip Hip hurray for Mark Bunker. And kudos to you Marty for having the courage to continuously surprise everyone (including I imagine even yourself)!

  3. Thanks for doing this, Mark.

    The DePhillips’ are dear friends who gave their all and got tossed under the bus with Tony’s head placed on a pike. And now my own head has been so placed.

    Disgusting.

    But it only lights a bigger fire under my ass.

  4. Hi Mark,

    Thanks for dropping by and saying hello.

    Loved the Barnes’ interview on xenu.tv.

    Looking forward to seeing your new doc “Knowledge Report”.

    Please don’t be a stranger and drop by more often.

    Lv

    Robin

  5. What I like most about Mark Bunker is aside from being a real human being, is the fresh new faces he is bringing to the front that are speaking out about the church, Jefferson Hawkins, Amy Scobee, Tony De Philips and his wife to name a few. It was impressive listening them because their experiences are reflecting what the church now IS not what it was like 25 years ago. These people have fairly recently left. I especially like the 4 people I named including Paulette Cooper whom I did not. Her story is worth a novel and a movie being made out of it. Mark Bunker very well done and very, very well done on the Emmy award.

  6. Regardless of what Marty believes or what he has done in the past, he is doing more currently than anyone I know to expose abuses in the Church of Scientology. I also appreciate what Mark Bunker, Tory, Jeff Hawkins, Chuck Beatty and many others have done.

  7. A true pioneer in the fight to expose DM and his abuses and in standing up for the rights of free speech.

    Can’t wait to see your documentary Mark! Based on the clips I have seen so far, it is going to be first rate all the way.

    Thank you Marty for this. You are right it is safe to look and safe to speak. Ive always thought that if someone is a true believer in something, outside viewpoints will not sway the truth that is deep down inside but may open up avenues for conversation and change.

  8. QUOTE:

    Since then he (Marty) has dwarfed my site’s readership and
    changed Scientology’s landscape

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    THIS

  9. I had the pleasure of meeting Mark in Washington, DC at a protest. He is so dedicated to this cause and to help stop the abuses within this CULT. I have left my donation, I hope others will help him too. It’s going to be a great documentary. I hope a lot of you contact him as there have been some amazing “coming out” stories from so many of you. Karen #1…I think of you right away. You would be wonderful. Please contact Mark, give him a hand and sit and tell him your story. Things can only get better and better at this point.

  10. Eagerly awaiting the documentary, Mark. Looks very well done.

  11. George M. White

    Hi Mark,
    You got it right on the mark:
    “The basic point of the film is that people
    can believe anything they want but Scientology doesn’t have the
    right to behave anyway it chooses.”

    I have not been a part of Scientology since 1989 so I can’t comment on the current scene.
    However, I am still contacted to this day and every time it is a new person because they obviously now have such a great turnover. Last summer people from Scientology came to my home and tried to get in to talk to me.
    I explained to them that I have been a practicing Theravada Buddhist for the last eleven years and that I have no need of their services. Also, I completed OTV8 so I reached the end of the line that they have available anyway.
    On a Wednesday afternoon, you can’t get them to leave.
    You might consider putting something in your film about the fact that they will not take “NO” for an answer. I find this all very interesting because in the early 1980’s Flag was teaming with quality people and you could walk in at any time and talk about Scientology. Now the place is heavily fortified with security and they drive in a car and knock on your door which is 40+ miles away and you don’t want to talk to them.
    Anyway, great camera work. I make my own videos and I see the quality of your camera.

    Much loving-kindness
    GMW

  12. Watching Eyes

    Good going Mark! I’ve been following you since you started writing about the abuses, over a decade ago. I liked what you were doing then and I like it now. Keep up the good work.

  13. Mark & Heather,
    It was very nice to meet you when you came and visited us here. Thanks for helping Marty with his blog set-up too. I remember that very well!🙂

    Mark is a very decent man. I may not agree with all of his views either, but I agreed to do an interview when he made it clear that he was willing to respect our beliefs and wanted to expose the abuses.

    I said to him while he was standing in my living room: “I cannot believe Mark Bunker is here in my living room. Who would have ever thought…..” and he said “Yeah, and I’m really not that bad, eh? Just a big ole teddy bear, right?” LOL.

    I’m looking forward to seeing the final version. Thanks very much for including the Independent Scientologist voices in your movie.

    • Christie, you & I are on the same page. I agreed to do the interview once he assured me he would respect our views & that his intention was to expose the abuses. I also felt like “wow, I can’t believe I’m speaking to Mark Bunker” & he had a similar response, LOL. I use to think he must be a very bad man to have a site called “Xenu TV” but he’s actually a “big ole teddy bear” like he likes to say himself. I really enjoyed my time with him.

      Marie-Joe

  14. Imagine this, people from all walks of life agreeing to disagree and to agree on what they can without sending PI’s out to harass each other and to sue, lie and destroy their critics. DM craps his pants as all his enemies start to unite and direct a focus like he has never seen. Watch out DM, when the LMT, Anonymous and Marty combine forces we become MEGA ENTURBILATIONBOT!

  15. When I was still “in”, I remember reading the account of Greg and Debra Barnes. It was quite an eye opener. Later, I found it was no isolated case. I cannot escape the fact that Bunker-Buster was involved in getting the truth out.

    I look forward to seeing the movie.

    • Tony Dephillips

      Hi Centurion,
      I agree the Barnes interview was quite an eye opener. I had similar experiences myself.

  16. Great job Mark. Ray Bradbury’s advice, to the contestant winners of the “Writers of the Future” contest was “Hire the best agent in town!” Ray said that was the KEY thing that got his stories sold. He hired a top agent in NYC. People should help network Mark to the best agent available. Same to you Marty for your book.

  17. Mark,

    Nice to see you posting here. We dont see eye to eye on everything, but I respect your even-handed, non-judgmental viewpoint and what I percieve is a genuine desire to help those who suffer abuse at the hands of the Cult of Miscavige. I admire your persistence and intelligence. You are a voice worth paying attention to.

    BTW, LaBlow correctly spells his name Lubow (at least that’s what is on his Driver’s License, Lebow is just another of his “AKA’s”).

  18. Haven’t posted in a long while on Marty’s blog. But, I wanted to pop in to say if it hadn’t been for Mark wielding his mighty documenting skills going clear back to before the year 2000, which is when I made the decision to bow out for good, I could never have educated myself so thoroughly and quickly as I did. It was this very interview with the Barnes that just blew the doors open for me. I recall sitting and watching these two very honest and sincere OT VIIs spill their guts in telling their story. I sat back and thought, “if this sort of treatment can happen to these guys who were so committed to the game and at the top of the game, it can happen to anybody, including me”. And indeed, it certainly has been; going on now over 10 years worth of massively abusing the SP declare and disconnection policies to wreak spiritual havoc on anyone who dares question and attempts to seek and expose the truth. Two suggested rules for those still in and sitting on the fence like I was until I found Mark’s vast library of documentation:
    1. Using your intellectual honesty, always always
    2. Seek to live with the truth.

    You do good work Mark Bunker and it does my heart proud to see Marty giving Mark his well-deserved due.

  19. Scott Campbell

    Good job Mark.

    Thanks for helping to get Marty’s blog set up and thanks for doing what you do. With your help, I’m sure that justice will prevail.

  20. Thanks to everyone for the kind words. Christie made a very good point in her interview with me that people at the Independents Day picnic held a variety of opinions and were able to freely talk about those opinions without fear of retribution. “Think for Yourself” should be more than just a cynical sales pitch. And thanks for the correction on Lubow. I hope to see you folks again soon.

  21. Thank you Marty for featuring this and thank you Mark for what you are doing.

    Can your time limit of 5 days be extended?

    Also — I’ve sent your website to a friend of mine with some rather incredible connections and stats in Hollywood. Not saying anything will come of it — but at least I’m keeping him in the loop regarding the abuses with corporate scientology. Something he is keenly shocked by and aware of.

    BTW — years ago — someone tried to get him to do a documentary on scn — he passed so he’ll be inspired by your courage!!

    WH

    • The time limit for donations on this campaign can’t be extended but I’ll likely start another campaign soon, especially since so many more people are offering to be interview in far off locations.

      I hope to hear from your friend. I have been getting nibbles from distributors already.

  22. Sometime in the future, there will be a best selling book written about how a singular blog and the people who post on it where able to take down a billion dollar enterprise.

    This blog, in my opinion, is a cultural phenomena. It is has historical implications as a template for community organization and a variety of other significances. Remember readers- this blog is going up against a billion dollar corporation and winning. That is no small feat.

    “NEVER DOUBT THAT A GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL, COMMITTED CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD. INDEED, IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT EVER HAS” -Margaret Meade

    • Right on, Brian, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    • +1 — thanks Brian — your clarity is always inspiring.

      WH

    • +1. Clay Shirky is probably already compiling notes….

    • Yvonne Schick

      +1

      • I am still figureing that out. Whether It was Odin or Loki who carried the stone to the head of Goliath.

        Got it. I think it was Loki.
        “If you can’t think on a certain line. Run the feeling of being denied that line” LRH

    • Brian, DM should M9 Clay Shirkey’s book Here Comes Everybody. It will give him the significance of what is coming his way.

    • Tory Christman

      Brian,
      Hi🙂 This blog has helped many, many people ..no question about it.
      However, please don’t leave out ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the people before
      Marty and Mike (and I think they’d agree)—many who aren’t even with us
      anymore. They stood tirelessly, building the road that we ALL walk on. Many were Ex-Scientologists (there wasn’t an Indie movement back then, and hey, maybe they were just done), Then Critics (who created TONS of wonderful web sites, filled with FACTS. The “Critics” were never “in” Scientology. Mark Bunker is a critic, as an example.

      I met Mark Bunker in 2000, and after talking with another critic who helped me (Andreas) I soon after escaped OUT of C of $, Forever. Then in
      2008–arrived Anonymous—who due to the literal volume of them, helped created a safe enough space that TONS more began to speak out, tell their names, write books, etc. And THEN arrived Marty and Mike, and You all.

      So please keep in mind this has been one LARGE group effort, done by many people who often are not “Together’ but have assisted in bringing down this insidious organization, pretending to be a “church”.
      Love to you ALL🙂 Tory/Magoo

    • Yes, and our greatest weapon in that battle will be the truth.

      Truth is on a higher level than money and will as-is money.

    • Tony Ortega of the Village Voice is really letting the Church of Scientology in New York know they have unfinished business with the world at large. The Village Voice (although not exclusively confined to reporting on events going on in Greenwich Village [that area of Manhattan between 14th Street and Houston Street from 5th Avenue to the West Side Highway]} has been a New York staple publication since the 1960’s and it is a trusted publication. If Scientologists in New York really dig the village, well then they should pick up a copy of the Voice and do some down home reading!🙂 Go Tony! I got your E-Mail today, thanks.

  23. Hi Mark, thanks for coming forward. I like your post. The only concern I have about your upcoming film is that I hope it will not be from the viewpoint of how bad Scientology is in general. It’s not. L. Ron Hubbard’s technology works (and has worked for many all over the world) since the 1950’s. When applied “standardly” it helps people. However, since Hubbard’s departure, the Church has taken a nose dive under David Miscavige’s so-called leadership. I have been a Scientologist for 35 years and worked with Hubbard personally and I can tell you he was the kindest and most caring man that ever lived. In fact he wrote about the dangers of how the technology could go awry under bad management who might have evil intentions and work toward personal gain, such as David Miscavige. I personally walked away from the Church 10 years ago when I saw what he was doing. The alterations of Dianetics and Scientology were ghastly. None of it was anywhere near what Hubbard intended. In the 70’s and early 80’s Scientology churches were the friendliest places in the world and people were happy. Nowadays it is nothing but a business that is after the almighty dollar. Regardless of what you’ve heard or read Mark, that was not the case in the old days. So I just want to reiterate that I hope your film is an expose on David Miscavage and how he has pulled the wool over so many eyes (both staff and public) in Scientology. He is the correct target, not L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology in general. As an added note…even though I walked away 10 years ago, I am still a true Scientologist, and so are most of the people who comment on this blog. Scientology as a subject to help mankind will never die. Only the church under its current regime will.

    • The Count-I’m with you. Here is some great data out of Science of Survival, Chapter “The Handling of Truth” :
      “it could be said that life was made to be lived, not died out of; and that facts which encourage a high level of living would be, for man, the most truthful facts; and that those which encourage his demise would be the most untruthful facts. Those things which are truest for man are, then, those things which most powerfully aid his survival, in theta, life and mest.”
      For me a very truthful fact is Ron is mans best friend.

    • Yes.

      The great tragedy is the harm to the reputation of LRH and the Tech, AND, false ideas about whose church it is. That is a reason to carefully differentiate between the Miscavige Administration and LRH’s Church.

      I believe that the Church, established by LRH, is our Church – built with our labor and money.

      It is certainly not David Miscavige’s church. All the people that were helped, all the (real) expansion, the reserves, buildings, etc. came from the people on this board and all the people of goodwill who tirelessly worked to benefit their fellow man.

      Words have power. I believe that every time we say something that implies that it is HIS church, such as the “Church of Miscavage,” we reinforce a falsehood.

      There is a difference between a usurper and a creator. You and your fellows are creators.

      James

  24. Mr Bunker,
    It’s going on 5 months now since I was declared supressive by the church for visiting Marty. Although I had read Marty’s site, Scn-Cult, Friends of LRH and Jeff Hawkins site and story and done a little research, I have found that I had been quite cocooned. It’s mainly through the friends I’ve made since being out that I have learned there is an enormous scope of information and just as many viewpoints in this world as there are people. I have to admit that after being in since age 7, almost 50 years, I’ve had some adjustments to make and some fixed ideas to blow through. But, I always manage to raise my confront and look a little more and get my thinking where I want it. This is how my world has gone from being a very small one to an ever expanding one.
    You have just helped me look a little more and change some ideas by being here and communicating. I look forward to your video. Thank you! ml, Laura

  25. Theo Sismanides

    Mr. Bunker hello,

    I am Theo Sismanides currently in Greece mariried to Olga Vernardou both ex member of the Sea Organization. I have been a member of the Sea Organization for 9 years and my wife for 5.

    I personally applaud your effort to make this new film. I would also like to offer another aspect to this whole thing as I have been mentioning many times. And that is the side of FRAUD.

    The current management is committing FRAUD against Scientology and it did commit FRAUD against me since they say they apply LRH’s policy and they DON”T. This is FRAUDULENT action and i have evidence of that. I was insisting on the application of HCOBs the highest policy there is as to Tech matters and was thrown off the post of Translations Unit in Charge in Europe. Which is a contradiction in itself.

    Those were the HCOBs in regards to translations which were never applied under many excuses.

    This fact alone prove to me that those people are NOT there to protect the technology of Scientology but are there for other purposes.

    I would be happy if you could also come to Greece and interview us. I have done 6 TV shows back in 2001 here in greece with great success.

    I am happy things are getting straightened out and you supporting the Scientologists rights to practice correctly their religion.

    Thank you very much.

    Best Regards

    Theo Sismanides

  26. Thanks Mark Bunker for all you do. I do not fear your information even if it is might be opposed to any of my beliefs. It looks to me like you are simply presenting DATA, and so I hope when you state OPINION then it is simple to keep track of. Keeping one’s eyes and ears slammed shut is a sure road to stagnate or become a robot completely. If somebody thinks they KNOW EVERYTHING then I’d guess they would be a pretty bad student. One’s guru (priest, leader) may be totally right (or maybe not) but doesn’t mean you don’t NEED other information. You better get it. And for your info, L. Ron Hubbard was big on getting tons of information, and developed technology of using it in a sane manner. Regardless of his own beliefs.

    Mark Fisher said: “Thank you Marty for this. You are right it is safe to look and safe to speak. Ive always thought that if someone is a true believer in something, outside viewpoints will not sway the truth that is deep down inside but may open up avenues for conversation and change”.

    Yes! I see Marty continuously exposing altered tech and policy, ensuring standard tech, exposing lies thus filling in data, and most important to me is application of lost (hidden, submerged, “we don’t use that now”) tech, i.e. in this case, the Data Series. When you do an evaluation (of anything) you need MULTIPLE VIEWPOINTS, or you are sunk.

    Interesting the way you said it, Mark – true believer and outside viewpoints can actually be used in the same sentence. The idea of true believer covering eyes, ears etc (see, hear, speak no evil monkeys) being so frightened and in fear to be SURE NOT TO SEE outside viewpoints…. this just throws the whole Data Series in the trash, which of course is just another tool that COULD have located DM as the SP. (and still can). It is kind of hard to do an evaluation (even a doubt formula for God’s sake!) without EXAMINING the other groups statistics, your group’s REAL statistics, etc without bias and rumour. OMITTED DATA, ALTERED IMPORTANCE. Oh Sorry. Don’t mean to shout.

    Back in the early 80’s, Data Series was still used, the office of E&E (Evaluation and Execution) was pretty good size, and AVC (Authorization, Verification and Correction unit) was an authority that could reject anybody’s evaluation or proposed program, if it was found to alter policy, etc. I don’t know when DM dismantled office of E&E and AVC but I do know there are a bunch of people on this blog who know could knock out a good eval if only they had the data.

    Marty, you are many things to many people, but to me you are the KOT who has had to literally move outside the official organization to do your job. Thank you for doing it, and for bringing us data from MULTIPLE VIEWPOINTS regardless of the beliefs of the source.

    • Dear OO
      The idea of true believer covering eyes, ears etc (see, hear, speak no evil monkeys) being so frightened and in fear to be SURE NOT TO SEE outside viewpoints…. this just throws the whole Data Series in the trash, which of course is just another tool that COULD have located DM as the SP. (and still can). It is kind of hard to do an evaluation (even a doubt formula for God’s sake!) without EXAMINING the other groups statistics, your group’s REAL statistics, etc without bias and rumour. OMITTED DATA, ALTERED IMPORTANCE. Oh Sorry. Don’t mean to shout………So clearly represents the faces in yesterdays blogs with nurse ratchet and her zombies

  27. I forgot to ask can somebody get a regular supply of Church promotions to Mark Bunker. Anybody on the mailing list gets huge piles of the stuff every day and it can be extremely illuminating. The last Super Power promo received from FSO stated that the Fort Harrison restoration was “completed as the largest and fastest Se Org project of its kind, and by 14 March 2009, one-million Sea Org man-hours brought Phase 2 to a complete done”.

    There’s a good piece of data. A million Sea-Org man-hours proudly promoted in their own promotion. Now, put a copy of the Sea Org member (or better yet RPF’er) pay stub or whatever they use, right next to a picture of the damn building. All I see when I look at these G..D buildings is the blood, sweat and tears of slave labor and the money gotten through thuggery from the parishioners.

