‘Going Clear’ Muddies the Water

To true-believer Scientologists, Lawrence Wright’s book Going Clear will be an extreme test of faith.   To independent-minded Scientologists the book will be a test of how well they understand Scientology and correspondingly how well they differentiate the technology of Scientology from personage of its original author.

This is so because the majority of the book is little more than a compendium of greatest shots by L. Ron Hubbard’s many erstwhile enemies.   There is no balance, but for the occasional gratuitous, condescending nods to L. Ron Hubbard’s power of imagination.

Having read a number of Wright’s previous works, I anticipated much more from the Pulitzer prize winning author.   I never wrote a review of Janet Reitman’s  Inside Scientology because I considered it a rather dry, overly academic history of Scientology.  While it was more comprehensive and balanced than any previous outsider look at the subject, I found it to be rather turgid, impersonal and careful.  It, like all books by outsiders who haven’t experienced that which they write about, lacked the vital subjective component that truth requires.  Note, some level of subjective experience is essence in covering a subject (religion/philosophy/spirituality) that is  by academic and scientific standards wholly subjective. Having seen how Wright made the entire Middle East vs. Western culture divide personal, and understandable in his The Looming Tower – from both the Middle Eastern and Western perspective – I believed he might do the same for the sorely misunderstood subjects of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.

Instead Wright spent 2/3rd of his book regurgitating what several before him had already done: indicted, convicted and sentenced L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology to death.  It was sad to see a gifted author  with an advance allowing him two years to investigate squander it by essentially cutting and pasting from a twenty-seven year old biography penned by British Author Russell Miller (Bare-Faced Messiah).    About the only thing Wright added was to make it more salacious and one-sided by sprinkling it with the death bed accusations of a former Hubbard wife (which incidentally conflicted with her earlier shrill, divorce-court accounts given to Miller) and giving it a far less charitable and objective slant than even Miller – who did little to mask his hatred for Scientology – did in 1986.

The rest of the book is a disjointed account of the post-Hubbard years in Scientology, the bulk of which had been reported long ago on this blog and extensively by other media outlets.

Despite having a formidable team of researchers and fact checkers, next to no critical examination of credibility of sources was done.  If someone had something lurid to say about L. Ron Hubbard, regardless of how improbable, it was stated as authoritative fact.  By way of example, had the Wright team took me up on my pre-publication offer to review their facts ahead of time, they would not have published these inventions that I personally know to be manufactured or grossly inaccurate:

–          Tom Cruise was being audited by Marty Rathbun at the Gold base in 2002.

–          Marty Rathbun (or anyone for that matter) was serving as Nicole Kidman’s ethics officer in 2002.

–          Marty Rathbun was auditing Penelope Cruz.

–          There was no ‘convincing evidence proving the facts were wrong or the reporter was biased’ presented in the Scientology vs. Time magazine case.

–          Church funds were used to purchase assault rifles and explosive devices for the perimeter of international headquarters.

–          A campaign was run to blackmail attorney Charles O’Reilly.

–          O’Reilly’s house was bugged and his office was infiltrated.

–          Most Sea Org members at the Int Base did not know their own geographical location.

–          Miscavige attempted to get damning taped admissions from Mary Sue Hubbard so her husband could turn her in to the justice department.

–          L. Ron Hubbard demanded a divorce from Mary Sue Hubbard and she refused.

This is a partial list containing only items that Wright was either informed were false or reasonably should have known were false.   Granted, the verifiable allegations condemning Hubbard and Scientology in the book are legion.  And I recognize that the list of inaccuracies doesn’t put a dent on Wright’s conviction of both the founder and Scientology.  But, they highlight the velocity of the rush to judgment Wright was apparently engaged in.

Ultimately, Wright is guilty of what journalists  and critics have accused Hubbard and the church of Scientology of, not without justification, for decades.  To wit, rather than tackling the issues taken with the subject, Scientology policy calls for attacking the credibility of the one raising the issue.  Thus, we see over 400 pages of a book promising to answer the question ‘what makes Scientology so appealing to so many?’, never even attempting to explain what Scientology is and does.   Instead, Wright takes one esoteric teaching that Scientology asserts could not possibly be understood by someone not well-steeped in Scientology practice, and pretends that is all there is to a subject consisting of some 50 million other words.  With that straw dog firmly in place, Wright proceeds to burn hundreds of pages reciting the accusations of avowed enemies of L. Ron Hubbard.

By way of comparison, by the time one reads The Looming Tower (The book that Wright won the Pulitzer prize for) and Going Clear, there is little chance the reader will fear Osama Bin Laden more than he will fear L. Ron Hubbard.  While the former is journalism at its highest attainment, giving the reader an understanding of a figure made nearly impossible to understand by popular media culture, the latter can be characterized, at best in my opinion, as piling on.

While the church of Scientology can be partially credited with the result by its easily discreditable insistence on portraying L. Ron Hubbard as God, Wright had access to dozens of Scientologists unaffiliated with the church who gave far more measured, rational and credible accounts of what Scientology is capable of achieving in de-radicalized hands.

Wright chose to simply ignore the latter and shoot the sluggish, fat fish the former  placed in a barrel before him.   Good work if you can get it.   But, do not delude yourself that Going Clear is any insightful, definitive, and least of all, balanced look at either L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology.

Now that the big guns have issued, I can settle down to attempting to deliver something more along that line.

379 responses to “‘Going Clear’ Muddies the Water

  1. I thought it would be appropriate to repost here:

    Random and likely last comment…

    I’m well into the Lawrence Wright’s book. I found the book disturbing, eye opening, therapeutic and cathartic.