    • Wow. “…the Fort Harrison restoration was completed as the largest and fastest Sea Org project of its kind…”

      Yet the white elephant across the street, which is supposed to deliver Super Power and thereby bring about Planetary Clearing (read the promo the CofM puts out ) sits, incomplete and empty after 13 years as the “largest and SLOWEST” renovations project in the history of not just the Sea Org, but all of Scientology. And that is the one that if you believe POB is the most important building on planet earth, because without it, the most important technology ever developed cannot be delivered. So, one might wonder, why didnt the million hours go into completing “Dave’s Folly” across the street?

      • Mike, and wait until the world learns that Super Power was developed FOR STAFF and then could be used for Dianetic Clears who were not supposed to receive Power Processing but could receive the Super Power rundowns, one of which would have the same effect on their cases as one of the Power Processes. All those OT VIIs and VIIIs with dough are being lined up by DM for be fleeced yet again. And then brought up to the top floor of the building and put on the running program. Sheesh. DM could not possibly have perverted Super Power any more than he has. Its purpose is to make staff members more effective on their jobs.
        Wise Beard Man, if you are interested in the technical aspects of Super Power, I wrote an article on http://www.scientlogy-cult.com under the Joe Howard byline that will explain it.

        • Dan,

          Thanks for reiterating this point. I have been beating the drum on this and the Mark VIII and didnt want to sound like a broken record.

          You can see the tsunami of bs building around both of these: After sitting on them for years (Super Power was delivered to the Feshbachs more than a decade ago, the Mark VIIIs have been sitting in a warehouse since 2006) one of these days the Pope is going to climb up on his box and announce their release with great fanfair, telling the assembled sheeple that this is “the most important release ever” and that THIS is what will clear the planet/make case gain possible/empty your wallet, and that “LRH said….” and it will be some out of context snippet. They will become the NEWEST “thing” that everyone will be required to buy because they are SO VITAL nobody can make any progress without them. They will be the newest GOLDEN AGE OF… planetary clearing? metering? case gain? magnificence? greed?

          And the sheeple will laud the almighty POB for being so wonderful that he has brought them these riches beyond their wildest imagination (even if they have to become poor to get the riches) and will completely ignore the fact that they have been sitting there for years, waiting until he thought he could maximize his income, giving not a second thought to whether they were important to planetary clearing (even though those words are sure to slide out of one side of his mouth numerous times in the course of his sales pitch).

          It’s the same thing with his Ideal Orgs scam. If this is truly the way to clear the planet and release OT IX and X then why not just buy all the remaining buildings and be done with it. He has the money. Even 100 org buildings at $5 million a piece wouldnt deplete his pile of filthy lucre. But, I guess that ISNT the REAL intent of this crazy smoke and mirrors program of his.

          KoolAid drinking creates blindness.

          • I don’t think Dave is going to release superpower until all of the Ideal orgs are paid for. It would cut across too many other “important fundraising” lines for people to now step up and buy superpower too. Whether Dave likes it or not, people can worship the ground he walks on, but that doesn’t make them instant millionaires over night to give him more money for his crazy off-source projects. The other thing he won’t be able to solve easily is having Superpower open up, and then have stand in actors working as trained delivery staff just to show people he did it and he has the hundreds of trained superpower staff to deliver the rundowns. The empire is falling down around him and he is still throwing darts at Marty and Mike!

            • Lucy,

              I could never understand why they needed that huge boondoggle called the “Super Power Building”.

              In fact I wrote a lengthy report to RTC about my concerns.

              Needless to say it wasn’t well received.

              What they are doing has nothing to do with actually delivering the Super Power RDs and is a *scam* in the purest sense of the word:

              scam |skam|
              noun informal
              a dishonest scheme; a fraud : [with adj. ] an insurance scam.
              verb ( scammed , scamming ) [ trans. ]
              swindle : a guy that scams the elderly out of their savings.
              DERIVATIVES
              scammer noun
              ORIGIN 1960s: of unknown origin.

              The money that they have collected for this scam could probably pay for several similar Super Power Buildings.

              Since the original price tag was about 78 mill and I think they’ve probably collected over 200 Mill so far.

              No surprise that many of the “investors” were involved in the Reed Slatkin ponzi scheme.

              Same with the Ideal fraud.

              Any of you lurkers from the Church should know that deed of title is not held by the org that raised all this money but is transferred to the International Landlord and even though the public in that area paid for this “Ideal Org” they do not actually own it and that the staff actually pay rent on those quarters.

              You should also realize that there is no Scientology Policy that supports this activity and in fact violates it.

              Orgs traditionally in the past were financed by selling and delivering Auditing and Training.

              Having them *subsidized* by the public is a violation of the HCOPL ‘Vital Data on Promotion’.

              Another one.

              Because many of these new “Ideal Orgs” are more expensive to operate than the original quarters they were in also violates HCOPL Quarters, Historical Policy Regarding.

              Both policies are in the OECs.

              So instead of having raffles which is a violation of the PL known as “Contests and Prizes” and dressing up like bumble bees or Elvis.

              I suggest you ask Scientology Management (if you can find ’em) WTF is going on?

              Either that.

              Or you can continue to go along with the madness until someone pulls the plug.

              Because folks this scam can’t go on forever.

              Ask the people over at Enron and BCCI.

          • Mike, you wrote “They will become the NEWEST “thing” that everyone will be required to buy because they are SO VITAL nobody can make any progress without them.”

            I remember reading a policy by LRH that talked about how it was not ok to push “the latest and newest” thing on everyone. IE: If someone is moving up the bridge, you follow what the C/S says, not some blanket order to diverge and go off on something else just because it’s new. A good example of this was Key To Life. “Everyone” was being regged for it by the regges regardless if the person was in the middle of a program or not. Now it’s “the basics”. You will never make it to OT unless you do it! Heil Hitler!

            • GetTheConcept

              I remember the ED of my org in the early 1990s, when I was the KTL Sup, he mentioned to me a couple years after it was released that he realized that what he had originally been told about the KTL by a Sea Org member who had come to the org before the release of KTL, was not true.

              This SO member told him and convinced him that KTL was THE solution to everything in Scientology. He told him that it would handle every stalled case, every study bug, every staff member’s inability to do his post correctly and anything else you can think of that was wrong with anything. People were told this when being regged for it and it was used as a recovery tool. The idea was that no matter what the individual’s situation was, KTL would handle it and it had to be his next step. Then everything would go right just because of that.

      • SPs can’t complete cycles of action.
        SPs run can’t have on others.

        James

        • James. good point.

          What other cycles of action has the church of scientology or David Miscavige engaged in that never got completed?

      • If there’s any one glaring example that something is wrong with the church of scientology, it’s that building.

    • If I remember correctly this is exactly how Mark Bunker got to know Scientology in the first place. He moved into a house where a Scientologist (or an ex, I don’t know) had lived. COS kept flooding the address with its promotion material.

      By now Mark has moved a few times, so I don’t know if he still is on the COS mailing list. However I don’t think he wants to be. All the information is out on the internet by now. For free!

  28. PS: Mark, I noticed that you talk about “fair game” in your video above. Are you aware that the policy was cancelled by LRH in a policy letter? HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968 CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME.
    Now it doesn’t mean that David Miscavige paid any attention to it. Obviously not. But I just wanted to make it clear that fair game is NOT part of Scientology. Sadly it is just one of many things that DM has altered, and should be exposed for.

    • Did you read the cancellation order you are speaking of? It does not end Fair Game. It says the DECLARING of people Fair Game will cease and it my not appear on any Ethics Order, as it causes bad public relations. It does not say that it can not still be executed and in fact the police cancelation does not apply to the treatment or handling of an SP. Even so, so what, the real issue is what DM practices and that is Fair Game, anyone with open eyes can see that, Just look what is going on in front of Marty’s front door!

      • Yes Anonymous, I know that DM is is practicing fair game. Maybe I didn’t convey it correctly.

        • Right on, Count. As Anonymous says, DM is not complying with LRH’s cancellation order. Surprise, surprise! Who’d a thunk it? Anon got that part right.

          • Nobody ever complied to the 1968 cancellation of fair game.

            In the 1970ies Paulette Cooper got her severe share of fair game, leaving us with one of the best documented cases of CofS harassment. And others who raised their voices about CofS got their share too.

            It’s hard to believe that LRH didn’t have a clue. He originated the concept of fair game, as well as some wild west concepts in the Simon Bolivar policy letter.

            • Han Solo

              It is a sad fact that “justice does not fare well in the hands of the residents of this planet. “justice is almost never “just. It is usually a device used by those with some power, to punish those who disagree in some manner.

              LRH is not to blame for the accumulated aberrations of mankind. Neither is he to blame for every “scientologist’s” actions or viewpoints.

              I have never read anything where L. Ron Hubbard suggested that ANYONE go forth and create mayhem in the world. If YOU have… lets see the dox.

              Eric S

              • Oops, that was posted by WindWalker.

                Eric S

              • You have asked for dox, here is the definition of fair game :

                ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

                The whole policy letter can be found here as well as in the old green volumes :

                http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html

                • Han Solo

                  Thanks for the reference. I had never seen that one. The man continues to surprise me.

                  Just as a somewhat significant note, it actually IS NOT in the 1976 edition of the OEC as indexed by the “Subject Index” for those volumes. I also checked Vol 1, OEC, and it is definitely not in that volume either, but the “Cancellation of Fair Game” policy is. By that point it seems it had been totally removed from the policies for Div One, HCO Division.
                  I have no idea where someone dug that 18 Oct 67 policy up from.

                  Eric S

                • That’s not the definition of Fair Game. That’s the (1967) penalty for the Condition of Enemy, which was then cancelled a few months later (1968). It never made it into the OECs, which were first published in 1970.

                  In any event, there really isn’t any doubt that abusive/harassive tactics (call them “Fair Game” or whatever) are still being practiced by the CoM. Put a corrupt leader in charge of any religion/group, and he’ll find some way to justify his abusive actions.

                  But in the end, it all boils down to DM trying to cover up the beatings, the Hole, the human rights abuses, the innurement, etc.

      • Anon,
        The ‘treatment and handling’ of an SP case is NOT FAIR GAME. Those of you who read this seem to think so. The actual handling is A-E and Power Processing, then up through OT III and on to NED for OTs.

        Fair game does nothing to ‘treat’ an SP. All it does it give him ‘reasons’ for his destructive acts and thus he continues to commit them.

        DUH!

  29. Mark, I hope your documentary earns you another Emmy.

    You were doing some heavy lifting there at LMT when it was still very dangerous for crtics to tangle with the Cult. Your existing body of documentary work is a tremendous long term archive of what a Cult looks like as it collapses under its own lies and crimes over time. The Cult has never realized or understood the power of the internet or online videos, but the critics certainly have and your work has always been on the cutting edge.

    This effort to expose and dismantle CoS in its present form takes a lot of different people with diverse skills and talents.

    I agree with you completely: “I’d rather look past that black and white
    attitude and find a way to communicate and curb the abuses that
    brought Bob Minton into this fight to begin with and that are now
    being hurled against people like Mike and Marty.”

    /////

  30. Hi Mark B;

    I remember the video you took of Dan protesting at your home, back when OSA was protesting at peoples homes and work places. Was that the first video, I forget. Little did he know what he unleashed upon himself.

    And then the video you did at CC Int.

    The rest is history in a very real sense, the beginning of the documentation of this ‘movement’, if that is what it can be called.

    Ahh, the old battlefields of ARS … an age gone by … we must have driven Marty and Mike mad back then.

    And now, this kind of interaction by you and Marty, persons of good intent, even with differing opinions, is like looking at a rainbow knowing that there is a pot of gold at both ends. .

    b

  31. Does Dave Leblow work for Bob Loblaw?

  32. Barney Rubble

    I agree completely. That is my exact contention. Meanwhile, I wish you the best of luck Mark.

  33. Hi Mark, Thanks for the work you do. I’ve gotten a lot of data from the videos you post. I’m sorry I missed you when you were up here in the northwest, but hope to meet you some day. You did a great job with the interview with Bon. I’d be happy to tell you any part of my story you feel would be helpful. I’m really looking forward to the film!!

  34. I do not share the openhearted welcome that Mark Bunker and his documentary is receiving here although I agree with the factual data (and know first-hand that it is true) and with the idea that we welcome all viewpoints. I welcome all viewpoints but there is still the concept of the optimal solution and the greatest good. Measured against those criteria Bunkers’ work is a flunk and he can count me out as his reader in the future. The data he is presenting in this documentary is true and it is terrible and must stop but the data is lopsided as one hugely important point is totally omitted: the workability of the Tech. The documentary simply discredits Scientology further. There is no concern for the individual people out there who could improve their lives with Scientology, for now using Independent auditors and courses. There is no mention of the enormous benefit of application of Scientology if it is properly used. Bunkers just wants to throw the baby with dirty water. What solution does he suggest? No solution. Just “lets kill Scientology”. I just attested Clear recently. I love it! Just because everybody can have their viewpoints it doesn’t mean I want to see them all or agree with anybody’s hidden agenda.

    • May I ask, have you seen anything of the documentary already besides the clips Bunkers has shown us on his own site or on YouTube?

    • It is not Bunkers job to prove anything works. That task my friend is yours.

      • It was proven many years ago that auditing, Dianetics & Scientology is true and works.

        • For you atcause, perhaps. For the scientific community, it has not.

          I respectfully suggest that you, and other Scientologists, start looking into what constitutes scientific proof, including repeatable results by independent parties. If something is truly there, then this should not be an insurmountable task.

          But the work has *not* been done.

          • Mt.Fancy,

            The “work” has in fact been done repeatedly by thousands of people over many years.. Every person who duplicated some of LRH’s auditing tech, through training or even reading a book and applying it to a good result, has “done the work” of verification. Those are repeated results by “independent parties”.

            You could do “the work” yourself, but I wonder why you haven’t? If you haven’t, I would guess it’s because you are not capable of doing it. You are capable only of talking about it abstractly, and talk is cheap.

            If you’re gonna talk the talk, try also walking the walk.

            • Valkov,

              Yes, I have heard this argument before. The problem with your assertion that “every person who duplicated some of LRH’s auditing tech…has ‘done the work’ of verification”, is this:
              1) this is not a formal study that has a null hypothesis, blind assignment of subjects to different pools of variables, etc.
              2)you do not take into account those results thatwere negative to your hypotheses (instead, I hear people saying, “Well, the reason the person didn’t get results is because the tech wasn’t applied ‘standardly'”)
              3) the criteria used are entirely subjective, not objective. i.e. does a person “feel better”, or can they pass an objective criteria (such as passing a standard IQ test)
              4) the desired results are enforced by using “success stories”, “attesting to ‘Clear'”, peer pressure, etc.

              It’s one thing to say, “I tried it, and I believe I got benefits.” It is entirely another to say, “Out of 1000 test subjects, a significantly significant number were able to improve test scores on a standardized algebra test”.

              Please realize that I do NOT begrudge you the benefits you feel you have received. I certainly have received benefits from my religion that cannot be scientifically quantified, but are nonetheless reason enough for me to continue.

              But that is the difference between a religion and a science, isn’t it?

              And I agree with you; talk IS cheap. Scientology talks the talk, but it has never walked the walk of providing scientific studies to try to verify its many claims.

              Of course, there may be an exception. Perhaps you should use Google and try to find out if there were any studies done in the 1950s when Dianetics first came out…

              • martyrathbun09

                Dude, if the real breakthroughs of “science” were put through your academic, crabs in a barrel, ivory tower bullshit, we’d be eating dinner in the dark.

                • Thomas Edison ids one of my favorits.

                  The wizzard of Mendelson Park

                • Marty,

                  I respect your right to believe in the religion of your choice. But, there *is* a higher level of proof needed before facts are established in science. “If it’s true for you…” pretty well sums up the standard of proof offered for Scientology…that’s not exactly a high bar to clear.

                  • Mr. Fancy, Scientology has it’s own objective tests to determine efficacy and workability — the OCA, for example, is often used throughout a person’s journey up the Bridge and the changes/reactions on the meter are also used. These, along with observing a person’s changes on the tone scale are the measurements/criteria used. These may not satisfy psychologists/psychiatrists, but that’s ok because their determination of making people “fit in” and creating “normalcy” don’t particularly meet with our approval either.
                    With that said, yes, some early tests were done in late 1950 using mainstream IQ/personality tests to determine the effectiveness of dianetics auditing. The results were largely very positive. A summary was published in pre-1985 versions of “Science of Survival”, and a more detailed/summary paper was also published at the time.

                    • Margaret,

                      Do you mean the “Oxford Capacity Analysis”?

                      (You do realize that the OCA has nothing to do with Oxford University, right? Nor does it have anything to do with Oxford, England. Maybe the American psychologist who wrote the test, Julia Lewis, was wearing a pair of Oxfords at the time…)

                      And of course, when one takes *the same test* over and over again, the scores are going to go up. Different versions of the test are necessary to accurately measure progress, otherwise you’re just measuring the person’s ability to take the test.

                      As to your assertion that psychologists/psychiatrists are determined to make people “fit in” and become “normal”…what do you think the CoS has been doing for the last 60 years? By your own admission, you are testing people to improve their scores on *the same personality test* that picks desirable and undesirable traits. It is one-size fits all.

                      Compare this to, say, the DISC test that does not make judgments on the desirability of any traits, only how one might use their strengths to their advantage and compensate for weaknesses.

                      (Not to mention the fact that the CoS uses peer pressure, IAS statuses, ethics and sec checks to enforce compliance-I’m grateful that the Indies are not doing that.)

                      I am interested to see the data on the IQ tests you mention, however. I have not seen any studies published and available on the web, so I am curious who did the study, under what criteria, etc.

                      I do think it is fairly suspicious that the CoS does not mention the results any more, though.

              • “4) the desired results are enforced by using “success stories”, “attesting to ‘Clear’”, peer pressure, etc.”

                Nothing is “enforced”. People share their success stories because they are real and they want to share them. If anything was ever “enforced” it was not supposed to be and therefore it was not truly Scientology.

                “Scientology talks the talk, but it has never walked the walk of providing scientific studies to try to verify its many claims.”

                The truth has been walking the walk for trillions of years.

                • “Nothing is “enforced”. People share their success stories because they are real and they want to share them. If anything was ever “enforced” it was not supposed to be and therefore it was not truly Scientology.”

                  Don’t take the following as a criticism of the Indie movement-it is aimed at the CoM.

                  As part of completing a course, I understood that it was required/strongly encouraged to complete a “success story”. (That certainly was my experience, anyway.) Even through peer pressure, that’s enforced.