    Conclusions thus far: Prior to 1950, LRH led an adventurous, interesting life but was often highly unethical. He embellished his life story and accomplishments to a fault. Anyone who disputes this needs to get over it. Multiple viewpoints confirm it. He was an emotional wreck when he began to put Dianetics together. He had a strong intention to help himself and others to be better but part of that intention was for the purpose to leave his mark in the history books. He really did improve himself and others with his early Dianetics work. IMHO he made a major strategic error by not fessing up to his lifelong embellishments (lies) as well his unethical past. The smart move would have been to state the truth: He had improved himself through the use of Dianetics. If he had done so his biography would never have been an issue. But he didn’t and LRH’s propensity to embellish continued both about himself and what Dianetics and Scientology could do. It would seem that LRH was the one with a “self importance” button. Both LRH and Scientology would have been best served to stick to the facts.

    LRH was an amazing, contradictory man. There is much good in Dianetics and Scientology but LRH to often stated possibilities to be facts with regards to Scientology which along with the biographical embellishments (lies) have saddled the subject of Scientology with so much baggage it’s amazing it has survived all these years.

    The 1940s/50s were a different era. Most Americans didn’t know FDR was a cripple and philander and later the press carried JFKs water for him by covering up his poor health and promiscuity but LRH should have known better: He should have been 100% truthful. He emphatically was not.

    I have my opinion as to what happened later but I think it is fair to say LRH was really on to something but he crippled the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology by laying in lies from the beginning that were bound to be exposed at some time.

    For myself I’d probably be dead or in jail if not for LRH but the reverse of that is I’ve had much emotional trauma caused from my involvement in Scientology. I’m no way playing the victim as I’m living a great life but the fact is I’ve been kicked in the balls my fair of times by my involvement and I’m not willing to introvert and said it’s because of something I did.

    I think the subject of Scientology can still survive but only by the current civil war ending. I don’t know how that’s possible but I don’t see the subject surviving any other way. Perhaps when DM is six feet under or living in Bolivia a Scientology Lincoln will take his place.

    Anyone who wants to communicate directly can do so through Facebook.

    Peace & Love, Kevin

    • Kevin,

      No offense my friend, but you really are too easy to convince. This happened once before, if I recall, when we were discussing the Purif and whether there was any science behind it. I gave you some studies, and without even looking at them you immediately assumed that they were flawed. A bit too knee jerk.

      And you’re doing the same thing here.

      I’ve spent several weeks, on numerous occasions, over the last two years pouring through the military archives in Washington, DC and other places around the country, doing my own fact-checking of some of Wright’s (and earlier researchers’) conclusions regarding Hubbard’s military career. And I can tell you, Wright got several important things wrong. Had he really done the research, it would have been apparent that a completely different picture emerges of LRH’s time in the Navy than has been portrayed by others (notably Miller, Atack and Owen) in the past.

      One simple example: Wright (and the others before him) seem to assume that there is no difference between “conjunctivitis” and “actinic conjunctivitis” — the former being a bacterial/viral infection of the eye (which heals rapidly, and is also called “pink eye”), the latter being physical damage to the eye caused by a UV (ultraviolet) source, either natural or man-made (welder’s sparks, explosions, etc.) LRH suffered from chronic actinic conjunctivitis (also known as chronic photokeratitis) after returning from the South Pacific in WWII. Because it was chronic, it meant that some severe source of UV “blinded” LRH to the point of potentially causing permanent damage. LRH had to wear tinted glasses even in dim light, because when he removed them, his eyes would water profusely, burn and give him head-aches.

      The records of LRH’s time in the South Pacific are nearly all missing, so there is no known record (yet) of what caused the eye damage. However, concrete evidence in the public record suggests that he saw combat (or he was at least in a location to have been able to), was involved in counter-espionage for the US Navy, and was ultimately flown home in a plane used by the Secretary of the Navy’s office. All of these things are easy to document. Yet none of these things were apparently of interest to Wright (and by the way, I did make an effort to reach out to him).

      When LRH returned from the South Pacific, he was promoted to full Lieutenant a few months later, and then was put in charge of two ships, the second being larger and carrying more responsibility than the first. He received a minor Letter of Admonition for doing artillery training on his crew in the wrong place at the wrong time, but then was ultimately promoted to Lieutenant Commander by the end of the war.

      When the war was over, LRH received VA disability and a quarter of it was for the eye-damage. (And note, it was not for LRH’s deteriorating eyesight, which was another issue that LRH had been contending with.)

      There are many many other facts that have been uncovered, and they put LRH’s Navy years in a completely different light. When LRH tried to resign from the Navy in 1947, the Navy described him as having “served so honorably” when they were trying to convince him not to reconsider (which he did). His promotion to Lieutenant Commander was made permanent in 1948.

      I’m not claiming that LRH was Mr. Perfect all his life, but Wright really blew it in the “balanced” category, especially from the WW II period forward.

      • Correction to 2nd to last paragraph: “… when they were trying to convince him to reconsider (which he did).”

        • Hey Margaret,

          I owe much to LRH but I will not put my head in the sand. LRH lied repeatedly. It’s indisputable. To nick pick over what Mr. Wright got wrong versus the avalanche of factual information he got right is, as you call it, a knee jerk reaction. LRH & Scientology are tied at the hip. One only need to walk into any Org and you will find Ron’s picture in nearly every room. IMHO his embellishments and bio are minimally a PR & Marketing disaster for the subject just as Lance Armstrong is now a disaster for his foundation. Those of us who have had wins may be able to differentiate the man from the subject but the vast majority of public cannot and as a result the vast majority of public will not give Scientology the benefit of the doubt.