                  Also, in the face of being allowed further access up the “bridge”, I also understand that one’s enthusiasm/participation was also evaluated in order to be “invited” to go on the upper OT levels. Surely, then, one would be encouraged to attest to “wins”.

                  It is certainly true that several ex-Scns felt that their problems were not being addressed on the level that they were on, and were under the impression/hope that they would be addressed on the next level.

                  Similarly, when one is getting sec-checked (and even paying for the ‘privilege’ in the case of Public), or is on a level for too long, one is also encouraged to just say whatever is necessary (whether it is a “success story”, O/W, etc.) in order to get the current cycle to stop.

                  In summary, there are lots of methods to get people to agree with you. , Agreement is not necessarily a “result” in the context of science.

          • Who’s the “scientific community”?

        • Can you give as a link to an article in a scientific journal?

          • TrevAnon,
            Have you ever thought your worship of “scientific journals” might be a wee bit misplaced, a kind of strange religious impulse you have? Try thinking for yourself. But, “whatever rolls you over”, I guess.

          • How can I give you a link to something that does not exist?

            (And if it does exist, why don’t Scientologists tout it as proof?)

            Perhaps you could do some Google searching to find out if any studies have been done…

        • Lead by example, be the proof of it yourself. People onley tend to believe it when they SEE it.

          • Right on, CD!

          • Exceptional claims demand exceptional proof. There are many claims in Dianetics that can be objectively measured.

            Yet, it has not been done.

            • martyrathbun09

              Have you had a bad experience with the technology or philosophy of Scientology?

              • Neither would be relevant to my assertion.

                That said, there are good things in Scientology, and there are abhorrent things in Scientology, in my experience. Each should be weighed and measured for their worth alone. It is folly to assume that if A is true, then B must also be true.

                • Mr.Fancy, the point that is being missed here is, everything you say about “scientific proof” may be true, but who cares? Obviously, hardly anyone and that is precisely why “it has not been done.” (first and foremost, by that generality, “the scientific community”.)

                  The earliest tech(Book One auditing) has been available to anyone at all to test for 60 years. LRH offered it up to anyone and everyone. You can find the results of perhaps 2 or 3 small studies done in the 1950s online. That’s all.

                  Did he oversell Dianetics? Perhaps. The definitions of Clear evolved overtime. But my point is, the ‘scientific community’ was not interested.

                  There is a proliferation of “therapies” in the USA. Name one that has been “scientifically tested and validated” in the ways you speak of.

                  Try comparing anecdotal results. I’d bet auditing has a better track record that way than any other psychodynamic therapy. When, decades ago, I took a couple of weeks off work for my first auditing and got a Life repair, when I owned back to work after 20 hours of auditing, people I worked with exclaimed “WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU??? YOU LOOK GREAT!”

                  If I was waiting for Consumer Reports to publish some “scientific validation” of auditing before I tried it, I would still be a depressed Grinch.

                  What you are doing is called in Transactional Analysis, “Waiting for Santa Claus”, and apparently telling others they should wait, too.

                  And anyway, why bother to post these calls for “scientific testing” here on this blog? It seems like a totally inappropriate venue.

                  We are not scientific academics with access to research facilities and research funding. We are just Scientologists, whether auditors or C/Ses or Preclears and preOTs, people interested in and often practicing Scientology a la LRH.

                  Why don’ t you take your calls for testing to some more appropriate venues, like academic University research blogs and discussion groups? Maybe you could actually get some of what you want accomplished?

                  Have you tried? Or, you want it done, but you want someone else to do it?

                  • Valkov,

                    First, I appreciate the tone of your posts and the conversation we’re having. I really do. 🙂

                    Second, we’re getting a bit off-topic (and that’s OK), but I’d like to point you to the original post on the thread where Michael said that it wasn’t OK for Bunker to do anything to call into question the “workability of the tech”.

                    To which atcause said, “It was proven many years ago that auditing, Dianetics & Scientology is true and works.”

                    My reply was that it has not been proven to the scientific community. And as you have found out yourself, it still has not.

                    As you have apparently found, there was one experiment wherein the subject was anesthetized and a passage was read while a painful stimuli was applied-a recipe for an “engram”, according to LRH. Try as they might, the early Dianeticists were unable to recover any of the passage.

                    Given that the concept of an “engram” is one of foundations of LRH’s hypothesis of the “reactive mind”, is it any wonder why subsequent studies were not a popular subject for scientific research funding?

                    Surely, the CoS has garnered enough money over the years to fund its own research, but if it has, it surely has not published any results.

                    Science moves slowly, but there is good reason. Knowledge builds upon itself, and is constantly being re-worked as more data comes in so that our overall understanding takes into account inconsistencies that are uncovered as time goes on. Entire fields of study can be rejected and abandoned as they are proven to be unworkable in the face of new developments.

                    Religion, OTOH, relies upon an “authoritative source”. New knowledge is eschewed, if not forbidden, if it does not come from the original authority. “KSW” is a perfect example of this.

                    The scientific community will *never* be interested in Scientology because there is no underlying web of data supporting the original hypothesis. There is no proof that the mind is perfect, or that it is only made imperfect by the reactive mind. There is no proof that the reactive mind exists. There is no proof that engrams exist.

                    Indeed, the fact that auditing “works” at all (and I agree that it does, in the sense that it makes people feel better) needs to have a total re-working of the underlying hypothesis-which is what science has done and continues to do.

                    You ask, “There is a proliferation of “therapies” in the USA. Name one that has been “scientifically tested and validated” in the ways you speak of.”

                    Seriously Valkov-to ask such a question makes me wonder if you have done any looking, at all, into the field of psychology. Studies have been done by the hundreds, if not thousands. Specific therapies have been tested dozens of times for their efficacy in a variety of ailments. I think that compared to the “one-size-fits-all-ailments” approach of Scientology,I think you could learn a lot if you would spend some time looking around.

                    I think you would find it interesting to compare auditing with “systematic desensitization”, for starters. In SD, a phobic patient is exposed to repeated fearful stimuli until the patient is no longer affected by the phobic object. This reminds me of auditing, where “similar earlier incidents” could arguably replace the stimuli.

                    Another therapy that has been the subject of dozens of studies is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which has been studied to treat many disorders from eating to anxiety to psychosis.

                    That said, you asserted that I have been telling others to wait until further studies have been done before doing auditing, etc. If you read my above posts carefully, I believe you will find your assertion unfounded.

                    While for myself and my own sanity, I would most definitely demand that sound clinical studies were done on a therapy designed to modify my thinking process before I would ever consider engaging in it, I certainly respect others rights to engage in whatever activity they wish. If auditing works for you, I’m happy for you.

                    Where I take exception is to spread falsehoods and to disparage others for having opinions or engaging in debate, which is what I perceive atcause as having engaged in. The truth is revealed in debate, and falsehoods are exposed for what they are in the same manner. Free expression is important, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage in it.

                    And as this blog has been a venue for free expression, debate, and a search for the truth, I am surprised (and a little disappointed) that you would question why I would seek to ask some wholly valid questions about some questionable assertions made here.

                    Finally, you ask why I should not engage in the necessary studies I think are needed into Scientology. Frankly, I think I have satisfied my curiosity as to what actually is going on in auditing, at least on a psychological level.

                    As to what is going on in a spiritual level, I’d be interested in researching that further. But, to differentiate between hypnosis, hallucination and genuine exteriorization, I think it would be very easy to test. Simply have a friend write a phrase on a poster board and have the place it in a room that you do not have access to. If you can read the phrase and report it back, then you will have something.

                    • Who cares about the “scientific community”? LOL! Science on this planet has never gone past the physical universe. Dianetics and Scientology are about the mind and spirit. Something that “scientists” cannot comprehend. Anybody who has had extensive auditing “knows” that it WORKS. Enough said. Oh by the way, I suggest that you re-read Dianetics and find your misunderstood words.

                    • Mr.Fancy, We are wasting Marty’s bandwidth here. I am 66 years old and have had a life-long interest in psychology and philosophy. My experience includes working with psychologists and psychiatrists for 13 years at a University teaching hospital, as well as extensive reading.

                      Honestly, I am not interested in armchair theorizing. And I feel this blog is not the place for it. This blog has an entirely different purpose and the kind of “questioning” you are talking about is not part of that.

                      For that, I recommend Geir’s blog. He’s quite open to wide-ranging questioning and speculation on his blog, http://isene.wordpress.com. I sometimes post there myself.

    • take a chill pill man…..the WHOLE documentary isn’t even finished. It’s in the process of being made. And it is NOT a commercial for or against Scientology How can you say the workability of the tech is not included? There are interviews with Independent Scientologists, doesn’t that count for something? I am sure they all are going to say how wonderful they are doing now that they practice the tech outside the CULT! Mark is trying to focus on the abuses and POB and let the world know what an ass he is. It’s about old guard, anons and Independents coming together to agree to disagree and uniting to help bring down POB. A year ago NO one would have ever thought that all of us would be communicating with each other and working together for a common goal. What each person takes out of it will be their own conclusion. Some may think Scientology sounds great and give it a try with the Independents. Some may just be happy the abuses area being addressed and that people are trying to stop Miscavige. Some may have NO idea about any of this and will receive the education of a life time. The more people we reach, the better the outcome.
      You have the right to your own opinion, but don’t put something down that you haven’t seen yet! That’s what I call a flunk!

      • I think the Tital ‘KR’ is PERFECT. It says it all.

        That said if Mark fails to quote it, better yet, narrate the entire KR Policy…fails to keep it central to the theme or there a bouts..

        General opinion will give him a fail. IMHO

        True to the KR PL. It is quite mad to discourage Mark in anyway whatsoever.

        If you read this Mr. Bunker I feel you are squarely on purpose and mission this life. If life is a game…let the prize be the ultimate surprise to you and for you!

        Lastly, balance in your documatry would include the back half of the KR, the painted ideal Sean a independent Ethics Speacialist could convey… and the very truthful point that Scientology is not a Belief based Philosophy, it is a truly and simply, what life IS. For example; The Dynamics (all 8) are key to Scientology and Ethics… It’s a bit crazy to say LRH invented them.

      • Sassy,

        I could not agree with you more.
        Mark Bunker has never pretended to be a Religious Scholar.
        He is not a Scientologist and has never pretended to understand the technology.
        He does have an innate and passionate feeling for Justice vs Injustice.
        That he continues to blow the whistle on the ABUSE is a good thing.
        Any voice, any avenue, any media, in any format that seeks to end the reign of the unspeakable sadism and atrocities is a good thing. The RPF and the RPF’s RPF and the SLEEP DEPRIVATION and the human SLAVE TRAFFICKING, the THUGGERY and the madman Miscavige running the show,…anyone whistle blowing or shedding light on these issues has my support.
        I will friend anyone who seeks to end the ABUSE.
        The lock down of those 700 at INT base has to come to an end.

        RON PAUL US Congressman Quote:
        It will come to end. The question is, Does it have to end badly ?

        • Karen #1
          +9000!

          I may not “get” your beliefs (but hey, I am friends with reasonable republicans I don’t who believe stuff I don’t “get” either!) but I gotta take this opportunity to tell you that I have tremendous respect for your ACTIONS and INTEGRITY in the here and now.

          I will also friend anyone who seeks to end the abuse of fellow human travelers, like you dear Karen.

        • Karen,

          I love you to death and I think you are a great lady and an angel on earth.

          Yes, Mark Bunker doesn’t understand Scientology technology.

          Just as an experiment, try sitting down with him one day ( I hear he’s has no problem with speaking to scientologists ) and try to get him to understand.

          My guess is that it will be a total waste of time. Give it a try one time if you get some extra time. Surely with your level of understanding of Scientology, auditing ability and TR’s you should be able to get him to understand some things about Scientology technology.

          Try it one time Karen, and see what happens.

          • Wow atcause, talk about inspection before the fact not to mention postulating and predicting of failure.

            Are you speaking from experience? Have you sat down with MarkB.and done this yourself?

            On second thought, I hope you haven’t and I hope you don’t!

            • How many well intentioned Scientologists do you think over the past 12 years have tried to get Bunker to understand something, anything about Scientology or Dianectic technology? And remember, alot of the “handlers” he ran into over the years were OT.

              I’m willing to guess, alot. That’s the reason for my prediction of failure.

              I think he knows Scientology & Dienetics works, helps people and makes them smarter and stronger and that may be the problem.

              Let’s not forget, Mark Bunker use to be an actor and there may very well be a side to Bunker that is never seen on his videos or in public, a side that is only known to him.

              A person can be jolly, sweet and teddy bear like on the outside and still be very angry and hostel on the inside.

    • Michael: The Cult of Scientology has become a Spiritual Ghetto awash in rancid cultists. Once you leave the Ghetto for the freedom of the Indies and the Internet, you have to leave the Scientology Ghetto behind you lest you be marginalized as just another cultist.

      Give the Wise Beard Man some love. He is a major OL online when it comes to the topic of Scientology.
      /////

      • +1

        The difference between WBM and DM is that WBM will happily sit down with almost anyone for a chat. But he’s under no obligation to agree with anyone about anything, nor is he obliged to forward anyone else’s point of view.

        Let’s not lose sight of the primary thing that Scientology was designed to improve – the ability and willingness to communicate. If anyone disagrees with what WBM says, feel free to start a dialog with the man and discuss the matter rationally. The plus side is that if WBM is shown to be wrong in anything, it can be fixed quite easily.

        DM would never permit any such dialog to happen.

        On the matter of showing the good side of Scientology to the world, I really feel it’s time for the subject and it’s adherents to grow up and deal with this issue with maturity. It’s not enough to claim that “Scientology is the only religion that can prove all of it’s tenets” and quote where LRH says it, we actually have to get up off the bench and DO IT.

        It’s useful to step back and look at this from the viewpoint of someone in Mark’s position. Look objectively for the proofs that Scientology works – you won’t find them. Mr Fancy mentioned above that this work has not been done, and this is very true. The Church, and to a large extent LRH himself, relied heavily on getting people to look for themselves and not so much on actual objective proofs. If all the Church-generated controversy had never happened, this might be sufficient. But the controversy DID happen and “look for yourself” is NOT sufficient. The church has given the man in the street more than enough reason and ammunition to think that the subject is a complete load of bunk and not worth looking at. Which means that those who want the subject to succeed now have a huge mountain to climb. It can be done, it’s not impossible, but it starts with accepting valid criticism (no matter how much it hurts) and dealing with it, then backing up your own claims with solid evidence.

        Anything else is just a lessened form of “appeal to authority”, which is the first thing in Study Tech we are not supposed to do.

        Alan,

    • Exactly Michael. I agree with you.

      Bunker’s target is not only the church of scientology but Scientology discoveries and technology itself.

  35. I stumbled across Mark”s website about 6 years ago and have been intrigued by scientology and how they operate to silence critics and the lengths they go to in order to interfere with free speech, etc. Bob Minton was also a hero of mine, as it takes great courage for one individual to step up and attempt to put an end to the abuse that was -and still is taking place. His courage is what I most admire. Unlike Marty and Mike, et. al. Bob did not possess the knowledge that these individuals do about CofM(S) and still did a stellar job with with his battle. Mark’s courage to continue exposing scientology when everyone else gave up and felt defeated, should also be commended. Now, after watching videos and reading through hundreds of documents and blogs, etc. I don’t necessarily agree with or believe that Scientology -even in its truest form, works. However, I can respect Marty and Mike and the independent movement. I wrote to Mike a couple of years back through a social media site, and we had some good dialogue. I just hope with all my heart, that the two of you (Mike and Marty) can really expose the Church and all the horrible things they have done throughout the years to put an end to them. Knoweldge is Power and both of you possess it. Nonetheless, I understand that this is also unlikely, as you would probably inturn implicate yourselves in some of these crimes and perhaps destroy this independent movement that you are working towards. Catch-22? As much as I oppose “Scientology” I am happy for all of you, that you were all able to shed these chains of horror. I hope that you all find yourselves back with your families and live a prosperous and peaceful life. RIP Bob Minton, a true Hero!!

    Jimmy

  36. When Marty told me back in January that WBM was his “tech guy” for his blog, I was not surprised. If there is one thing that Mark and Marty have in common, it is seeking to live with the truth. While the Cult of Miscavige declared me a “Suppressive Person” for insisting that DM was an SP back in 2008, WBM declared me a “Special Person” for helping HIM “get the truth out” via this documentary. And it looks to be shaping up as a real doozey. Good luck and Godspeed, WBM. And, thank you.

  37. Mark Bunker, you have done much to help people free themselves over the years, including me in 2006 when I ran across the Barnes video on your website. Thank you for posting it. I have a nice story to tell you. After I informed myself of the alterations and abuses going in in the church, I informed some close friends that I was leaving the church. One of those close friends, was curious as to why so I showed her the Barnes video so she would see that tech was being corrupted and policy was not being followed at Flag. My friend started to cry. Her sister is Debra Barnes and she had been forced to disconnect from her years prior and this video was the first she has seen of her sister in a long time. I continued to show her more data on this subject and eventually she flew to Colorado to reconnect with her sister, and left the church as well. So, we both helped reconnect two sisters and patch back together a family. You are a good guy Mark, I sincerely thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you have done over the years.

  38. So, Marty,

    Thanks for enduring the bullshit that occurs on your street daily. As Brian Culkin said, this blog will be long remembered as a powerful force that ultimately exposed and brought down a billion dollar empire run by a little runt known as the Wizard of Oz.

    Rock on!!! What you’re doing matters.

  39. Tory Christman

    Mark,
    It is SO great to have had the pleasure, really the honor of watching you evolve in this :sigh: Fight? Game? Whatever you name it—we met WAY back when I was “in” and being sent out to try to “Handle the critics”, you being one key one, as you were the first to show up with a camera in hand.

    As you well know, but many hear do not, Mark was the reason I got the Battlefield Earth Message board shut down. (It wasn’t an OSA Project–I just liked JT and felt the critics were picking on him, so I got it shut down)).
    Once that was done, I sort of missed the critics. Why? Because to me, they were like the old cowboys: They could say what they wanted, do whatever they wanted, BE whomever they wanted. That was how I was like when I got into Scientology. This was 30 years later, and as an “OT 7” there were TONS of things we could not do. So with that, I went onto ARS, the only newsgroup in 2000, and made 4,000 posts in 4 weeks, woke up, escaped across the country, and met Stacy, Bob and Jesse, and soon after, Mark Bunker!

    You’ve come a LONNNNNNNG way baby! I’m so very happy you’re doing “Knowledge Report” and if you haven’t donated—please do. I know Mark won’t say it, but every single dollar *does* count.
    Thanks for helping Marty, too. You’ve helped many, many people over they years, and for me it’s been wonderful to watch your growth. Keep up the great work, both of you! Love to ALL, Tory/Magoo

    • This was 30 years later, and as an “OT 7″ there were TONS of things we could not do.
      – Tory/Magoo
      Viewed your videos on New Solo NOTs OT VII. You got all the wrong tech on that level and all the wrong considerations on the data. What a bummer. A failed cycle indeed at the hands of Slappy (DM). You should always state you were on the level but not completed.
      Here’s a good action for you. Visit Marty and complete the level. I’ll be glad to furnish you with the original references on that level from the LRH data of 1952. Good advice for you I know you won’t take.
      Where do you actually stand on the Tech? Don’t walk the spiked fence. Make your statement loud and clear on your YouTube. Recall, CONFUSION is a low ethics level. Claify your stand and speak out.
      A hearty Thank You for exposing the crimes of Slappy and crew – those nasty degraded beings.

      • GetTheConcept

        She can make a loud and clear statement of where she stands on the tech if she wants to but she doesn’t have to.

  40. I support Marty because he’s a Scientologist and has the expertise on the inner workings of the Church and can communicate and be effective about such things. The Church needs to be ushered into a sane condition, even a complete rebuild if needed.
    While there are those on the planet quietly going about the business of studying, learning and applying Scientology behind the scenes I believe it takes a more open 3rd Dyn approach to be able to ethically live with oneself concerning what Scientology actually is. Group agreement is not a substitute for sanily, rather it creates insanity when tech/policy is violated or not known. Granting of beingness and responsibilty go hand in hand. There is a way, and being in comm with Marty’s creation (with your help Mark) is such a direction in present time.
    I hope one day we can all share the broad space so desperately missing concerning the true intentions of why Scientology is so important.
    Freedom is so cool.

  41. Paulien Lombard, one of the top producers of Orange County org speaks out:

    Paulien is one of the most amazing, loving and caring being I have ever know. Thank you Paulien!!!

  42. Mark Bunker, I never had a chance to say thank you. You were the driving force behind my wake-up a few years back. At that time, your website seemed to be the ONLY credible source of true information with interviews of actual OTs and such. I am from Europe and let me tell you, you have helped many here over the years.

    I am not a Scientologist anymore and you and I probably share similiar views of Scientology. But I still read Marty’s stuff. I respect him and hell, even support him in his efforts. Whatever philosophy he follows, the simple fact that he allows real communication to occur, like having you post on his site, proves that whatever Hubbard left behind is in safe hands with him. And with that, we all win.

    So Marty and Mark, respect… the Church could learn a lot from you.

  43. In german tv I could see almost every day a documentary about people that have a bad story to tell. On any subject possible. I can imagine that the audience is no longer paying much attention to those documentaries. I did look at your „trailer“ and did find only the usual documentary pattern used today on every channel. Not to state now that this is bad or could be done better. But I am missing the story behind. Not only the obvious. The psychology (trickery, blackmail, mental „engeneering“) behind that system. It just came to my mind the phrase „mental engeneering“. I think that phrase very much fits the current Scientology affairs.

    • George, if I do it right the film will be compelling and entertaining. I’m going to try to do it right. So far people have only seen snippets of raw footage. By the way, extended videos of all the interviews will be released online after the film is out.

  44. Martin Padfield

    Hii Mark, don’t know if you have plans to come to the Uk but you are welcome here for a chat. Well done on the work to date. Will it only be available online, or have tv networks expressed interest?

  45. I have to be honest about my feelings about Mark Bunker.

    I’m not a big Mark Bunker fan.

    I have found his videos over the years to be both entertaining and educational. But aside from his being against the church of scientology, which I don’t have a problem with, he’s also against Scientology which I do. Mark Bunker doesn’t seem to be able to differentiate between the two and that I have issue with.

    He also seems to have a great ignorance of Scientology itself and has a great misunderstanding of the subject and misunderstanding what L. Ron Hubbard was teaching.

    Over the years, while doing his video recording at protests, he also has engaged in repeating OT III to make LRH and Scientology look silly in the eyes of those well below the reality of it. Which, quit honestly, I found to be suppressive behavior. Anytime someone does something in an attempt to make the truth ( subject of Scientology ) look silly, is being suppressive of others who need that truth to get free.

    Yes, I feel that Mark Bunker has done some good things in the past but I also feel that he’s done some suppressive things too. Out of ignorance or intent, it’s hard to say.

    • “That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”
      L. Ron Hubbard, Creed of Scientology

    • “Anytime someone does something in an attempt to make the truth ( subject of Scientology ) look silly, is being suppressive of others who need that truth to get free.”

      Wouldn’t you think it to be pretty presumptuous if two Christians chattered at earshot about you; about how you were going to burn in hell because you don’t attend Sunday Services. After all, we all know that JESUS is the only truth, don’t we?
      Now don’t worry, I’m not one of those types and this is only meant as an example. I’m not saying that anyone is stupid because he believes Scientology is the truth. THAT would be presumptuous on MY part.
      What I’ve partly learned on this blog is to live and let live.
      What you are doing with Bunker is putting him back into those categories (suppressive / pts / db, tone 1.1).
      It’s just not that simple.

    • I am going to supress the hell out of you😉 With love

      • Cat Daddy,

        If you are giving true love to someone ( which means to do what’s best for them in the most profound sense of the word ) it’s not suppression.

        • “If you are giving true love to someone ( which means to do what’s best for them in the most profound sense of the word ) it’s not suppression.”

          Regardless of his own opinions, Bunker is doing his work to stop the abuses. Sure, in the past he may have questioned the viability of the tech-WHICH IS HIS RIGHT.

          But, his support of *you* practicing your religion has never been in question. THAT is what’s best for you. THAT is true love.

          You don’t have to agree with him. You don’t have to like him. But to cast his efforts as “suppressive” is the same “stop thinking” action that LRH told you not to engage in when he said to LOOK.

          And yes, your assertion that Bunker was repeating OT III To make LRH look silly and is therefore “suppressive” is, well, silly. Guess what? OT III is a cat that got out of the bag long ago. You don’t have the power-nor the right- to tell people what they can and cannot hear.

          Isn’t that the behavior that Miscavige engages in?

          Finally, +1 internets to Dr. Faust for calling it right-you look as presumptuous as a couple of old Christian fundamentalists tsk tsking about someone who is going to “go to Hell”.

          I think you could stand a piping hot cup of humility while you go and mull over the First Amendment.

          • “Guess what? OT III is a cat that got out of the bag long ago.”

            It was LRH himself that let that one out of the bag – it’s a movie screenplay called “Revolt in the Stars”. The movie never got made but that’s not the point, the screenplay is out there and passed over many desks in Hollywood.

            But let’s be honest though – how long could it be expected for a human society to keep the OT III data under wraps? The odds of it being anything longer than 30 years are abysmally small considering the mystique, wonder and awe surrounding it. OTIII was always going to leak out somehow, it’s just one of those unavoidable statistical things like death and taxes.

            I reckon the danger in OTIII is not the data itself being revealed – too many people have now read it and reported no discernible side-effects. The danger is running OTIII “black Dianetics” style.

            • As I’ve stated before, any action with the purpose of making the truth look silly or to drive people away from the truth ( Scientology tech ) is a suppressive act.

              • How do *you* know it is true, atcause?

              • atcause,

                In my humble opinion you seem to believe Scientology is truth. Fine. You do have a right to your belief.

                Now, however, you decide that if an action makes the truth look silly it is a suppressive act.

                Actually, I believe your decision about that, and your statement regarding it, is making the Scientology look silly, ridiculous, and takes away from public respect of the subject. That is what DM does for God’s sake!

                I know it is very very hard to try and look at information from a different point of view. But it can be very helpful or we end up in (silly) arguments (which, according to you, might be suppressive) while human rights serious abuses are occurring. It is like arguing about whether Jesus is real or not, while somebody dies or is tortured right in front of you. Jesus would not stand by and watch that happen in front of him.

                What is more important to you? Do you deny that people have the right to their beliefs, or don’t you. Or do you simply case stones against those who do not agree with your beliefs.

                • “In my humble opinion you seem to believe Scientology is truth. Fine. You do have a right to your belief.”

                  Not a belief, read: ——-> KNOW.

                  “Actually, I believe your decision about that, and your statement regarding it, is making the Scientology look silly, ridiculous, and takes away from public respect of the subject.”

                  Public respect? What “public” would that be?

                  You are using alot of generalities my friend. Please be specific.

              • I have a problem with that statement as worded – it’s a very short and very slippery slope from there to outright censorship. This is not a facetious statement – your definition of a suppressive act comes straight out of LRH’s writings and you only have to look at DM to see how bent and twisted it can get and how quickly he managed it.

                If someone wants to make OTIII the butt of bar jokes, the correct thing to do is flourish and prosper anyway, and communicate. Don’t get all hot and bothered under the collar (it’s a waste of energy), instead out-create the criticism. Demonstrate how the tech is good and be the change you want to see in the world. Engage the critic and communicate, draw the distinction between what DM does and what LRH hoped the church would do. Reason with people, communicate with them, confront what they put in front of you and deal with it.

                Personally, I would prefer it if no-one ever abused OTIII and caused harm to another. But history teaches me what happens every single time a religion creates a “special” class of “privileged” information and I absolutely do not want to go there again.

          • “Regardless of his own opinions, Bunker is doing his work to stop the abuses”

            Unfortunately, he’s also doing work to discredit the technology of Scientology not just the abuses of the church of scientology.

            The abuses of the church is one thing, the discoveries of LRH is another. Mark Bunker wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. I guess he see’s the abusive actions by the church of scientology as his big opportunity to do so.

            All under the cover of “ending the abuses of the church”.

          • “You don’t have to agree with him. You don’t have to like him. But to cast his efforts as “suppressive” is the same “stop thinking” action that LRH told you not to engage in when he said to LOOK”

            I don’t “cast”, I identify suppressive actions when I see them and call them for what they are. Yes, Bunker has done some good things. I’m not denying that but he also has done some suppressive things.

            • We all have.

            • If your measure of what is “suppressive” is something that seeks to deprive a being of finding truth, then you have to allow beings to look at all the evidence and decide for themselves what is true.

              If you think that Scientology is true, then the truth will stand up for itself. That’s the beauty of debate-what is true is allowed to shine through. Falsehoods will not stand up to scrutiny.

              DM knows this, and that is why he does not allow people to LOOK and decide for themselves.

              • “If your measure of what is “suppressive” is something that seeks to deprive a being of finding truth, then you have to allow beings to look at all the evidence and decide for themselves what is true.”

                Yes, but some people want to poison and taint people’s first impression and opinion of something before they have a chance to look at it and decide for themselves.

                And the real reason they do it ( instead of their cover of ‘ending the abuses of the church’ ) is because the don’t want people to find out the truth or to get stronger or help for they feel it would make the world a more dangerous place for them.

                • As a Scientologist myself I resent that statement and would like you to retract it.

                  It’s a rather vast sweeping generality despite the “some people” disclaimer at the beginning. The thread of your argument seems to be to counter what Mr Fancy is saying and you respond to his widely applicable truth with that?

                  Please get your OT-TR0 BB in, it appears to be out.

                  Alan

                  • “As a Scientologist myself I resent that statement and would like you to retract it.”

                    If you are a Scientologist as you say, why would you resent my repeating a truth explained by LRH, contained in the SP/PTS lectures?

                • “And the real reason they do it ( instead of their cover of ‘ending the abuses of the church’ ) is because the don’t want people to find out the truth or to get stronger or help for they feel it would make the world a more dangerous place for them.”

                  There is no way to support such a sweeping generality. Indeed, there is no supporting evidence for that assertion, at all.

                  You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that others can have opinions of their own, and motivation to do nothing more malicious than to warn others of making a mistake.

                  Especially since, by any measure, Mark Bunker has been *far* more truthful and forthcoming than the CoS. To read something sinister into it is ridiculous, if not paranoid.

            • atcause, you wrote: “Yes, Bunker has done some good things. I’m not denying that but he also has done some suppressive things.”

              These are generalities. Can you name one specific good thing MarkB.has done, and one specific “suppressive” thing he has done?

              DOX or STFU.

    • I have not done the OT levels, but to me, there is a difference between the introductory material to OT III, and running the processes. Why did LRH write the “Revolt in the Stars” screenplay and try to get a movie made, if releasing this material is suppressive? Yes, people sometimes spout it off to push some buttons, but the real trouble comes about only from “bad results” or “no results”, not from protesters or other external influences. Certainly the OT III story is no stranger than the idea of the Son of God coming to Earth and dying on the cross for the sins of the world.

      To me, the senior data of Scientology are the Creed of the Church of Scientology, the Auditors Code, the Code of Honor, and the Logics and Axioms. Following those will get one out of the Church really fast.

    • John Fennessey

      At Cause, you said;
      “But aside from his being against the church of scientology, which I don’t have a problem with, he’s also against Scientology which I do. Mark Bunker doesn’t seem to be able to differentiate between the two and that I have issue with. ”
      As most here know too well, the church of scientology has spent its existence trying to make sure there was no difference. Persecution, legal and otherwise, of anyone not under their control has been the game they played. Its more recent events and the promotion of the idea of “Independents”, which is beginning to pry the two apart. I am sure its not real to the public at large as yet. It has not been real to Mr. Bunker. Perhaps going forward it will become more evident to him that there is a difference. In fact I am sure of it. Independents are here to stay. He can see that.
      But it will be a while until the general public see, feels or understands that. If ever. I doubt they even care. But folks who want to see the tech continue in use do care as they need a safe space to operate in. Mr Bunkers understanding and explanation of that difference in his work would be beneficial for the future of the subject.

    • Here’s the deal, AC – we as Scientologists have to deal with the fact that we let DM do his thing. Part of the price of this is, quite frankly, getting bypassed by others to deal with DM. Mark Bunker is one guy who has done some of the “bypass and handle.”

      If Mark thinks Scientology is bogus and Hubbard a jerk, well, that’s really okay with me. It really is. I got over my “must protect Ron” button long ago.

      The ONLY thing that will save Scientology as a philosophy is if people of good will practice it and apply it for good instead of evil. We all know it can be applied both ways – like atomic fission, or acid. We are putting this together now – and perhaps in years ahead, the DM era will be merely a blot and a lesson to be remembered.

      • If Mark thinks Scientology is bogus and Hubbard a jerk, well, that’s really okay with me. It really is. I got over my “must protect Ron” button long ago.
        Are you kidding Grasshopper? Failing to protect LRH could be your demise.

        • Good Lord, protect LRH from what? Does his work not speak for itself? It is all out there and it is not going away. Even in “Hymn of Asia” Ron stated that he needed no such protection.

        • I think you missed the point: Ron’s works and his accomplishments stand on their own. It is one thing to point out and demonstrate the value of the technology and his legacy, and quite another to get hot and bothered every time someone says that Ron is the “biggest con man of the 20th century” (or worse). I have been in arguments like this – and they are a waste of time. The only thing that works is using the tech and being a good example of its results. Being a Scientologist and being a good, ethical, competent, and kind person is astonishing to some people. It blows their mind, because they can’t compute that something from that “crazy L. Ron Hubbard” could actually do any good at all.

          • I think the real issue is, if someone is attacking LRH or Scientology, does a person have the courage to disagree?

            Not argue, but to simply disagree and say “Well, I don’t see it that way. I like Scientology, it’s been helpful to me”, words to that effect. Or does one just keep quiet and let the attack stand without presenting a different point of view?

            I understand “defending” LRH and Scientology philosophy in that sense.

            • Valkov, I agree, you don’t have to “argue”, but at the very least say something. To sit and say nothing is an overt of omission. Personally, I never stand for anyone attacking LRH or Scientology as a subject. Here are 2 quotes that apply:
              “I caught a staff member one time just before he blew and traced down the original overt act against the organization to his failure to defend the organization when a criminal was speaking viciously about it. This failure to defend accumulated to itself more and more overts and withholds, such as failing to relay messages, failure to complete an assignment, until it finally utterly degraded the person into stealing something of no value. This theft caused the person to believe he had better leave.”
              LRH – HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER 1959R
              REVISED 9 FEBRUARY 1989 Blow Offs
              and…
              CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY

              (Originally issued as an article in Ability 199 on 5 Nov. 67. Issued as an HCOB on 27 Aug. 87.)

              If Aunt Ermiltrude each night went through your change purse and extracted divers coins without your knowledge, and then if she found you had joined a group that could discover secrets, her immediate and passionate reaction would be to damn the group and you as well.

              If the wife was stepping out with your best friend behind your back, and one day she found you had thoughts of joining a group that taught you people’s motives and reactions and made you understand them, she would throw a mad-dog fit to prevent your progress.

              If a government were busy making capital out of people’s ignorance of economics and world affairs and was playing a double game and a group came along and started to make its people smarter and more knowledgeable of true motives, that government would try to shoot every member of that group on sight.

              If a group of “scientists” were knowingly raising the number of insane to get more appropriation and “treatment” fees and somebody came along with the real answer, that group would move heaven and earth to protect its billions of rake-off.

              And so individuals, governments and “scientists” attack Scientology.

              It’s as simple as that. We do not treat the sick or the insane. We break no laws. We do more good in any ten minutes of this planet’s time than the combined efforts of all social ministries on Earth to better mankind.

              Stated that way, however, it looks pretty hopeless and even dangerous to be a Scientologist.

              Except it is totally hopeless and fatal not to be a Scientologist.

              Those who are not Scientologists are left in complete ignorance of the motives of the dishonest. And they have no chance of personal immortality. It is as simple as that. It is better to be endangered but with a chance than to be condemned utterly and without one.

              Those who criticize one for being a Scientologist or make snide remarks cannot stand a personal survey of past actions or motive. This happens to be a fortunate fact for us. The criminal abhors daylight. And we are the daylight.

              Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts. Over and over we prove this.

              Politician A stands up on his hind legs in a parliament and brays for a condemnation of Scientology. When we look him over we find crimes—embezzled funds, moral lapses, a thirst for young boys—sordid stuff.

              Wife B howls at her husband for attending a Scientology group. We look her up and find she had a baby he didn’t know about.

              Two things operate here. Criminals hate anything that helps anyone, instinctively. And just as instinctively a criminal fights anything that may disclose his past.

              Now, as criminals only compose about 20 percent of the race, we are on the side of the majority. This is quite true. In one country we have almost exactly 100 Scientologists for every member and supporter of psychiatry. They make the noise because they are afraid. But we have more general influence and more votes.

              The way we handle the situation now is simplicity itself and we are winning.

              We are slowly and carefully teaching the unholy a lesson. It is as follows: “We are not a law enforcement agency. BUT we will become interested in the crimes of people who seek to stop us. If you oppose Scientology we promptly look up—and will find and expose—your crimes. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone.”