          • Kevin, don’t let anyone put your head back in the sand. Just saw an ad with LRH bio as subject and thought, is any of this true? Must somehow divorce tech from source. May be impossible.
            Just my opinion.

          • Documented time, place,form and event is “nit picking”?

            • Interesting question, Valkov, considering that when some on this blog have pointed out inconsistencies in LRH’s own writings, you have accused them of “cherry picking”?

              Just saying…

          • Kevin,
            The “avalanche of evidence” is one-sided. I’m not saying that the “About the Author” bios were not written to put LRH in the best light possible. But whose “About the Author” bios weren’t? Do you think Heinlein’s “About the Author” bios mention his philandering or his hemorrhoids? Or his “Letter of Admonition” in the US Navy?
            If we’re going to be fair, we have to look specifically at what LRH actually said, and compare it to what the record shows.
            Wright does not do this. He largely regurgitates Miller.

        • As I’ve mentioned before, during the Armstrong case in the 80s which I was supposedly running, I had the distinctly wild experience to talk to an older gentleman who purported to be the Chief Officer on the sub chaser LRH captained. In addition to reporting that LRH was the greatest officer he ever served under and confirming that the sub incidents actually took place, he also stated that LRH was pissing blood. I had no reason to disbelieve him. Now, a few things happened in that case that I had no knowledge of so it is possible someone hired an actor to play that role but unless someone proves that to me I’m going to take the man at his word. I had seen and read all the traffic between LRH’s ship and various naval shore bases during the sub chasing incidences and this man seemed to know his stuff.

          But like others, I make a full distinction between LRH the man and the subject he developed so even if the above is not true …

          But the real outpoint here is: Where the hell was coporate Scientology in all this? Why didn’t they provide evidence to Lawrence Wright? The research to which I allude was done in the early 80s and a great deal more has been done since. And where is the LRH biography DM promised decades ago?

          • Haydn, yes, Thomas Moulton was the first officers name. Wright apparently didn’t read the court transcript, since he didn’t realize that Moulton placed the events (after he corrected himself) at early March 1942, and not on the day of Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941). Then again, placing them on the day of Pearl Harbor allowed Wright to disregard the whole thing as fantasy — exactly what Miller did.

          • But the real outpoint here is: Where the hell was coporate Scientology in all this? Why didn’t they provide evidence to Lawrence Wright?

            Haydn, there are other researchers (most notably Chris Owen) who have worked hard at attempting to debunk Ron’s war record. And the Church response has been: it’s all an intelligence cover-up (based on the research done by L. Fletcher Prouty). There is no doubt that Ron was involved in intelligence for the first year of his service (and this may explain the missing files for his time for his first few months in the South Pacific, which is the most likely period in which he may have seen action and was injured), but unfortunately, no one in the church has responded to Chris Owen’s research in any intelligent way.

            I am fairly sure that Wright used Chris’ website (Ron the ‘War Hero’) to walk him through Ron’s military service. And Chris makes convincing arguments which pretty much shred the Church argument that “all of Ron’s records were falsified”.

            The research to which I allude was done in the early 80s and a great deal more has been done since. And where is the LRH biography DM promised decades ago?

            Indeed, that has been my question for fifteen years. Apparently, DM’s multiple speeches each year (endlessly written by the LRH biographer) are more important than attempting to restore LRH’s credibility. Unbelievable.

          • haydn,

            About 10 years ago OSA Int (D/CO OSA Int was in on it, I was in his office during one of the phone calls) was closely questioning an ex-GO staff member who had helped courier copies of the LRH Navy records from D.C. to L.A. (something about a fire in D.C. destroying a bunch of the docs in the interim) as they could not be located anymore. Wanted to know who he (the ex-GO guy) had turned them over to in G.O. when he arrived in L.A. The OSA guy was frantic.

        • I’m not speaking for Kevin here, but I think he makes a valid point. LRH himself staked his own reputation on the validity of the philosophy, if not the tech, in various wise, and the whole area of the specifics of his naval service etc SHOULD be irrelevant, or of only mild interest at best.

          But he said he was “blind and crippled” and “abandoned by family as a hopeless cripple” at the end of WWII. Likewise, in certain PLs he makes reference to “Ron’s brand” of Scientology (being what the public want). Wasn’t it LRH who also ordered pictures of himself in all courserooms? Who said that he should be acknowledged as “Source” in Success Stories etc? Who wanted an office for himself in all Orgs? (I don’t have an OEC to hand for references).

          Finally, in one of the later RJs, I think RJ38, I’m sure I recall the words “I have never lied to you or conned you in any way”. At the latter stage of his life this could have been a great opportunity to say “I have embellished a few things here and there…”

          Now that’s not to say I would be considering any of this while holding the cans. Nor that the laws of Listing and Nulling, or Ser Fac handling are any less valid. But when Kevin says Scientology and LRH are joined at the hip it will ever be thus for the general public, and especially as long as Scientology Inc is forwarding the cult of personality making LRH some sort of Godlike figure.

          However I think in the post-cult post-monopoly era history will be a lot kinder to LRH as the valuable therapies (“the tech”) and ideas he developed are used by independent groups more and more, and the subject is judged on its own merits.

          • Martin, you wrote: “At the latter stage of his life this could have been a great opportunity to say ‘I have embellished a few things here and there…'”

            I think Ron’s handing over his personal, biographical materials to his biographers (Armstrong and Garrison, in the late 1970s and early 1980s) was Ron’s attempt to get an actual, balanced, and critical biography written about his life.

            Ultimately, instead of the material being used with balance and the necessary research, it was used to win a lawsuit and then attack him.

      • Margaret, not to sound too skeptical, but many times you’ve said that the various biographers got it all wrong but you haven’t supplied any actual documentation.
        Do you have a web site or blog with the information?
        “He said, she said” will never resolve anything.

        • Interesting all. If horseshit, from whence?
          There is much about LRH himself we can all grab onto, but come what may, what is the real deal?

          Dare say ye…. which is fine to say.

        • Nomnom,

          I’ve given citations to some of the above in earlier posts. Here are some additional citations and background:

          — The evidence of eye injury is in Hubbard’s service and VA records: the main confusion by Wright and others is on the difference between “conjunctivitis” and “actinic conjunctivitis” — you can use wikipedia, webmd, nih.gov, or any number of websites to research it yourself. Keep in mind that Hubbard’s condition was ultimately considered “chronic” and not “acute”, and therefore indicated a more severe source of UV which caused the damage. I haven’t found a single researcher which recognized the difference between “conjunctivitis” and “actinic conjunctivitis”, and tackled it head on. Doing so would inevitably lead their readers to recognize that an eye injury of some kind took place.

          — Witnesses to the symptoms of the eye injury include under-oath testimony from Hubbard’s first officer (Thomas Moulton) in 1984. Moulton witnessed, in 1943, Hubbard removing his tinted glasses in a dimly lit evening dance party. Hubbard’s eyes began to water profusely and turn red. Others in 1945 mentioned Hubbard wearing tinted glasses and using a cane, for example when Hubbard arrived at Jack Parson’s house. This was even mentioned in Wright’s book, but of course to Wright (like Miller), Ron was faking it all, despite the VA doctors having medically confirmed it and giving Hubbard a 40% disability.

          — The evidence for the VA’s giving Hubbard 25% of his disaiblity to cover the eyes is in Hubbard’s service file (it specifically excludes the normal deterioration of Ron’s eyesight, which he was having a harder and harder time correcting with glasses).

          — The evidence that Hubbard was permanently promoted to Lieutenant Commander was, for some reason, not in the service records which Armstrong, Miller, Atack or even Chris Owen used. It was, however, in the service records which Wright used, and is in the service records that the National Archives provides today. Either Wright missed it, or didn’t seem to care. I can send you a copy by email if you’re interested (the offer’s open to anyone). I will get all this up on a website, but I’m still doing research and want to make sure I’m as well armed as possible before I do. infoATscientologymythsDOTcom

          — Evidence for Hubbard’s involvement with counter-espionage for the US Navy is available online at the National Archives partner site, fold3.com. It’s widely acknowledged that he was a Naval Intelligence officer for the first year of his service, but for the specific document which shows his personal involvement with counter-espionage, see this link (don’t know if it will be available to non-members; if you can see it, check out the March 8 entry):
          http://www.fold3.com/image/#267903716

          — Hubbard’s being flown home in a plane used by the Secretary of the Navy’s office took some detective work. First, his service records have contradictory information on his return home, implying that he either took one of two ships: the USS CHAUMONT or the MS PENNANT. The passenger lists for both these ships have been available in the National Archives since the early 80s on microfilm, and I have no explanation for why others didn’t look it up. Hubbard was on neither of those ships. Further, their arrival dates into San Francisco do not match Hubbard’s, based on his service records. You can see the passenger lists these days at another National Archives partner site, ancestry.com (look under “Immigration and Travel”, and do a search on those ships). I actually scoured every possible ship that Hubbard could have returned on (not only at ancestry.com but also at the microfilm holdings in the National Archives), and I couldn’t find him on any of them. I then looked through the arrival records for airplanes. There was in fact only one plane that arrived on the exact date, location and route that matches Hubbard’s. I have the record scanned and will eventually get it online. In the meantime, it can be found on National Archives microfilm roll “Index to Vessels Arriving in San Francisco, 1882-1957, Publication Number M1437” — the plane was called “Philippine Clipper 41759”, and it was among the fleet that was used by the Navy Dept. to fly senior navy officers, intelligence officers on urgent missions, and those that were being rewarded for particularly meritorious service. You can find a handful of the passenger lists of the Clipper planes online at ancestry.com — but only a small percentage of the passenger lists for planes exist for 1942. On those planes, you will find names like Nimitz, government officials and their staffs.

          I could go one. If you want additional citations for anything I missed, let me know. infoATscientologymythsDOTcom

          • Stellar research work Margaret!!! Thankyou!!

          • Margaret: We Anons have a phrase which covers this issue quite well: Dox or GTFO. Publish what you have. Others have presented their evidence to the contrary. You need to do the same. Otherwise, it’s your word versus neutral third-party documentation that’s publicly available, and that documentation is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of LRH embellishing his war record.

            By the way, ancestry.com is not a “partner: per se of the National Archives. ancestry.com is owned wholly by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Their religious imperative requires them to scour the National Archives to make this data publicly available (for a fee of about $300 per year). I have an ancestry.com membership, so I know this.

            By the way, my father, being too young to join the military during WWII, was in the Merchant Marine at the time. I have a record, through ancestry,com, of his arrival in San Francisco from a merchant vessel sailing out of Okinawa. It has the wrong date of arrival on it. What you ascribe to “intelligence” or other issues is more easily by Occam’s Razor ascribed to bureaucracy.