              It’s very simple. Even a fool can grasp that.

              And don’t underrate our ability to carry it out.

              Our business is helping people to lead better lives. We even help those who have committed crimes, for we are not here to punish. But those who try to make life hard for us are at once at risk.

              We are only interested in doing our job. And we are only interested in the crimes of those who try to prevent us from doing our work. There is no good reason to oppose Scientology. In our game everybody wins.

              And we have this technical fact—those who oppose us have crimes to hide. It’s perhaps merely lucky that this is true. But it is true. And we handle opposition well only when we use it.

              Try it on your next critic. Like everything else in Scientology, it works.

              Sample dialogue:

              GEORGE: Gwen. if you don’t drop Scientology I’m going to leave you.

              GWEN: (savagely) George! What have you been doing?

              GEORGE: What do you mean?

              GWEN: Out with it. Women? Theft? Murder? What crime have you committed?

              GEORGE: (weakly) Oh. nothing like that.

              GWEN: What then?

              GEORGE: I’ve been holding back on my pay. . .

              If you, the criticized, are savage enough and insistent enough in your demand for the crime, you’ll get the text, meter or no meter.

              Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist. Because they do.

              Life will suddenly become much more interesting—and you’ll become much less suppressed!

              L. Ron Hubbard
              Founder

              • Count,

                So, lemme get this straight: One cannot criticize LRH or the “tech”, because to do so is merely an assertion that the critic somehow has “crimes” that he/she is covering up?

                That *really* is the sum of your logic? :-/

                See, in the Wog world, we have to bother with making arguments based on facts-not rhetorical bullying of those who would make a point. If you want to get Scientology out of the cracks and crevices of society, you’re going to have to learn how to defend a position using reason-not just brow beat people.

                That may have worked in the 1950s with print reporters, but in the Age of the Internet…not so much.

          • Grasshopper, read Critics Of Scientology that I just posted. Why are you so “reasonable”? I noticed that you are also reasonable about the psych’s even though LRH wrote about them over and over. In fact you claimed that LRH never wrote something I pointed out on another post here: https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/texas-is-independents-country/#comment-136863 (I went back and provided the exact quote by LRH after you said “he didn’t write that”, but I guess you haven’t seen my response because it’s such an old post). I suggest you go back and look at it.
            For someone who has been around for 30 years and is supposedly standard with the tech, your reasonableness (and lack of knowledge written by LRH) is a big outpoint Grasshopper.

            • I will tell you why: because it is no longer true. Critics of Scientology now have very legitimate reasons to be opposed to the church. Very legitimate. This blog and others are full of examples – Danny M. jailed, forced abortions, OSA’s gestapo actions, lying by COB, false reports, multi-year RPF cycles, off-policy fund raising, neglect of children, a bunch of idiots harassing Marty, Mike, Michael, others, etc.

              Obnosis and observation is not the same as reasonableness. In fact, it would be reasonableness to ignore the facts and still go on and think all is well in the halls of Flag and Int.

              As for psychs, you have to go beyond one quote for this one. Ron said they were on the track a long time. There were no pychs 150 years ago. There were priests, kings, politicians, witch doctors, etc. Go beyond the labels and think with the data. You have SPs holding positions of influence that cause trouble. This is very different from saying everyone with the label “Psychiatrist” or “Psychologist” or “Priest” (or even “Chairman of the Board”) is an SP.

              • Grasshopper, you left out the most important part of LRH’s quote: “Under the false data of the psychs (who have been on the track a long time AND ARE THE SOLE CAUSE OF DECLINE IN THIS UNIVERSE)”
                What part of the sentence do you not understand?

                • OK guys, I think you are both right to an extent.

                  I think what LRH meant by”psychs” is not exactly what you mean by “psychs”. LRL mentioned “psychs” many times in his lectures, but he never precisely defined it as all present day psychiatrists, psychologists, whatever.

                  As near as I can gather, he meant whole-track implanters, or present-time implanters.

                  Think about this: David Miscavige is not a psychiatrist, but he IS a PSYCH in LRH’s terms. David Miscavige is 100% a PSYCH.

                  I believe LRH had in mind beings who have a particular M.O. having to do with behavior modification and behavioral control of others. They are not necessarily members of any particular profession. The people who designed North Korean brainwashing or Communist Chinese “re-education camps” are not necessarily professionally qualified psychiatrists or psychologists, except in the practical sense of knowing a lot about degrading and nullifying and controlling others.

                  Form follows function, so it may be that psychs establish or influence or control some of the the APAs (Psychiatric Association, Psychological Association, etc) of the world, but we need to learn to spot them on the basis of what one is actually doing, not by his membership in some labeled group, which is a generality. A psych can only be accurately identified by obnosis of him and his stats and products, no necessarily by his membership in some professional group. A psych like Miscavige flies the false flag of religion. Others may be cloaked behind other false flags.

                  My point is, I think you guys arguing about this need to listen/read more LRH to get the clearest possible conceptual understanding of what LRH meant by “psychs”. Otherwise you will be wrong-targeting and arguing with each other endlessly to no purpose, all heat and no light.

                  • Valkov, thank you for your input. However, I have absolutely no doubts as to who LRH is referring to when he says “psych’s”. I know what I know.
                    And you are right. No point in arguing about it.

                    “This battle is not finished. It will not be done until all psychiatrists and psychologists are brought back under law, deprived of their unearned millions in appropriations and the world made safe.” LRH – The Fight For Freedom.

                    • PS:
                      “The tech research done was quite extensive and involves several major discoveries. But I’ll let you in on one thing: There were psychiatrists who existed way, way back on the track.
                      It was the aim of these psychs back on the whole track to very carefully push in people’s anchor points to prevent them from reaching. The psychs were, themselves, a bunch of terrified cowards, and the prevention of reaching was one facet of their operation. Handling overts, withholds and nonsurvival purposes with the False Purpose Rundown has proven highly effective in undoing the effects of the “work” of psychs on the whole track, and restoring the thetan’s willingness and ability to reach.” LRH
                      HCOB 1984, 5 June – The False Purpose Rundown Series 1

                    • Let me paraphrase your quote of LRH, Count, thus:

                      “This battle is not finished. It will not be done until all Scientologists are brought back under law, deprived of their unearned millions in appropriations(fraudulently obtained donations) and the world made safe.”

                      I have no doubt that Psychiatry as a profession is suppressive to a large extent, but – you are responding to labels instead of obnosing. How many psychiatirists and psychologists do you know? Are you aware that one of the founders of CCHR, Thomas Szasz, was a psychiatrist? And also Peter Breggin, who has written over a dozen books scathingly critical of psychiatry and who also worked with CCHR, was a psychiatrist? Simply having the education and credentials of a “Psychiatrist” doesn’t make one a “psych” in LRH’s sense of the word.

                      I don’t doubt you know what you know, but what is that? Is it just knowledge of what LRH said? Because LRH did encourage us to obnose and think for ourselves.

                    • Valkov, I didn’t see your comment below until now. You said… “I have no doubt that Psychiatry as a profession is suppressive to a large extent, but – you are responding to labels instead of obnosing. How many psychiatirists and psychologists do you know? Are you aware that one of the founders of CCHR, Thomas Szasz, was a psychiatrist? And also Peter Breggin, who has written over a dozen books scathingly critical of psychiatry and who also worked with CCHR, was a psychiatrist?”
                      1. I am not responding to labels my friend. I have obnosed more than you can possibly imagine. I was on the front lines for many years.
                      2. Re: Szasz and Breggin. I know them both personally. Szasz is a good man. Breggin on the other hand is nothing but a nut case looking for stardom. Yes, he is against electro shock and drugs, which is good. However, his “counselling” is completely squirrelly and worthless. As all psychs do he “evaluates” and “invalidates”. And we both know that is a gross violation of the auditors code. He is also out-ethics on the 2D. He stole another man’s wife and destroyed their marriage.
                      3. How many psych’s do I know? Not sure exactly. But I have met dozens over the years. Like I said, I was on the front lines for many years and have first hand knowledge of how worthless they are, and how much damage they do. When I first had to confront them, I was almost in tears seeing what they had done to a lot of good people. So I have absolutely ZERO doubts about how suppressive they are.
                      By the way, at one time I used to think “there must be a few good psychiatrists”. Until I worked with them. And then I was thoroughly disabused of that idea.

                • Count, I want to point out something else too — LRH’s personal opinions are NOT “standard tech”. And if someone disagrees with Ron’s opinions, his philosophy, his views, more power to them. It’s called the Code of Honor.

                  It was the extremist CoM in the 1980s and later that tried to make every utterance, every action, every opinion, every thought from LRH “standard tech”. And it’s not. Go study RJ68 from 1968 — or have a look at this link:
                  http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&goto=77#msg_77

  46. I remember Mark from the LMT events in Leipzig 2001/2. His recordings of the whistleblowing Vivienne Krogmann are worth to see. I have been present while Vivienne talked. It was unbelievable. Respect of Marks courage. He has given a shit if he was chased or harrassed. And obviously
    the stupid OSA Dept. hasn´t found anything to nail him up the wall within the last 12 years. Keep going Mark !

  47. Mr. Bunker – thank you for helping Marty with this blog format – it is very efficient and easy to follow. I also want to thank you for what you have been doing to expose the corruption within Radical Scientology. You have helped me see different points of view. I am looking forward to your new documentary.

  48. United We Stand

    Just as any great Nation is formed of individuals with differing opinions, the focus of agreement not disagreement is the important thing.
    Secrecy is a Cancer (it is secrecy that has allowed the CoM abuses to flourish!), though required at times particularly when uniting different bodies with strong views and values, (I think that accounts for the majority of those protesting the CoM Abuses because otherwise they wouldn’t ‘be bothered!’), and overcoming the Semmelweis Syndrome, but if that secrecy is temporary and to be unwound at the earliest opportunity it is the best mortal men can expect.

    I am sure the association was probably guessed or known of by DM through OSA, therefore no great surprise.
    What will be a great surprise is the now open publication, it demonstrates a strengthening and stability of focus and resolve in the Indies and ‘Critics’ that now such a publication will not threaten growth of the joint calls against CoM abuses.

    A Very Dark Day in DM’s Ivory Turret!!!!

    • scilonschools

      Explanation of use of descriptive word Turret (not Tower) for DM’s ‘Fortification’
      In architecture, a turret (from Italian: torretta, little tower; Latin: turris, tower) is a small tower that projects vertically from the wall of a building such as a medieval castle..
      A building may have both towers and turrets; turrets might be smaller or higher but the difference is generally considered to be that a turret projects from the edge of the building, rather than continuing to the ground. The size of a turret is therefore limited by technology, since it puts additional stresses on the structure of the building. It would traditionally be supported by a corbel

  49. Dear Mark,
    obviously, your work with Bob Minton has not been in vain.

    What I like about your upcoming movie is the huuuuge number of witnesses talking about the destructive behaviour of that “church”. No viewer will be able to discard that.

  50. Remember Anonorange and Jeff Stone

    Ex-OSA agent Paulien Lombard tells the Riverside County Board of Supervisors how the Church of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs (OSA) assigned her to harass a critic.

    A very very dark day in DM’s turret!!!!

  51. Mark Bunker helped you out? MARK BUNKER?!!!
    One of the biggest SPs of this planet?
    I must admit, that isn`t quite a surprise, really…

    • Definition of “Snowhite” : a Co$ public in Germany, known for H E & R comments on Indie blogs. He has demonstrated blind loyality to the COBra, despite of all facts that were presented to him.

      Definition of H E & R : human emotion and reaction.

      • There’s actually more to the definition of HE&R. “Human Emotion and Reaction” is just an expansion of the acronym, but doesn’t actually define the term. I believe there is a Bulletin on it, but I don’t have the reference to hand.
        Anybody?

        • The Tech Dictionary says this:

          H, E & R, human emotion and reaction. (HCOB 3 Dec 73)

          I don’t have a copy of that HCOB and it’s not in any of my course packs. Anyone have a set of red vols handy?

          • Yvonne Schick

            Admin dictionary: human emotion and reaction, the counter emotions and reactions which aberrated human beings express when they are guided toward survival objectives. They are usually below 2.0 on the Tone Scale. (LRH Def. Notes)

            • There you have it, folks. And a big Thanks to Yvonne for posting the definition of HE&R!

              Sounds like it fits SnowWhite to a “T”.

    • Must be a hard life you lead, seeing SP’s everywhere.

      “There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn’t there.”

      L. Ron Hubbard

    • And your hands are clean of course. Lily white. Clean as they come. Never committed an overt, let alone a crime.

      Riiiiight.

      What an idiot, you think he is a big SP. You are joking. You and your boss.

  52. Great post.

  53. WiseBeardMan:
    You are my idol. You have never been in Scientology, but you could not stand to see the atrocities committed by Miscavige Cult in the name of religion and went on to publicly denounce it.
    A big hug.

  54. Mark ,
    Looking forward to seeing your Documentary. This is what is needed …more EXPOSURE of what the CO$ is REALLY DOING!!!!

  55. I am absolutely stunned… i mean i know wbm is kind and open minded but i am still stunned….. but wbm people are aloud to beleieve what they want as long as no one is getting hurt….the cult of scientology is where the focus should be…… pure anon here never been a scientologist….

  56. John P.Ralston

    Thanks Mark aka “wisebeard man” hope I got that right.Oh well I have been following Xenu Tv and LMT websites since 1999.You have done great work and continue to bring out more great information too.My parents and I did services at CC Dallas in the late 80’s and 90’s.Lisa was a staff member at the Dallas org at the time we started.Thanks Mark for your help on this site.Read it almost daily and thanks to Marty and Mike for their hard work and input.Marty if you know of anyone that needs a set of Basic books and Cds have a st will sell very reasonable.Need to move them.Thanks John

  57. Welcome to Marty’s Blog. I have been following you for years now and am excited that you are a guest here. I look forward to seeing moar.

  58. Mark has a big heart and I consider him a friend.

    While interviewing my mother regarding our forced disconnection, I saw him wiping away his tears.

    He is tolerant of individual beliefs and compassionate about exposing violations of human / civil rights, which happen to abound within the Scientology organization.

    I support this effort.

    • I wholeheartidly concur. It was a pleasure to meet Mark and he will always be welcome in my home.

    • Tom Gallagher

      “He is tolerant of individual beliefs and compassionate about exposing violations of human / civil rights, which happen to abound within the Scientology organization.

      I support this effort.”

      HEAR! HEAR1!!

  59. scilonschools

    DM has clearly had a bad start to the week!
    He could go out to the cinema and catch the latest box office release, Captain America; somehow I don’t think that will relieve him of his nightmares!
    Apparently the new release of Captain America shows a nerd becoming a superhero battling an occult Nazi hop’d up on Vril-power and winning.
    This plot may sound odd and disconnected to DM , the CoM current worries over the Indies and ‘Critics’ new alliance, for those you may find this link interesting!

    http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/paranormal-unexplained/hitler-and-the-secret-satanic-cult-at-the-heart-of-nazi-germany.html

    • Fascinating!

      Needless to say.

      None of this mentioned in any of the history books I’ve read on the Third Reich.

      Just like most histories of CIA tend to “omit” the influence of Skull & Bones.

      Except of course De Niro’s movie “The Good Shepherd”.

      (A movie that was panned by our friends from the dark side for “historical inaccuracies” though they didn’t exactly say what they were.

      I mean go figure? )

      However there are Journalist like for instance Alex Constantine who call themselves “Parapolitical Researchers” while others call them “Conspiracy Theorists” or less charitably as “crack pots” and “cranks” who have made connections between cults or sects or secret societies and Government particularly Intelligence Agencies.

      The fact is that there are not too many degrees between the words Espionage or Clandestine and Occult.

      Not to mention the fact that John Dees a secret agent of the Elizabethan period who signed all his messages 007 and an occultist may have been an inspiration to an MI6 agent by the name of Aleister Crowley and originator the sect known as Thelema which was an off shoot of the Masons.

      And it almost goes without saying the man that may have another one who toiled in the dark vineyards of the British Admiralty who not only happened to be one of Kennedy’s favorite authors but also a dear friend of ours.

      But I digress.

      We have written and recorded warnings by Ron of what would happen if Scientology became an occult practice limited to the elite which most are and formed some secret unholy alliance with Government which I feel it has under Miscavige’s false leadership.

      I close with some choice words giving one those warnings that have mysteriously been deleted from the more recent versions of the PDCs.

      (Who knows it could have been an audio glitch)

      “It’s a very simple remedy.And that’s-just make sure that the remedy is passed along. That’s all.Don’t horde it, don’t hold it; and if you ever do use any Black Dianetics, use it on the guy who pulled Scientology out of sight and made it so it wasn’t available. Because he’s the boy who would be electing himself “The New Order.” And we don’t need any more new orders. All those orders, as far as I am concerned, have been filled.”

      • RJ, I used to have some books by two French writers, (I think both were French). I’ll see if I can track them down….
        In the meantime, check these videos out RJ. The opening minutes could have been the SO burning LRH original books…
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3014581497309209211

        • Yep,

          That looks like Pasadena Org’s book barbecue they had a while back.

          Anyways I’m finding this occult connection to the 3rd Reich totally as I wrote fascinating.

          It explains a lot of the fanatical new age fascism that has infected the Church of Scientology and society in general.

          Scary dude!

          Interesting what Ron says about this Nazi or Fascist connection going back 40 years in his GO called “Working Theory”:

          http://www.freezone.org/timetrack/data/policies/1971-05-06.htm

          Probably this occult nexus could be added under Intelligence.

  60. Short reply – on the road with my phone.
    Mark love all you do. Thank you for all you do. We make friends while the church makes enemies.
    That’s very telling isn’t it?

  61. Mark,

    Many of the videos focus on OTs or ex-Sea Org members. I hope you also include members of the Scientology public or mission/org staff members, who work long hours under similar policies and conditions as those in the Sea Org, yet have to survive somehow – pay rent, buy food and raise their children. These staff members are completely forgotten, except when it is time to provide the Sea Org with more bodies to be public or Sea Org staff. I hope you include people from small missions who have bought into the dream that what they are doing is “Clearing the Planet” and worth every sacrifice. Most have never had the opportunity to go to Flag and have no clue what happens there. But I can tell you with certainty, that Flag exports its insanity out into the field very well.

    I also agree that you need to include the workability of Scientology technology. There is a vast body of knowledge that is really useful. The majority of people involved in Scientology have never reached the OT levels, but have experienced improvement through the Scn training and auditing that they have done.