            • Espiando,
              Regarding National Archives and ancestry.com, you may have missed this mutual press release from both organizations:

              Press Release
              May 15, 2008

              National Archives and Ancestry.com Partner to Make Millions of Historical Documents Available Online

              You can find the release from the National Archives website at:
              http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2008/nr08-104.html

              The reason I mentioned ancestry.com was for your convenience, not because I particularly trust or don’t trust them. I also confirmed my own ancestry.com research by going to the original microfilm in the National Archives. You can find the passenger lists for both the CHAUMONT and the PENNANT in those records, at a number of National Archives locations around the country. Your best bet, however, is National Archives I, in Washington, DC.

            • Espiando,

              Here is an additional response to your personal experience with records having the wrong dates on them. First, I’m not claiming that inaccurate dates are the result of intelligence activity; bureaucracy and secretarial errors are always the most likely cause.

              Here’s what we know with some certainty, about Hubbard’s departure from Australia/South Pacific and his arrival into the US.

              We know that he left Australia AFTER March 8, 1942. We know this because he is recorded as being personally present in a ship captain’s War Diary/daily log, specifically the USS NEW ORLEANS, as it was moored in Brisbane, Australia in early March 1942. In addition to showing that Hubbard was involved to one degree or another with counter-espionage for the US Navy, it also shows that he was present in Australia as late as March 8, 1942. You can find this ship’s log, as mentioned earlier, at the other National Archives partner site, fold3.com (formerly “Footnote.com”).
              http://www.fold3.com/image/#267903716

              (And by the way, here is a link to the National Archives site, which provides more details on the degree of the partnership that the National Archives has with fold3.com and ancestry.com:
              http://www.archives.gov/digitization/digitized-by-partners.html )

              We know with certainty that Hubbard was back in San Francisco on March 23, 1942 — this is mentioned in several places in his Navy service record, including in the running medical log.

              That leaves a period of 16 days — at the very high end — for Hubbard to have made his way from Australia to the USA. Even the fast ships in early 1942, when they were not in convoy and were rushing, were taking just under three weeks to cross the Pacific. And that’s with no stops. It is noted in Hubbard’s service record that he arrived via Honolulu. Using just these dates alone, it is nearly impossible that Hubbard crossed the Pacific in a ship.

              But let’s be careful.

              Let’s actually look at the departure and arrival dates, and the passenger lists, of the two ships which his Navy records imply that he took.

              CHAUMONT — left Australia in mid-February 1942, and arrived in San Francisco in late March 1942. We know that Hubbard was still in Australia as late as March 8, 1942. Further, the passenger list of the CHAUMONT, on its arrival into San Francisco, shows that he was not on board. Therefore, we can conclude that Hubbard did not depart or arrive on the CHAUMONT.

              PENNANT (this is the M/S PENNANT, not to be confused with the ALCOA PENNANT)– the M/S PENNANT left Brisbane, Australia on or around March 7, 1942, had a few stops in and around Australia, then went to Chile, South America and arrived in San Francisco at the end of April 1942. By the end of April, Hubbard had been back in the US for a over a month; further, he was not onboard, according to the passenger lists. We can conclude that Hubbard did not use the M/S PENNANT on his trip across the Pacific. (The ALCOA PENNANT never went to Australia in early 1942; further, Hubbard does not show up on any passenger lists.)

              The above records can all be found in the National Archives microfilm Roll M1410, “Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at San Francisco, CA, 1893-1953”.

              To be extra careful, I looked through all available ships passenger lists of all the ships that arrived into the United States in February, March and April 1942, in every port in the country (even on the east coast).

              Hubbard was not on any ship.

              I then started looking through plane arrival records. On an “Index” (a list) of all the planes and ships that arrived into San Francisco during World War II, I found a plane that arrived on the exact date, using the same route via Honolulu, and that had left from Australia. It matched Hubbard’s exact known departure, route and arrival information. Unfortunately, the passenger list for this flight was not preserved. But no other vessel – plane or ship — matches the known facts of Hubbard’s return to the US in March 1942. As mentioned, that plane was “Philippine Clipper 41759″, and can be found on microfilm roll “Index to Vessels Arriving in San Francisco, 1882-1957, Publication Number M1437″. You can’t find it online (yet). You need to go to a National Archives research location to find it.

              Additional research confirmed that this plane was part of the PanAm fleet that the Secretary of the Navy’s office had begun using in late 1941 / early 1942.

              And to make it even more discouraging for the Anonymous gang, I found a record of personal correspondence between Hubbard and the Secretary of the Navy (Frank Knox) in the declassified personal files of Knox in the National Archives. There is no specific date on the correspondence, other than it took place between 1940-1944. Only a record of the correspondence exists (not the correspondence itself) but it was noted to be in relation to the Explorer’s Club, and so probably took place in either 1940 or 1941. Additionally, Hubbard had used John F. “Jack” O’Keefe as a personal reference when he applied to the Navy in 1941 (this is in Hubbard’s Navy service records). O’Keefe was the Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy.

              Combined with Hubbard’s known friendships with Congressmen Magnuson and Ford in 1941 (a widely acknowledged fact, with evidence in Hubbard’s service records), it’s within the realm of documentable possibility that Hubbard had the connections to “make a call” to the Secretary of the Navy’s office (if not the Secretary himself), to be flown home from Australia, as Hubbard claimed.

          • Margaret,

            You are an “Independent Treasure.” I love the research you do and the data you provide as a result!

              • Thank you George, Rachel, Kirsi, SKM, Leonore and Reg Dog. And thank you too Nomnom, Anonymous and others for keeping me on my toes. All of your compliments, insights and even skepticism are appreciated.

                • And if you assemble this together in a linear fashion, with substantiating documentation (and that pretty much means a website with copies of scanned original documents hyperlinked to each point), it would make your case better. At least everything’s assembled in one place. You can easily get help here from someone to assist you with the assembly. If you can’t, maybe you can give what you have to Steve Hall, and he and his crew can put things together for you. They appear to be willing to host this type of info.

                  Frankly, though, LRH’s embellishment (or not) of his military record is only second in his offenses, to me, in the lying department. The nuclear physicist claim tops it. As someone who is a military veteran with a physics degree, you can imagine how sensitive I would be in regard to any embellishment of one’s credentials in either field. Notice that I went after Alaska Ronn during his story for, in my view, making his Army accomplishments out to be more than they were. If I did that with one Ron(n), I’d have no problem with another.

          • Margaret – Absolutely excellent, five-star, research, documentation, and writing. – Carcha

          • Thank you Margaret. I will email you.
            Although it seems that the evidence is overwhelming that LRH had issues with the truth about his past, for me it’s all about the philosophy and the tech and not the messenger. And in that area, Scientology shines.
            LRH’s life is an interesting sidebar though.

            • Nomnom,

              I agree that it’s all about the philosophy and the tech. But the idea that Ron had “issues with the truth about his past” does simply not hold up under careful scrutiny.

              When it came to the “whole truth” about Ron’s life, he handed it over freely to his auditors and biographers — in the early-70s, he freely gave the most highly trained auditors on the Apollo his entire collection of PC folders going back to the early 1950s to sort through and work out a program for him (see the Otto Roos Story). And later in his life, in the late 70s and early 80s, he freely gave all the private and embarassing details (personal correspondence, private research memos and papers) of his life to his biographers. And instead of someone sorting through it all and doing the necessary research to provide a thorough, honest, and balanced biography, we ended up with the Armstrong/Miller/Atack show on one side and DM and the hagiographers on the other.

              I don’t think Hubbard had “issues with the truth”. I think he recognized the world that he lived in.

              When you really dig in to the most “horrible lies”, you find out that they were not lies at all. Ron referred to himself as a scientist and a nuclear physicist, but openly stated that he flunked nuclear physics in college and never got a degree. Looking at just two of Hubbard’s contemporaries, Nicola Tesla and Jack Parsons, we see the exact same thing. Neither got college degrees, but they openly called themselves scientists and engineers.

              One institution gave Hubbard an honorary doctorate in 1953 — Sequoia University in Los Angeles — for his work in dianetics. Suddenly, Sequoia University gets widely derided by Hubbard’s critics as a “diploma mill” where Ron “bought” the degree. A careful examination of the record, however, shows that a nearly identical degree from Sequoia was being touted in the Engineering Journals as being awarded to one of their most respected engineers (David B. Steinman):

              “The American Engineer”, Volumes 22-23. (Published by the National Society of Professional Engineers, 1952, p. xiv):
              “NSPE’s first president, D. B. Steinman, is establishing something of a record in receiving six honorary degrees this spring. The honors are accorded as follows: April 15, Sequoia University Los Angeles, Cal., Doctor of Science in [Engineering]…”

              “Civil Engineering”, Volume 23. (Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1953, p. 436):
              “DB Steinman, consulting engineer of New York City, has been awarded honory degrees by several universities during the current commencement season: doctor of science in engineering, Sequoia University; doctor of science, Columbia University; doctor of laws, Alfred University; and doctor of engineering, Manhattan College, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute and Ohio Northern University. Dr. Steinman was commencement speaker at a number of the universities honoring him.”

              Apparently, the “diploma mill” even had the brightest minds in engineering fooled. However, deeper research shows that several theses were written by PhD candidates and published by “Sequoia University Press, Los Angeles” (you can find them on books.google.com). So it seems that Sequoia University was no diploma mill at all, but just a small private university that often used “distance learning” (called Correspondence Courses then), which brought them under scrutiny as a “diploma mill” a few years later. (Today, it seems that Sequoia was a few decades ahead of their time; even mainstream universities like Boston University offer PhD degrees using “distance learning” these days: http://www.bu.edu/online/programs/graduate-degree/)

              Finally, a letter that Hubbard wrote at the time which was widely claimed to have been “proof” that “Hubbard purchased his fake PhD”, upon careful scrutiny, simply shows that Hubbard is accepting it, not purchasing it.

              Factoids like these don’t make it into “biographies” like Miller’s or Wright’s. Their goal is to sell books — under the guise of being written as “careful research based on interviews with 200 people”. With Wright however, I’m a little disappointed. I had hoped that he had the willingness to look a little deeper under the covers, at all sides of the story. Turns out I was wrong.

              • Oh, no, Margaret, you didn’t. You did not bring up the name of Nikola Tesla in the same breath as L. Ron Hubbard. You’ve just waved a mammoth red flag to physicists, scientists, engineers, and geeks of all stripes. Just call me the local bull.

                Nikola Tesla, the father of alternating current, was a scientist who gave the world experimental results that could be duplicated, replicated, validated against predicted mathematical behavior, and could be applied in both theoretical and practical ways. In other words, he used the scientific method and built his work in accordance with it. This is something that Hubbard didn’t do, mostly because he shut off theoretical expansion of his work. Jack Parsons built on and acknowledged previous work while providing a theoretical basis for further advances, and this included his OTO sperm-on-parchment activity. Hubbard only obliquely acknowledged previous work, and only early on (in the PDC lectures and such), and I already mentioned the absence of theory.