    • I absolutely agree Sue. I spent a decade working nearly SO hours operating often in 3 Orgs. I relieved sup’d at the AO quite often as well as having to earn rent etc. Many of my peers simply self imploded and disappeared, the ones with kids was heartbraking. An interesting stat I observed was that a HGC auditor never lasted more more than 18 months before ‘burning out’ and fading away. Sups didn’t last all that long either. In ten years we have something like 13 Ed’s. They went down like 9 pins.
      Yes, there is little or no recognition of one’s efforts as a Org staff member. The poor bastards in the SO were getting a hard enough time with their own existence, but some of the stuff with lots of force that use to flow down the lines from them to the humble staff member was at times wicked, as if we were the only reason for the falling stats. It was very messy and quite soul destroying.
      At least now we have the terminal spotted but unfortunately he is still in power, albeit eroding ever so consistenly.
      The good thing is I suppose if you still have a reality on Scientology, that it was a management problem, an SP took over and that’s the legacy they create.
      Don’t hold your breath that you’ll ever be recognised as a staff member, people coming in later on the Scientology scene just won’t have the reality and those that do know have enough to contend with, there is a lot of not-is about such things. The trick I reckon is in the power of forgiveness, be a bigger being. Don’t allow the past to dominate and in a new unit of time, get the show on the road, the tech does work for social personalities.

    • Being on staff at any org or mission was never an easy job, and it certainly never paid anything. I was on staff twice, both NSO. First was on a special project at Flag and in LA in 1977, and the second was BPI in the early ’80s. The BPI job paid minimum wage (because BPI had to, by law, pay minimum wage). Yet, in my role, I saved the church hundreds of thousands of dollars, avoided at least one lawsuit, and opened the production of Class VI e-meters (which was blocked for a time due to lack of material). Oh, and by the way, I was comm-eved in both stints. I decided staff life was not for me.

  62. Off the fence.

    I think the COS could learn a lot from Marty and Mark. First, they have shown that even though you may have different views philosophically regarding Scientology, that you can still get along and be friends. You don’t see Marty attacking Mark because of these differences or vice versa. Of course, because of this ARC, neither are pts to each other. I may love ham sandwiches and you may hate them. But no matter how much you tell me how bad ham sandwiches are, I’m still going to like them, and eat them. And I may even like you despite your damn bologna. But not liking my ham sandwich is not suppressive, and you can criticize my ham as much as you like, I’m still going to like it; It works for me. I still may try to convince you how good they are though. But even if you’re not convinced, you’re still not my enemy! You know if something works, people will flock in droves, and nothing will keep them away. Who cares what anyone says or thinks about it. Bon Appetit. (actually I’m a vegetarian).

    • I see your point and agree with much of your sentiment, Off the fence, but there can be a difference between a personal preference, like, or belief, and taking it to the next level and trying to enforce your own likes on others.

      Some folks don’t like ham and never eat it. But hearing from them about it at every meal could become tiresome,if it is an axe to grind on their part.

      But there are a few who take it to yet another level. They don’t believe in eating ham, for whatever reasons, but they can’t let well enough alone and let others eat ham if they want to eat it. They start mass-media campaigns against ham. They might instigate pickets and demonstrations around ham manufacturers, distributors and suppliers. Restaurants who serve ham could be targeted in some way, as could those who simply liked to eat ham occassionally could be attacked.

      A person who is an “opinion leader” has an extra responsibility. Ham may not be an axe he’s grinding, but some segment of his audience will note that “he doesn’t believe in eating ham” and will take it up as their war cry, possibly to the detriment of others.

      This is why celebrities, royals, and others in positions of respect and influence are called upon to be particularly circumspect.

      Like it or not, Mark Bunker finds himself in this kind of position.

      • Now I want some ham.

        • 🙂 Illustrates my point. Just the possibility that your access to ham could be threatened makes you want some.

          That’s the same kind of reaction you’re getting here from folks who want to be sure the Bridge will be available to them in the future, but rightly or wrongly perceive you might be a threat to that reality.

          So I think your appearance here on Marty’s blog could be a very good thing, if it leads to people not associating you so much with a future scarcity of Scientology. Nobody here wants the garbage CoS is selling, but we do want LRH brand Scientology auditing tech to be available for our own use.

          • There doesn’t have to be fear that auditing tech and other tech will be scarce or anything. There’s lots and lots of tech out there on the net, you can download it for free. Just google it, or learn to download from newsgroups, etcetera.

            I’m not a Scientology-expert, but I think people like Marty can train others to be auditors themselves, who then can teach even more people to be auditors. So there doesn’t have to be scarcity of capacity either.

        • XENU TV

          “Now I want some ham.”

          First class response. You gotta love a guy who is willing and able to experience new things, and perhaps change his mind based on the experience.

          Eric S

    • Off the Fence

      Fair enough. I am all for allowing others to “have their own opinion”, but the problem enters in when someone who has never eaten a ham sandwich, goes around warning others not to eat them because “they taste like shit “, (or that the guy who invented them “divorced his wife” or some other nonsense,) and therefor they are not to be trusted. (by whomever, and however they are being made currently). (also keep in mind that the guy saying this stuff may never have tasted “shit” either!)

      This would not be a “wise” or “informed” stance.

      This would more equate to aberration, to some degree, since the person is then “railing against” something which he is only assuming exists in the current universe, but which does not necessarily exist in reality at all.

      To me it is akin to “fighting windmills”.

      Eric S

      • martyrathbun09

        I agree with you on the ham sandwich analogy. I’m wondering about his fixation on the “pseudo-science” crack.

        • Sorry, Marty; Scientology is a religion.

          Any attempt to pass it off as a science is going to put it under the same scrutiny that any scientific claim is going to endure before gaining acceptance. That’s the price of saying it is a science-you can’t have it both ways.

          • martyrathbun09

            It embraces religion, science, psycho-therapy and a panoply of other things. I can have it as many ways as I please, thank you.

            • How about we just say Scientology transcends both science and religion ?

              I think a good case can be made that LRH would say Scientology is senior to both. I’d be willing to bet he did say that, somewhere. But whether he did or not, I’d make a case for it, just as I think you just did, Marty.

            • Science is an ever-evolving effort on the part of millions of people over the course of history. It’s principle advantage over religion is that it is able to change even core beliefs in the face of contradictory data.

              Religion, OTOH, is knowledge derived from an authoritative source, and it therefore cannot change without an authority granting the change.

              Scientology is absolutely a religion, as LRH has set forth in KSW. It cannot change, it cannot adapt, and it cannot evolve, because LRH is not around to do the changing, adapting and evolving.

          • What makes it Science is that the same beneficial result can be repeated over and over.

            When Scientology is done properly it works, not just once in a while but all the time. That’s what qualifies it as a science.

            • atcause,

              I’ve been mulling this topic for a few days wondering if I should post on it. The time is now correct.

              When you make a statement like that, you reveal that in all likelihood you have no idea what science is. Let me bring you up to speed.

              Science is a very specific branch of human discovery and knowledge, intended to discover how this universe works. It has rules that it’s practitioners have developed over the years, and these rules apply to everything that claims to be science. Science is not merely “stuff that works out”, it is so much more than that and the rules are much more vigorous than what you said above. Scientology does not get to define what science is, that is the province of science. Science does not get to define what Scientology is, that is the province of Scientology.

              Scientific method is something that is rather poorly understood in society and Scientologists are no exception. You may be able to claim ignorance on what constitutes science, but LRH certainly doesn’t – he held himself up to be a scientists educated at George Washington, he claimed to be a nuclear physicist and he made scientific claims for Dianetics throughout DMSMH. He wrote an open letter to scientists in the late 60’s asserting that the subject was science while simultaneously offering no proof at all (merely suggesting it was there).

              Let me state here up front that none of those claims pass muster, for this very simple reason:

              Scientology is not falsifiable.

              Falsifiability is the cornerstone test of all of science, and this test has been around for 500-odd years since the time of Bacon. LRH would have known this from his studies and yet he persisted in making his claims about Dianetics and Scientology being scientifically valid. However, it is simply not true.

              As I posted earlier, it’s high time we Scientologists got off this kick of trying to assert something for the subject that it isn’t, drink a very large draught of humility and knock off these assertions that the subject is somehow scientifically proven when it isn’t. Yes, I know about the preface in Science of Survival, I have a copy – that is not proof, it is data points. What the e-meter does is not proof of anything, it is a measurement and using that measurement as proof is circular reasoning. OCA tests are not objective measurements, they are subjective and cannot be falsified.

              I’ve watched for years as Scientology gets roasted for it’s claims by scientists, and rightly so. Scientology has never done the basic required steps for a subject to pass scientific scrutiny, starting with the raw research data – none of it has ever been published. Another common assertion by Scientologists is that science can go out and test the claims. Well, it doesn’t work that way. You need to provide a full battery of tests and experiments already done and complete plus the logic you used to arrive at your conclusion. Other researchers will duplicate these experiments and see if they get the same results. Scientology has never done the first step, do you see that?

              Scientology is what it is, but it is not science, let’s stop trying to make out it is because LRH said so. There’s nothing wrong with something not being scientifically proven – most human knowledge is not science either. Let the two subjects stand on their own and be what they are, starting with classifying Scientology properly – my personal choice is:

              “Applied Religious Philosophy”

              • Bingo.

              • “LRH would have known this from his studies and yet he persisted in making his claims about Dianetics and Scientology being scientifically valid. However, it is simply not true.

                Says who? You?

              • “Scientology does not get to define what science is,”

                It has just as much right as you do or anyone else.

                What makes you think that you or who ever you agree with have more of a right to define what Science is than anyone else? What because they work for the government? or maybe some big university or some lab?

                The problem is you think that the only people that can be qualified to judge what science is are people connected to the governments of the world, doctors, universities or large corporations.

  63. Fellow Traveller

    My mind is a whirl with information and data and opinions on this.
    The best distillation is one of my opinion of Mark, or Marty for that matter, is not material. The present circumstances benefits greatly with them. For that they are thanked.

    The confusion and long winded whirl comes about because of the many factors that contributed to us getting here. Many of those involved some person or persons, like David Miscavige, pretending to be members of a group who used said group’s resources to further his own end. There were others that can be classified, if erroneously, as mistakes after mistakes. However those factors came about the result is, in my opinion, some dirty laundry that does need cleaning and airing out.

    Like Marty said way back about the time of the Lawrence Wright story, things will probably come up that will be unpopular with some, including me, like dragging the subject and its founder through the mud. Well, I say that we need to be willing for that to happen. From somewhere in the 1st Melborne ACC, LRH said to fix something that is broken, you have to be willing to cause the break. That is a terrible paraphrase, but that is the concept. It applies here. One may also note the earlier conditions, unhandled, got worse. Go figure.

    I spoke what I had to speak. I thank Mark Bunker for his actions. They should bring about favorable conditions down the road. His intentions are in alignment with that.

    Bruce Pratt

  64. Hey Mark – thanks for this. We’re on the right path (all of us).

  65. I am sure many of you have heard of Earl Goldman. He was the top book seller, especially Dianetics for many year. He was from Orange County. I have great memory of this wonderful being. Last I saw Earl, it was in 2007 and he was very sick, one of those Clears who was UnCleared by DM’s Reverse Scientology/Dianetics.
    Sadly, he passed away a couple of days ago. Earl’s wife, Sandra Goldman, has been staff at Orange County org. she also has been diagnosed with colon cancer.
    The list of dead OTs and Clears/UnClears within the past 5 years:
    – Earl Goldman- Clear and then Uncleared
    – Pat Brent- OC’s staff auditor, OT 3, after completing L11 at Flag, back to OC developed stage 4 cancer
    -Bob Bushling – After returning from Flag, doing OT V, had sudden heart attack and died.
    – Brenda Lopez – OC public, after being Uncleared, got Colon Cancer and died.
    – Jerry Keane, OT 3, died
    – Regine Ladhe, OT 7, died
    – Brent (don’t know his last name) died
    😦

  66. I deeply appreciate all the hard work and risks taken by those who have courageously stepped forward to expose the abuses of the current administration of the Church.

    I appreciate Mark’s dedication to ending those abuses.

    Obviously, one objective is to get the message to those who are “in,” for their protection and to undercut support for the tyrant.

    As we know, just as many of us often were, those “in” can be sensitive to anything that seems anti-Scientology, anti-LRH, anti-tech. They can “turn off” quickly. Maybe this is wrong, maybe they should be willing to listen, but it seems to be a reality, and not confronting a reality does not work.

    This is all to say, would it not increase the chances of someone reading the data, if they did not have to first overcome a name for a site like “xenutv?” How many still in are going to be able to bring themselves to TYPE that name?

    And, frankly, does “xenutv” focus attention on a religious belief or scripture, and not an abuse? Does it not at least sound like ridicule? Why single out what is asserted to be a scripture or religious belief?

    zenutv is not the only site name that likely stops people from getting the comm before they start. Again, I greatly respect the authors of the various whilsteblowing and pro-LRH sites, but wouldn’t names like “Friends of LRH” encourage more reading, than names that can SEEM anti-Scientology, like Scientology-cult? And, Leaving Scientology?

    It seems to me that if we want people to get our comm – to get the data about the Miscavige Administration – we should think about delivering the comm in a way that it will not be rejected out of hand. Yes?

    James

    • Yes. With the exception of Scn-cult? That one asks the question – and no matter the button on the term, the pejorative connotation, the irony of it all, David Miscavige’s Administration HAS made the Church appear to be just that.

      Hard to take to be sure. That’s why the site asks the question – is this what it has come to?

    • Valid point, James. It is not a Middle path approach and is out PR with fence sitters and some Indys.

    • James, I choose XENU TV for a couple of reasons. I knew it would piss off Slappy which is in itself a good thing. But more importantly this was a word that the church was denying even existed. I remember testifying in Clearwater and having one of my internet posts entered into evidence.. Scientolpgy’s attornerys had to white out the name of my site in their evidence. It points out starkly who is really free to think and speak and who has to shield their ears from words management don’t want known. I’ve heard them and said them and I turned out fine.

      • XENU TV as a name has it’s pros and cons. For people already connected to scientology, it may spark some curiousity. If they haven’t done the OTIII level, they may just wonder, what’s a “xenu” ? Ditto for non-Scientologists.

        But I think pissin’ off Slappy is good enough justification.

      • Mark, I went years not reading your site, for exactly the reasons that James lists. You have GREAT content … but I’m telling you that if you change the name (or create a mirror site) it would reach much more deeply into the net lurkers of the Scientology community.

        • Margaret, I think you make an excellent point here! I’m not very familiar with Mark’s site, but if the content is that good, a domain or title that doesn’t turn anyone off from the start would be an excellent idea!

          Scientology-cult.com does in fact have a mirror site called RediscoverScientology.com.

          • Some of the videos there … the Barnes’ come to mind … are very very compelling. I can’t speak to ALL the content, but some of the videos of recently-left Scientologists really do hit home.

    • I agree completely. Despite what I wrote in another reply about Ron not needing to be defended, if someone comes up to me and says:

      1. Ron was a charlatan who did Scientology because he once told Heinlein that the way to make $ was to start a religion,
      2. Scientology the technology is dangerous to a person’s mental health, and hypnotizes them,
      3. Only weak-minded people who are not confident in themselves but need a crutch and a charismatic leader to guide them become Scientologists
      4. R2-45 was a legitimate process
      5. Scientologists believe in crazy things that can’t possibly be true like “reincarnation” and “space aliens,”
      6. That the church willfully killed Lisa McPherson,

      and then says, “oh, and by the way, Mr. David Miscavige has tortured people, forced abortions, and keeps people on the RPF for years,”

      I would tell them to pound sand. And I have.

      By the way, this is not “thought stopping,” it is, at least for me, “this guy is so wrong on points 1 through 6, the rest is BS too. Why put any credence on these people at all?”

      Why am I here? Because of Karen de la Carriere initially, and then Marty and Mike, and then the rest of all of you. People who understand Scientology, and who also understand Mr. David Miscavige ain’t doing it.

      So, basically, anon and even Mark Bunker won’t be the direct vector that gets people who understand Scientology to recognize the problems with Mr. D and the ‘droids, but they will and have put up outside pressure and additional material once Scientologists start to look and see that things are not alright with the church.

      • Mark Bunker was a DIRECT vector for me, who has 37 years with Scientology, to recognize the problems with Mr. D and the ‘droids”. Never know where truth is gonna hit you in the face and wake you up. It takes all kinds of presentations, in all kinds of settings.

        Sometimes you take down the opposing side with a head-on tackle, sometimes an end run. Sometimes you show the other team has been using illegal stuff as part of its strategy and pretending to be good guys.

        I’d rather have somebody speak straight about stuff so I know where they are at, than watch out for knives in the back from so-called “good guys” who speak out of both sides of their mouths.

        Tear down the brute apparatus destroying people and their lives NOW.

  67. Dear Mr. Bunker ,

    It is very important that you indicate in your video production your intention is to expose the wrongs being done by the Church of Scientology and not the subject of Scientology as a spiritual aspect of examining the nature of the human spirit and a means by which a person can liberate self from the darkness of unethical thoughts and actions which bring about destruction to self, man and the environment. The dwindling spiral of self abnegation is what produces degraded beings such as run the Church.
    Currently, the public has an A=A=A (aberration), an actual confusion concerning the Church and the subject. To include the subject that originated in the country in 1871 and goes back to ancient Greece is to damage the subject and thereby fixing in the confused public a block from ever investigating and using the subject for self betterment if they choose to do so.
    It would also severly impair the Independents and their desire to help others with the technology of the subject. That would be a “due facce” (tw0-faced)
    or Janus approach that would do a great deal more damage than hekp.
    I have a track record of over 40 years of research, analysis and application of the subject and have never been connected with the organization, nor do I intend to be.
    My findings are that the subject is born out of the nature of the human spirit, everything that is good and noble about man. My comparative studies in the religions, philosophies and psychologies of humankind have indicated the subject and its application are the best route from slavery to freedom. Are we just meat from slime or are we much greater than we can currently imagine?
    I do hope you understand and will to justice to the subject and to all who know its workability.

    Respectfully,

    Gunner

  68. “I don’t believe in the tech myself, and I think Hubbard is more responsible for problems in Scientology than people like Marty will ever confront, but I think it’s a process…It could take years to peel away the levels of this organization.” Wise Beard Man says in this in the Village post. For those of us that had huge wins with the tech, that can’t be erased no matter what…his credibility then suffers with me unless addressed. The wins I had on TR0 were phenomenal beyond belief, the exteriorzation and just knowing who I was finally, was life changing. Auditing out that past life incident that left me suffering with nightmares that would only go away with the “Now I lay me down to sleep” nightly prayer was the only thing that kept it at bay, sometimes, until the auditing erased it. Going exterior in session by simple sec Checking processes in every session, left me flying. Doing a confessional in the Catholic church never did that for me.