                Like I said, Margaret, you’re going to step on some toes, but be careful whose toes you step on. If you think some Scientologists inappropriately worship Hubbard and put him on a pedestal, you haven’t seen what the Internet Geek crowd (and that includes most of Anon) have made of Tesla.

                • LOL. Yes, Espiando, I’m well aware of Tesla’s being put on a pedastal by the “Internet Geek” crowd. I’m among them. He was an absolute genius. And so was Hubbard.

                  I do find it odd, however, that one genius’ lack of credentials is justified in your mind, while another’s isn’t. I know you have your excuses. But may I suggest that you haven’t really been equally fair to both?

      • Regular Dog formerly Underdog

        Margaret, I am really happy with the data you present in your comments and I’ve read comments from you in the past when you tell results of your research. You always tell the sources of your data. Don’t be thrown off by anyone suggesting that you need to “prove” everything you say.

      • Margaret,
        For this and for all your previous and follow-up postings on LRH’s actual history – Bravo!

        What you have compiled and documented has huge value for posterity, and I am so glad someone has done what you have done. I am aware of some of the things you write here and know you speak (write) sooth on this. Very, very well done. LRH’s writings on the subject of 20th century history, Intelligence, and PR also serve as evidence of a very personal and real experience with these topics.

        It is a pity that Lawrence Wright, with his other book as evidence of his potential skill, did not utilize you (or Marty) as a resource.

        And yes, where is the corporate church in all this? You’ve done the job that Intelligence ought to be doing. However, David Miscavige dare not allow Intelligence to function as it ought to [with analytical freedom] as people would learn things he would not want them to know.

        With gratitude,
        Leonore

      • Margaret, I’m so impressed with your insight here that I wish you would write a book about LRH. I promise to be your first customer.

    • As you state Kevin:

      “I have my opinion as to what happened later but I think it is fair to say LRH was really on to something but he crippled the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology by laying in lies from the beginning that were bound to be exposed at some time.”
      ——
      LRH should taken Marty’s advice. Of which Marty has stated here many times – when you tell the truth, the lies become the past. And when you don’t tell the truth, the lies get you. Or something like that.

      When Jerry Armstrong found out the truth about LRH’s past, he just wanted the management to stop telling lies, stop PR’ing with lies, but PR with truth. That’s what I concluded from my research.

      And what does DM do, he PR’s with lies about scientology expansion.

      DM, you’re fired!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Captain Bob,

        The church indeed had an opportunity to set the record straight in the early 80s, but blew it big time with Gerry Armstrong.

        But please don’t put this on LRH.

        LRH and Mary Sue freely handed over those personal documents to Armstrong and Garrison, in the hopes that they would actually do a respectful, balanced biography (which Garrison already had a track record of being able to do) and clear up any questions that came up, by either doing additional research or checking with LRH and/or Mary Sue themselves.

        And when Armstrong and Garrison had questions or concerns, they were attacked. Norman Starkey and Miscavige blew it big time. Marty gives some of this history here:
        https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/l-ron-hubbards-worst-enemy-part-ii/

        And Norman Starkey and others blew it. And it’s made even worse by the fact that Miscavige continues to put more time and effort on his speeches than on an LRH biography. (Not that I would trust the “balance” in a church published biography now anyway — but you’d think DM would at least recognize the value of trying to restore some semblance of credibility to LRH.)

        • Margaret,

          I think you should be the LRH biographer. You’ve probably made more headway than Dan Sherman has in 20+ years. Not by his fault of course, but at least he still collects a check.

          Still, I applaud your detailed research.

          FOS

      • LRH wrote in PR Series 14 SAFE GROUND 27 Oct 1974 PR Series 25 page 99 Management Series Vol 3.

        “1. NEVER SAY OR PUBLISH ANYTHING YOU CANNOT PROVE OR DOCUMENT.”
        “2. ALWAYS DOCUMENT THE TRUTH TO OPPOSE LIES.”
        “These two rules are a PR’s safe ground.
        Violating them can bring catastrophe.”

        • Scientology Inc.screams loudly about LIES. LIES by ex-members, LIES by journalists, lies by Media while David Miscavige and Office of Special Affairs have LIED LIED LIED.
          Page 345 of Lawrence Wright’s book , in the note at the bottom of the page it says:
          BEATEN by DAVID MISCAVIGE
          “…. The list of those who told me they had been physically assaulted by David Miscavige: Mike Rinder, Gale Irwin, Marty Rathbun, Jefferson Hawkins, Tom De Vocht, Mark Fisher, Bruce Hines, Bill Dendiu, Guy White, Marc Headley, and Stefan Castle.
          WITNESSED DAVID MISCAVIGE BEATINGS
          Those who said they had witnessed such abuse:
          John Axcel, Marty Rathbun,Janela Webster, Tom Devocht, Marc Headley, Eric Knutson, Amy Scobee, Dan Koon, Steve Hall, Claire Headley, Mariette Lindstrom, John Peeler, Andre Taboyoyin, Vickie Aznaran, Jesse Prince, Mark Fisher, Bill Dendui, Mike Rinder, David Lingerfelter, Denise (Larry) Brennan, Debbie Cook and Lana Mitchell.
          These beatings have been posted intermittently on this blog.
          The “Church” lied with lying affidavits to Tampa Bay Times going so far as to make top HOLEEs lie on affidavit that “David Miscavige never laid a hand on anyone.”
          The Church LIES LIES LIES in the “dead agent” packs on veteran Sea Org members,
          More liars sent to CNN wicked witches of the West lying on National TV