    The suppression that came later however is only too real and that does need to be exposed, so by and by I agree. But in all fairness the astounding gains with the tech I hope aren’t left out of the picture which is why so many of us hung in there for so long despite the abuses. And I’m sorry for those that did not experience those gains for whatever reason, they were real to me.

    • martyrathbun09

      Do your wins justify destroying the livelihood of anyone who disagrees with that which got you the wins?

      • There’s a viewpoint I gained, I believe from the Student Hat- on the Study Tapes although I couldnt tell you what tape or exact reference.

        I’ll look or listen to any data or opinion. I’m all grown up- I can evaluate data all by myself. I don’t need to be protected by a group or shield myself in any way from any information or communication from any source.

        It’s ok with me if someone says they don’t believe in something I do.
        I don’t have to be their enemy or even stop listening. It’s not going to poison me. I know what I know and I believe what I think is true and that is always open to change as new information comes my way.

        I think the key thing here is the ability to evaluate data and that ability can be gained in Scientology- the writings and words of L. Ron Hubbard.

      • Exactly stated Marty. Thank you for INSISTING on multiple viewpoints, and on human respect in spite of DEEP differences of BELIEF.

    • Nonsense. Scientology under L. Ron Hubbard was completely different. He didn’t want any robots on lines. Back then, the individual and self-determination was anything. It changed a lot since he isn’t more around.

      There are light years of differences between LRH and DM. DM likes to blame his activities on LRH. “I just do as LRH did…”

      He does not. We are born again but LRH is not back in the orgs. Think about this. It is no longer his home. DM moved in.

    • Yes, but just because you erase something using a technique does not mean you’ve actually gone “exterior” or actually had a past life. It may simply mean you’ve intensely examined an aspect of your life, and your cosmological belief expedited the process. It’s not ridiculous for someone else to say, well, that flies in the face of good sense. Similarly, intensive prayer channeled through belief in a tripartite god might help calm the mind and result in clarity. That says nothing of the actuality of said god. In fact, it seems especially reasonable to acknowledge that one can identify how others have made gains through intensive engagement using either salient metaphor or real, fundamentalist faith. Nonetheless, and I’d have to check my old logic textbook, I’m pretty sure Cured Robot is espousing a variant of that old fallacy, Affirming the Consequent.

      • Will,
        From your namesake: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
        Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

        The infinite capabilities of create that the spiritual being is capable of are just that – infinite.

        Even still.

    • Cured Robot,

      I think your belief in the wins that you had is equally valid to Bunker’s beliefs.

      I also think that LRH was not a perfect person-and that his past misdeeds do not and should not invalidate your wins.

      I certainly don’t see anything that Bunker said that should be offensive to a Scientologist who respects other’s rights to look and believe what they think is correct.

    • Jethro Bodine

      The only issue I have with Mark Bunker is that his reporting is very one-sided. He never tries to seek out anyone with positive experiences with the tech and report on it. It seems like he’s more out to prove a point. He has had no subjective experience with Scientology.

      • The problem has been that people in Scientology have not wanted to talk to me. As early as 1999 I met a Scientologist who would tell me about his successes but he wouldn’t do it on camera. Now I’ve had many Independent Scientologists sit down to be part of the film. And most people I’ve talked to who are critical have said there was much in Scientology that had helped them. Pat Harney said recently there were something like 12,000 Scientologists in the Tampa area. Give me that list, Pat, and I’ll call them and see if they want to talk.

    • Simon Bolivar

      “Going exterior in session by simple sec Checking processes in every session, left me flying. Doing a confessional in the Catholic church never did that for me.”
      + 100

    • CR – I’ve gotten the idea that Mark is not in a mission to try and discredit yours or my wins gained from the tech, but to expose the abuse and make that come to an end. I support that. No one will stop you or me to produce a new film, all about the wins and gains. Start thinking of the working title🙂

      • GetTheConcept

        Yes, that’s right. If you think someone should broadly make known the wins and gains available from the tech, what makes you think that Mark Bunker is the one who is supposed to do that? You can do it yourself.

  69. Maybe this is a good time to ask a question I have had for a long time.

    Why do they do it?

    I understand why the Independents do this.

    I guess I understand why ex-Scientologists (Ex-SO etc) who have been harmed in some way do what they do- speak out and whatnot.

    Why does Mark Bunker do what he has been doing for so many years?
    Why did Bob Minton do what he did?

    I’ve always felt that the answers I’ve gotten from some Anons and others were sort of PR or something that sounds like a good answer ” I wanted to save the dolphins” or whatever.

    Why do some people grin when they protest?

    When Marty and Mike went to the FH to see Mike’s son they did not have grins on their faces.

    When I watch video of Mark and Bob at the FH they both have a weird shit eating grin on their faces like they get a kick out of it and it annoys me.

    • I am an Anon who never was in COS, and I never lost a dear one to COS.

      I have never been to protests in real life. I fight against the abuses only over the net, here, on WWP and on ESMB, and sometimes at other places.

      It’s very simple: being together, even if it is only virtually, with other people who protest the abuses in the COS is fun, plain and simple fun. It gives me the feeling that I am actually DOING something against the abuses. Yes, it is also like saving the dolphins, saving the rainforest or whatever. I have my own good cause to fight for.

      And I laugh a lot while I am at my computer. Reading other’s comments does all things human with me: it makes me laugh, it makes me cry, sometimes it even makes me rage. I guess that’s just me: just another human being.

      I hope this is a beginning of the answer to your question.

      As for the ‘grin’-part, I really wouldn’t know.🙂

    • Chris

      I’ve never been a Scientologist. I class myself as a critic.

      I remember first being intrigued after hearing Tom Cruise was a Scientologist, then going onto the Internet to research exactly what it meant. I watched his IAS Freedom Medal video and decided to work out exactly what it was he was talking about. I read KSW.

      I have to say it was difficult at first, there is so much information out there that it took me a while to understand what all the different terminology meant, and what the actual belief system of Scientology comprised.

      I was fascinated by the Sea Org…”we come back”. I was intrigued by the Mission Into Time. I was of course surprised by OT III.

      I realized however, that terrible abuses were being committed within the CoS. I couldn’t understand why governments were doing so little about it. I came to understand that religions somehow can get away with terrible behavior.

      I decided I would do what little I could to help those who were still stuck inside. I donated small amounts of money to Mark Bunker to help him fund his website, who impressed me as being consistent in his protests over a long period of time.

      I have to say I find the whole subject completely fascinating. Sometimes it’s funny (anything Tommy Davis says) and sometimes it’s heartbreaking. The enturbulation (I love that word) that Marty is causing DM is part of the interest.

      The average person knows nothing about Scientology. Although you and I have completely different viewpoints on the subject, we are part of a comparatively tiny percentage of the population who could be considered “expert”, compared to the average Joe. We are therefore somehow part of a very small club.

      I am concerned, quite frankly, that there is something rotten in Scientology, something that means there has never actually been a time when Scientology has not been heavily criticized. I have to say that I believe that is because of the defensive, aggressive and not altogether honest character of L Ron Hubbard. Yes I know that does not necessarily mean everything he wrote was wrong, but I believe that his personality is still somewhat stamped across Scientology, and unless you are willing to grapple and deal with that then you will never achieve your goals.

      • Sid, let me jump in here for a moment, because you sound like a thoughtful, intelligent, and rational person, as well as a person of good intentions.

        I commend you to some study of History.

        There is no more rotten in Scientology than there is in Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or the Mormon faith, Hindusim, or any other religion that has ever been established, and in no case is the rottenness due to flaws in the characters of the Founders.

        What you are seeing are the paradoxes inherent in trying to create temporal organizations as vessels for the transmission of the basic Ideals of any philosophy.

        LRH speaks to this in some of his essays in his book Scientology 8-8008.

        The Church of Scientology has recapitulated in a short 60 years, less even, the arc of the establishment and fall of any Church, or even any organization that is based on some kind of idealistic principles. Like the USA itself.

        In it’s short history, the USA has engaged in over 200 military actions including dropping atomic bombs on a small but militaristic country that was actually, by some accounts, already trying to negotiate for peace. Yet the USA was founded on principles of “All men are created equal”, “Life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness”, etc etc. “With inalienable rights”, etc etc.

        So is there something rotten in the very foundation of the USA, that is due to the flawed characters of it’s Founders? I will say NO. The “flaw”, if there is one, is in the nature and character of Existence itself.

        I would recommend for you, a slim and lively volume titled “Beyond Belief”, by Elaine Pagels.

        Pagels is one of the world’s premier historians of Christianity, who has written many books about Early Christianity. Her best known book is perhaps “The Gnostic Gospels.”

        “Beyond Belief” is about The Gospel of Thomas, and why it was one of the books that was omitted from the Bible, by those who were involved in the establishment and consolidation of the Christian Church, 300-400 years AD.

        I highly recommend it to you, and anyone else who is interested in the development of the CoS and the whys of some of Hubbard’s actions and decisions in the early formative years.

        • Valkov, I completely agree with you that older more established religions contain much that is the equal of the blacker aspects of Scientology. Some of the Old Testament scripture really beggars belief.

          It is in a sense the bad luck of Mr Hubbard that he lived in a time where quite a lot of the detail of his life story would be recorded forever.

          I suspect that if in the long millenia that may stretch out in front of humankind we manage to develop some method of viewing the past, then a certain religion which claims marvelous miracles to have taken place in the middle-East around AD 0 will be in for a rough ride.

          However, we are where we are.

          I still stand by my main point which is that I believe that the focus on the “standard” teachings of ONLY L Ron Hubbard will remain to cause problems ahead.

          If Scientology is “really” a technology of the mind, then that technology should be tested and improved.

          If I postulate that man’s greatest technological achievement was walking on the moon, then you would have to agree that stopping at the model of physics proposed by Isaac Newton would have been a big mistake. Newton’s view of the world was genius and original thought, but he did not insist that none should try and improve on it. He stood on shoulders, and others stood on his shoulders.

          The moment Mr Hubbard decided none could improve on his work, and it was his own to develop, and this would end for eternity once he passed, the path was set for only a cult to develop.

          Until Scientologists are able to have truly free thought on this matter, and put KSW to one side, they will continue to struggle.

          I fully accept this will be regarded as heresy, and I think if you feel this way you should think about why you had that thought response.

          At the moment, LRH and his works mark the end of Dianetics and Scientology. If you could get to a stage where you could open it out as any other technology, then if it truly has merit, he would be the beginning.

          Which would you prefer?

          • Sid, thanks but I think you have completely missed my point. Actually the book “Beyond Belief” makes my point better than I can, and it has nothing to do with “religious beliefs, credibility of.” It has to do with how temporal organizations designed to transmit religious/philosophical ideas evolve (and devolve), here on Earth.

            The Church of Scientology has, in 50years, recapitulated several hundred years of the history of the Christian Church. Elaine Pagels delves into how and why the Christian church developed as it did, how it’s “scriptures” were established, etc and there are parallels to how the has CoS developed.

            If you’re interested in that kind of thing, you’ll read the book, it’s not very long. If you’re not, you won’t. Simple as that.

            I don’t know why you bring KSW into it, but no doubt my take on that is different from yours. Hubbard’s ‘mellerdrammer’ aside, I see it as similar to the automobile owners manual you get with your new car, no more. It tells you what kind of oil to use and how often to change it, what grade of gasoline the car runs on, don’t cross the battery terminals if you jump-start it, etc.

            You wouldn’t decide you knew better and put milk in your gas tank, windshield washer fluid in your oil pan, and vegetable oil in your windshield washer fluid tank, would you? Yet that’s about what some people were doing with scientology tech, so LRH wrote KSW. It’s simply saying it’s not
            broke, you don’t need to fix it.

            As far as I’m concerned, anyone who has trained up through ClassVIII auditor-C/S is welcome to research and experiment to their heart’s content, if they want to do so.

            People who don’t know the tech have no credibility with me, when it comes to criticizing or making suggestions for expanding on the tech. They have no experience upon which to base what they’re saying. “Knowing the tech” means to me being trained and interned in it.

            Like I’m going to give credence to a junior-high kid who’s never looked under the hood of any car, telling me what’s wrong with my car and how to fix it? Much less letting him actually work on it!

            And Hubbard never decided “none could improve on his work”. He himself wrote and published words to the effect that scientology was “Not a perfect system nor the only possible system.” He only said it was
            a “workable system”. Then it became necessary for him to remind people, through KSW, that it WAS a workable system but that it had to be worked as it was written, not by scrambling it’s elements around and adding inapplicable stuff to it.

            That would stand to reason in my view,but apparently not for everyone. Some people will put milk in the gas tank none the less. I wouldn’t want those types working on my car, nor would I want them auditing me, either.

    • Tory Christman

      Dear Chris,
      “Maybe this is a good time to ask a question I have had for a long time.
      Why do they do it?”

      Since many “Critics” helped me when I first left in 2000, especially Andreas from Xenu. net, and Bob Minton, (both who were never “in”), and later Mark Bunker…. I’d like to add my two cents. Why do they speak out?
      My first response is: Why did ALL the people who have, speak out against the German Nazi’s and what they did with the Jews? Were you ever in one of their Camps? I’m quite sure, no. However, not actually being there did not stop how you feel about those abuses, did it? It’s quite similar for “the critics” that I’ve spoken to, also. ((Granted C of $, as abusive as it can be, is a LONG way from the Nazi’s—but I think you get the point)).

      Also, the key player that ASSisted in increasing “The critics” was actually the “office of special affairs”, in the 90’s. Some Scientologists had left and were speaking out on one newsgroup: Alt.Religion.Scientology. Of course OSA felt that had to be stopped. (Maybe Marty or Mike have info on this they care to share, I don’t know.) I do know (which I didn’t learn until I’d left C of $ forever in 2000) that someone from OSA tried to enter a “Cancel command” on ARS–to basically cancel that newsgroup. From that one action, people around the world said: “Not on *our* watch: We don’t know anything about Scientology, but these people have a right to speak-this is the Internet and you do NOT own it”. (They made a very similar mistake with Anonymous in 2008, by the way).

      From that, more and more critics arrived. Of course OSA did their usual, attacking the critics, and the more they did, the more people hopped on. Also, think of Soap Operas. I’ve never watched one, as I’ve heard they are “so addictive”. But it know what they consist of, and millions of people Do watch them, daily. When I was “in” I used to say: “Someone SHOULD create a Soap Opera about the “church” of $cientology as there IS new material, almost every day, certainly every week. Sex, violence, conflict, torture (RPF), Love affairs, etc. It’s all there, every day of every week”.

      So from the many critics I’ve met, mostly they are good people who care about others and feel Scientologists have a right to speak, too.

      As far as laughter while picketing, I can’t speak for Mark or Bob, but I know for me I’ve picketed when we were goofing around. The feeling is this: Those “in” are NOT having a good time…we can. Let’s show them”. I know one Mother called me last year telling me she was finally leaving staff. Why? “I saw those kids having SO much fun across the street (The Complex) and thought: ‘I could be there, too’. Please come pick me up”. See?
      Sorry so long…hope it helps some. Peace!🙂 Tory/Magoo
      (and may Bob Minton Fly High, and enjoy the light)

  70. Master of War

    Marty, I have often praised you for your incredible courage, and each day that goes by, my respect for you increases. But I don’t get your question to Cured Robot.

    In his post, CR expressed concern for WBM’s statement that “it’s a process,” which statement implies that WBM believes that you and the rest of us are still brainwashed or in some sort of deluded state and we will fully wake up with time.

    An earlier poster commented on WBM’s God damn NAME for his site, Zenutv, which strikes me as ridicule of a religious tenant. Such ridicule is consistent with his belief that we are deluded. That is not religious tolerance, in my book.

    His naming this site “zenutv” at least partially undermines any claim by WBM that he is solely against the abuses, and not the religion, particularly when you couple it with his idea that we are still deluded. I appreciate Mark’s exposure of DM’s abuses, but it is pretty clear that that is not where he stops.

    Cured Robot then listed his wins and hopes they won’t be left out of WBM’s video (a request for “balanced reporting”).

    You responded, “Do your wins justify destroying the livelihood of anyone who disagrees with that which got you the wins?” Nowhere do I see CR saying that his wins justify anyone’s livelihood being destroyed.

    Also, you seem to attribute the destructive actions to “that which got you the wins.” I submit that “that which got CR the wins” are not the people who are doing the destructive actions or they anti-social values.

    LRH Tech and goodhearted people produce wins — in spite of DM and his squirreling.

    I am sorry, but within my experience and that of my friends, the majority of people who are “in” are just as sincere as we all were (and are). I am not aware of any magic date, before which it was understandable that one supported DM, and after which you are a “bot” or a “koolaide drinker” if you are still in and active.

    In a conflict, it is very important to identify the correct target, and to hit that target, only. Otherwise, you create collateral damage, you injure civilians, and turn the populace against you.

    General Gap did what no one thought could be done. He kicked the ass of both the French and their Foreign Legion – some tough sons of bitches – and then the US. He understood a key datum, that the insurgent swims in the sea of the people.

    MOW

    • + 1

    • My website was set up for people like me who had never been in. I’ve always felt they were my audience. Marty’s blog reaches people who are in or recently left. That’s his audience. FOX News viewers often hate MSNBC. MSNBC viewers often hate FOX News. It doesn’t hurt to listen to both sides even if you primarily believe in one. You may hear something important that you wouldn’t have otherwise.

      If all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others, then I should have the right to use the word XENU. One of the first videos I put online was the video of Dennis Erlich’s home being raided because he was commenting on Hubbard’s writing on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. That’s not right.

      By the way, Marty, Dennis has been asking for details about what actions were taken against him and that would make for an interesting post. Sure he can be an ass but if you and Mike have some info on what was done to him, it would make an interesting read. I think AnonOrange is a giant tool but I appreciate Paulien Lombard revealing how she was used to attack him.

      I guess it’s in my DNA that if you tell me I can’t say Xenu, I am going to say Xenu. I agree that the story of Xenu is no more silly than any other creation myth but most religions are upfront about their myths and don’t get court orders to raid former members home for talking about them.

      As for peeling away layers, I was impressed to hear Mike Rinder in a radio interview talk about how declaring someone a Suppressive Person works as a thought stopping technique to get people still in to not listen to what this person said. I think it takes time to step back and look at how many such techniques are used in a group like Scientology and how they’ve affected the individual and all those around them.

      Who knows where we will all end up. My views are different today than they were when I started. And I never thought I’d sit down with Mike Rinder to do an interview. Heck, I never thought I’d put together a website about something other than my love of movies. Life is kind of fascinating that way.

      • martyrathbun09

        Wish I could help you, but I had nada to do with Erlich’s raid. Mike might be able to help.

        • I knew much more after the litigation got going. The planning and execution of that raid was done by Warren McShane. He was getting heat from POB about the OT Levels being on the internet. It was RTC’s responsibility. It was not too strange to get a court order for Federal Marshalls to seize and impound alleged infringing materials, though not too many prior to this had done it with computer infringements (more commonly it was knock-off Gucci handbags or stolen documents or prototypes in the case of trade secrets). As far as I know, the exact circumstances of what happened in that raid and how it came about and the filings that were made in the court etc etc are all well known…

          • Dennis was the first ex I met. Priscilla Coates introduced me to him at her house where she held Sunday afternoon get-togethers with people who had left various groups. At the time, Dennis was certain his phones were tapped. Do you know anything about the surveillance of him and other aspects of his case outside of the raid?

      • Master of War

        Dear Mark,

        Thanks for your reply. I believe in your sincerity. I understand that you were not trying to reach Scientologists.

        I applaud you for your courageous efforts. And, I appreciate your wise counsel to Anonymous.

        You certainly have the legal right to use the word “Xenu.” Too many times, however, I see that word being used by protesters in a juvenile manner, just to get a rise out of Church staff, parishioners on their way into an org, etc.

        I believe that the taunting use of the word is a form of religious ridicule, with elements of persecution. Imagine I am outside a Catholic church, with a sign that reads “Step right in, the priest will turn grape juice into the Blood of Christ, for real, then you will drink it!” Or, I start a website, “WalkOnWater. com”

        Almost every religion has beliefs that can be viewed as completely ridiculous. That does not mean it is right for me to ridicule people for what I might believe are moranic beliefs. History shows that no good comes from that, even if legal.

        To MIX “religious-ridicule-type words” with “exposes of abuse” can make you seem like you are attacking the religiously beliefs, not the abuses. Plus, you give DM the “religious persecution” card to play.

        With all due respect, the seeming fact that you believe Scientology (the religious philosophy) to contain large elements of crap and your seeming believe that we are deluded, sometimes creeps into your commentary and tinges it in places. It does your good works and intentions a disservice.

        There is an associated point. You frequently say “Scientology believes ____________.” Or, “Scientology does __________________,” or, “Yesterday, Scientology sent me a _________.”

        “Scientology” is a body of knowledge. It does not believe or do anything. In another sense, “Scientology” is one or more of several corporations. What you actually, usually mean is “David Miscavige or one of his agents” did x, y, z.

        To speak otherwise is like saying, “The Teamsters have been in league with Las Vegas,” when what happened is that leading Mafia figures usurped control of the Teamsters, and made illegal loans of Teamster money to casinos they had hidden ownership of.

        The majority of Teamsters were good people, and had nothing to do with the criminals (finally, the Court had to take over the Teamsters, get the criminals out, to return control to the people of goodwill, the members). The Court did not target the Teamsters, it targeted those who illegally gained control of the Teamster.

        Similarly, Presidents of the United States have done wrong things, like Nixon set up an Enemies List and Cointelpro. That does not mean the whole country and all its citizens did those things. The country is not the current administration of the Federal government. Administrations come and go.

        When you say “Scientology” did this or that, you tar all with the same brush. It’s the current administration of the organization that does those things, or, better, specific people within the administration.

        Even more specifically, according to Mike, Marty, etc. most every major decision and action are actually those of Miscavige, who they report micro-manages all significant matters.

        If Mike, Marty, Amy, etc. are telling the truth, It is particularly important to identify DM as the source.

        It doubly important to name DM as the source, if certain people are right, and DM’s assumption of power is illegal – that is, he has turned the boards of the corporations into rubber stamps and is running roughshod over three corporations over which he has no legal authority.

        Please continue your courageous work, but please, if you agree with these principles, don’t use the generality “Scientology,” but, rather, use words that identify the actual source of an action. And, if you agree, please try to filter out any attitudes you have about the Tech and philosophy. On a practical basis, it lessens the power of your presentation and detracts from the journalistic integrity I know you respect.

        MOW

        • “I see that word being used by protesters in a juvenile manner, just to get a rise out of Church staff, parishioners on their way into an org, etc.”

          No mercy, we don’t take prisoners ! That’s the RPF’s job.

          • Master of War

            Cat

            I love the majority of your posts and where you are coming from.

            That said, I don’t see the connection between:

            (1) those who are being victimized on the RPF, and

            (2) the use of the word “Zenu” to taunt students going to religious study, or to taunt rank and file religious workers (staff) going to and fro to their church.

            May be you are saying that the victimization of those on the RPF justifies religious taunts of these religious workers and students? I have seen you to be a rational, empathetic person. I can’t think you believe that, because the two ideas have no connection with each other.

            Also, “two wrong do not make a right.”

            I repeat, I have seen much use of the word “Zenu” during protests. In each case, it appeared to be used as a religious taunt or to bring ridicule to a religious belief OR, just for the juvenile pleasure of getting a “rise” out of the target.

            Lastly, the Zenu story is not an abuse – It is an idea – a reported religious doctrine. Targeting others’ religious doctrines (as opposed to their abusive actions) is a very dicey matter.

            It’s important to pick the right target: in this case, improper actions, not others’ religious beliefs, no matter how odd they might sound.

            MOW

            • martyrathbun09

              +1

            • I have a different opinion. The Xenu Story is the biggest Joke Hubbard played on Scientologists.
              It tiks all the boxes of what he regarded as HIS enemies. Actually come to think of it it TAUNTS all other religions.
              I have little tolerance for what came after 1965, And I am pretty pissed he branded Darwinian Theory an Implant in 1958 (on tape)

              • So your xenu belief justifies taunting others?

                If you oppose pedophilic priests and don’t believe that Mary was a virgin, would that justify holding a sign in front of a random Catholic church that says “Mary was a whore”.

                It’s religious taunting, CD. There’s no excuse for it. Encourage signs that call out the abuses — not the beliefs.

                • Religion is, at its core, a system of beliefs that defy explanation and credibility. One has to have “faith” in order to believe in them, despite evidence to the contrary.

                  And I say this as a practicing Catholic.

                  Truth stands for itself, it does not need to be coddled or protected from ridicule. People believe in those things that make the most sense to them. And “taunting” LRH, Mother Mary, Mohammed, etc. is not going to do irreparable harm to anything other than falsehoods.

                  Religious beliefs *should* be held up to criticism, and let the chips fall where they may. After all, by your logic, Margaret, women in Islam should be held as second class citizens, suffer abuse at the hands of their husbands without justice, and be at the sexual whims of whomever their fathers choose to sell their virginity to.

                  Should we hold our tongues on what we view as human rights and the truth for fear of offending someone’s religion?

          • I guess you could say the “Squirrelbusters” with their ridiculous T-shirts “don’t take no prisoners either”.

            Either way, juvenile behavior is juvenile.

      • “My views are different today than they were when I started.”

        What were your views on Scientology, LRH when you started and how are they different now? ( that’s views on Scientology, LRH not the the church of Scientology )

      • Mark B., I totally understand about the “DNA thing”. I’m that way myself – telling me I can’t do something is like waving a red flag in front of a bull !

        • Oh really, What if someone told you that you can’t kill yourself? Or that you can’t give all your money away? Going to go and do that just to prove them wrong?

          I think “DNA” should be replaced with “reactive mind”.

    • “In his post, CR expressed concern for WBM’s statement that “it’s a process,” which statement implies that WBM believes that you and the rest of us are still brainwashed or in some sort of deluded state and we will fully wake up with time.”

      Exactly. That is exactly what Mark Bunker is thinking.

      • I suppose the question I’m left with is: Why do you need Mark Bunker (and everyone?) to think that what you believe is right?

        There are people in this world who think disparagingly of Scientologists. There are people in this world who think disparagingly of Christians. (I’m a Christian.) We must all get used to the fact that there are people who think disparagingly of us. But, actually, we’re okay no matter what they think!

        By the way, reading the text of Mark’s comments, he was not talking about the tech at that point, but at the degree to which Hubbard is responsible.

  71. Marty, where do you hear Cured Robot saying that?

    Cured Robot,

    I think the key phrase of Mark Bunker’s you quoted is “I don’t believe in the tech myself…..”

    It’s too bad some people insist it has to be a matter of “belief”, as though the benefits are dependent upon faith and not practical action. Opinions are a dime a dozen. I’ve heard people say “I don’t believe in meditation” as though if they “believed” in it, suddenly their belief would magically transform them somehow. No.

    You did the work, you got the gains you got. It’s like doing musclebuilding exercises. What Mark Bunker thinks doesn’t matter, until it starts infringing on your right to practice in your own chosen way. The fact that his editorializing about his lack of belief might sway some people away from actually doing the work and getting the benefit is unfortunate, but that is ultimately between Mark Bunker and his own conscience. And people who look to him as an “authority” rather than obnosing, well……

    It’s right there in the Book of Case Remedies I believe – “Do not engage in unseemly disputes with the uninformed”.

    If Bunker has not walked your walk through the actual practices of the tech, then he is “the uninformed”, no matter how much he knows about the Church organizations or second hand knowledge about the tech he has, he has no experience of the tech as practitioner or recipient. What does that make his “opinion” or “belief” about the tech worth?

    Marty asks you, “Do your wins justify destroying the livelihood of anyone who disagrees with that which got you the wins?”

    I don’t hear you saying that in your post. In any case, what got you the wins? It was your own hard work and standard application of LRH by you and the others with whom you worked at the time, in a safe environment. There’s really nothing there for anyone to disagree with. You did the work, got the benefits, anyone who can somehow “disagree” with that has “delusions of expert altitude”.

    The safe environment is key. No-one wants negative types, (and I don’t know Mark Bunker from Adam, so I can’t say whether he is or not), walking by, laughing and pointing or telling people to “move along, there’s nothing here to believe in”; that doesn’t make for the safest environment.

    Fact is, it’s just his opinion, he is not an “authority” on the tech, and hopefully he doesn’t try to set him self up as one based on some kind of “theoretical” knowledge.

    I do know how you feel, though. I am old, haven’t done much Bridge yet, and I’d be really pissed if Scientology was hard to find when I come because some self-styled “authorities” helped suppress it because they “didn’t believe in it”.

    That is what I hear reflected in your post, and nothing about destroying anyone’s livelihood for having different beliefs. It’s more a question of you and me being allowed to have our own beliefs and realities in the face of someone who has or will have, when his documentary is done and disseminated world-wide far more influence than you and I combined a hundred times over.

    If the documentary turns out to have a negative, anti-tech slant, I will be the first to protest that, for all the good it might do. If that happens, we can set up our own website pillorying Mark Bunker for his one-sided reporting!🙂

    But until then, I will give Mark Bunker the benefit of the doubt and assume, as some people here are saying, that he has an opinion, but is not that biased. Hopefully, “I don’t believe in the tech myself…..” is not his central agenda and the main axe he is grinding.

    Right now we have a common cause with him, to expose the present time atrocities of the CoS.

    LRH has been gone 25 years, who cares what Mark Bunker thinks LRH did 30 or 40 or 50 years ago? It’s really academic at this point. It’s what we, the living do now that matters.

    “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Gospel of Matthew

    • +10

    • Excellent post Valkov. It has always been difficult to get people to understand that Scientology is not a “belief” or based on faith like most other religions. In fact it is more of a science than a religion. It is something that is APPLIED, rather than just reading something and “believing” it. The only reason it even classifies as a religion is simply because it deals with the human spirit. No other religion does. They all are taught that man “has a spirit or soul” rather than helping him to see for himself that he IS a spirit. This is where most journalists/reporters fall apart and write false information. They never actually DO anything with the tech in order to see its workability. They base everything they write on hearsay and never get the fact that it is NOT a “belief”. I have nothing against Mark doing a documentary exposing DM and the atrocities committed by his henchmen. But I am seriously concerned that the outcome of the documentary will leave a bad taste in the mouths of viewers who will look at it and generalize that it’s Scientology that is bad. I hope I’m wrong and that Mark throws in some people who actually talk about their wins and how L. Ron Hubbard’s tech helped them and changed their lives. This whole thing about “believing” is for the birds.

      • I agree, Count. And I think Mark B. has the journalistic integrity to do that.

        In any case, getting the word out that the specific outcome that we know as the CoS as it is today, is not the only possible outcome of LRH’s work and the Scientology philosophy, and that many very positive outcomes can be derived from the philosophy, and that many people are in fact already creating those kind of good outcomes. Outside of the rigid and oppressive confines of the CoS.

  72. “Knowledge Report” is a decent, professional presentation. As long as the film stays focused on the abuses and intolerances of David Miscavige’s regime, the human rights violations and the general gestapo techniques in vogue now, within the inner camp, and not exert an attack or degradation of Scientology itself, then it can be a very positive ripple which touches people and helps to create change, without tainting a valuable philosophy. In other words, we don’t want to throw the baby out – with the bath water. Corruption is simply corruption, and it happens to the US Senate down to Enron – and it is our job to expose it to protect our rights and liberties. I look forward to the finished film.

  73. Number of comments here say same thing.

    Conditional support for Mark Bunker depends on him not showing his own opinions of the tech, beliefs or faith of Scientology.

    Too bad.

    When you are soldiers in a way together, you always find out whether they ever decried your religious beliefs or poo-poo’d your savior before you decide if you are willing to go into battle with him. Right?

    Wow.

    • Well I guess you got it wrong as usual? I for one certainly tried to express my concerns in a nuanced way.

      Why don’t you actually read all the posts and try to understand the actual concerns being expressed?

      “Too bad” is exactly how I feel about what you just posted.

    • O.O,

      You do get it wrong.

      That’s not my concern at all. Mark Bunker can express his opinion all he wants, as long as he makes it clear his opinion is not necessarily the “majority opinion”, and that there are others who have a positive opinion of the tech based on their own experience of it.

      Why does this issue even come up? It’s because Mark is an influential opinion leader whose documentary will be seen by millions of people world-wide.

      Therefore I feel it is encumbent upon him to at least mention there are folks who feel the tech is valuable and helpful. An “equal time” kind of thing, which I believe Mark actually favors; even if he feels the tech is not for him, as a documentary filmmaker he ought to include the information that there are pro-tech folks as well as skeptics.

      I think in fact his documentary will be “fair and balanced” 🙂 in that way, with some interviews with Independents being included in it.

  74. “For decades now”….

    It all started under Hubbard, Marty. Why can’t you see that? It didn’t start under Miscavige, although he certainly has ratcheted it up several notches. Fair Game, Disconnection, the RPF…Hubbard came up with this stuff. Until you see that Hubbard was the start of all this abuse, you will not have fully thrown off your chains.

    Laugh if you want. But the facts remain: Hubbard invented the RPF, Disconnection, Fair Game and a myriad of other abuses. Instead of refuting my claims, you simply refuse to publish these comments. Why? Afraid of the truth? Seems like you’ve come so far, only to avoid that final step. You need to address these issues, it seems to me. Why can’t you?

    • Django, you just don’t get it!

      Who cares how it all got started? It can and needs to be dealt with in present time, in the moment, like, in the “now”.

      You need to address that issue, it seems to me. Why can’t you?

      You keep posting the same thing over and over, like a one trick pony.

      No matter what kind of organizational actions and policies LRH may have tried and retained or discarded, you are evidently not old enough to realize that the way Miscabitch is doing things is not the way they were largely done in the 1970s, for example. So maybe you ought to lurk more here and read the first-hand comments by people who have walked the walk.

      Who cares about your claims? Investigating “your” claims, which actually sound a lot like second-hand old-time critics party line, isn’t within the purpose or scope of this blog.

      We all know where ESMB, Xenu Tv, OCMB are – plus all the Youtube interviews and stuff – we can go to those sites for the kind of information and opinions you’re talking about. It’s all there. This blog has a different purpose and you keep trying to take it off-topic.

      Good luck with that.

    • “Instead of refuting my claims, you simply refuse to publish these comments.”

      Well, you were wrong about that were you not?

      One can take anything good or benign and twist it into something abusive and destructive.

  75. That this blog is opening up to greater heights in the world is evidenced by the publishing of the comment above (and below):

    “…the facts remain: Hubbard invented the RPF, Disconnection, Fair Game and a myriad of other abuses. Instead of refuting my claims, you simply refuse to publish these comments. Why? Afraid of the truth? Seems like you’ve come so far, only to avoid that final step. You need to address these issues, it seems to me. Why can’t you?…”

    It seems to us it’s not really a case of why not?, it merely a case of when. And that when is evidently emerging, now.

    Marty is an intelligent being. And an emotional one. And a physical one. And a spiritual one. As we all are.

    All things appear at their appointed hour. And Mary’s realizations and communications are not late, nor will they be denied. Patience is workable.

  76. Typo. Meant ‘Marty’s realizations’…..

    May Mary the Mother of Jesus forgive me for ……….. (lol).

  77. I just had an interesting realization about people who argue against Scientology tech and those who support it. It all seems to boil down to this:

    Those who got case gain with Scientology and Dianetics technology and those who didn’t.

    The bottom line factors seems to be: Case Gain

    Those who didn’t get case gain because

    1. They have never been audited to get any case gain.
    2. They were audited improperly.

    • As Isee it, atcause, The Book of Case Remedies pretty much covers it.

    • You seem to be leaving out a third possibility:
      3. Scientology is not applicable to all cases.

      • Mr. Fancy. I’m going to give this to you straight.

        1. All truth in this universe is agreed upon truth. Agreed by you and me many billions or even trillions of years ago. OK?

        2. Scientology is a collection of those agreed upon truths. The only ultimate truth there is is that life is a static.

        As long as you are still in this universe, Scientology ( the considerations you and I agreed upon along time ago ) is applicable to all who went into agreement with the considerations of this universe.

        Since “all cases” are all the cases in this universe, Scientology is applicable to all cases.

      • Mr Fancy, the Book of Case Remedies contains more than 2 or even 3 possibilities. See my link to the PDF, above.

  78. Why that’s pretty cranial Will. There is no reality like my reality and your reality has not experienced that and for that I have said I’m sorry for you. 1 hr of OTTRO & TRO did that for me and it did not involve intensive prayer. Like I said cranial, go check your old logic textbook all you want but in real life out here some of us fortunate to have experienced that in such short order is astounding. Try as you might to to “explain” it away, it happened and it was real, very few people that I did this drill with were able to rise above their bank and BE THERE, when you can it’s truly astonishing as to what you can perceive, a very beautiful state. Your loss but my win is something you cannot take away, it is what it is, there is nothing like application and that you obviously have not done by the dither you have dished out.

  79. Pingback: The Squirrel Busters Love Me! : XENU TV

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