          • That video was eye-opening, Karen. How smooth these ladies were in their delivery of the party line in the beginning of the interview. They actually sounded quite believable up until Anderson Cooper called them on the inconsistencies between what they were saying and the “church’s” official statements. And when he pointed out that any corporate organization would IMMEDIATELY CALL THE POLICE, and then remove anyone who assaulted another employee rather than let it go on for 3 years as the church admitted doing, the ladies seemed to visibly lose the ability to “be there comfortably” while confronting. I’ll bet they had been drilled and drilled and drilled to handle everything that could possibly come up -except the truth. When one of them excused Miscavige’s failure to do anything about the alleged assaults by Marty because he wasn’t at the base, Cooper asked if Miscavige had a telephone. She said that she thought the question was “rude”. That was a real “highlight”. Yes, the truth can seem rude when one is lying through one’s teeth.
            I am sure that 90% of viewers, immediately thought to themselves- in effect- “Flunk, Out TRO”, Start. Most viewers do not know what TRO is, but they can usually smell a lie.
            It looks like these “ladies” all got very expensive make-overs for their grand appearance. I wonder if they got to keep the nice outfits.

          • I don’t understand , if those mentioned been beaten
            by Dm haven’t reported the incidents time place form event
            and with whom present as witness haven’t reported to the
            authorities its beyond me .Some of these names have already
            left.

    • I do not think Hubbard could have put together the vast body of knowledge that he did if he had lived his life as an alter boy. I found most of his early exploits rather funny. He didn’t do anything but charm his way and talk his way through life. He kept people interested, he offered adventure, he offered to take people places they had never gone before, and he did. He made people forget who they were and think with what they could be. I saw his scams as playful and mocking. He did some things I wouldn’t do, but he found things I could not find, and then he shared them with me. He accepted himself as the only authority. That takes amazing responsibility and courage. He glanced at our ordinary and less than than ordinary lives and took us on amazing adventures. And he could not have done any of it, if it were not for us contributing to that motion. I never viewed Scientology anyway, or Hubbard, in the ways they were marketed and presented. I think there are people who spend their entire lives in Scientology and do not know what it is. Still thinking with it as “mental health science” or a “science” or a “religion”. It was none of those things to me, ever. And Hubbard was not a God, or Metteyya, or etc etc etc on all things he was presented as. I saw him as a master at psycho-physics
      with a keen insight into magic and social intercourse. He did not view life from the same angles as everyone else and had to get clever with producing angles people could view him from and identities they were comfortable with. Understanding, mercy and forgiveness, go both ways.
      If he had not been a potential trouble source at some point, he could not have mapped it out. I find it shocking that anyone could assume that Hubbard was never PTS in his life. He had a very long history of being PTS. He WAS suppressible. David Miscavige was able to suppress him. And he is still suppressing him. Just go over to E.S.M.B. and you will find a culture of people fair gaming Ron. An ARCXen field Miscavige has never bothered to repair. Hell, Miscavige was able to suppress the I.R.S.! Hubbard hid from them!

      Let’s find something real. Hubbard. O.K. so he lied on his resume. Who here has never lied on resume? I would like to know who here, has never ever lied on a resume? Who here EVER told someone they quit their last job because the boss was an suppressive ass hole, to the new boss that is interviewing you? Who here, types in BOLD on the resume, “I am a Scientologist so I can tell you right now you are getting a homonovis when you get me!” or, “From 1982 to 1987 I worked as a religious fanatic in a cult.”

      Why was Hubbard supposed to be 100% truthful? So he could get suppressed some more? Just LOOK at how people ARE using the truth to suppress him NOW. He lived in a viscous , sadistic, world. The biggest crime, being there and communicating.

    • I would like to preface this by saying that I read this blog consistently and for a non- Scientologist I believe I am pretty open minded. I see you, Marty as a rational decent human being.
      As a young person I was drawn towards Scientology but thankfully never started the church in earnest. I do, however, read nearly everything printed in media about it, so I am more informed than the average lay person.
      I want to say something about perception that I don’t know if you ever really get from an outsider. Maybe you do have non believers in your life you listen to regularly. It doesn’t appear so, but I could be wrong.
      I find the fact that a man such as LRH could compile such a religion taken from mostly eastern religions and schools of thought and turn them into what he has, impressive. I am however able to view the man himself objectively. Marty, your lack of ability to do so, may be the primary reason people will not join you, specifically, in your cause.
      LRH was a man that went far beyond simply being flawed. To deny most of the well known and published evidence against him makes you appear still brainwashed to an extent. LRH may have been great at selecting powerful religious material and creating a new style of religion from it, but that does not make him a good or decent person because of it alone. He was extremely flawed and most of what you want to deny about him is the cold hard truth. All outsiders see when they read this blog and the thoughts of many of the commenters, are people still brainwashed and blinded. He was not a prophet or deity incarnated, or even a Ghandi/Mother Teresa type. He just wasn’t. I’m of the mind that he was a really very bad man, but that is just my opinion.
      I, as an outsider, am able to separate the genius of his ability to create what he did, from the man with questionable motivation that he was. I acknowledge his body of work was impressive.
      If only you could step outside the hero worship of him, and be realistic, you may be able to attract outsiders into your practice so that it won’t die a painful inevitable death by media as it is. To the outsiders it is still cultish in its worship of a clearly questionable guy, instead of practical spiritual education.
      Thanks for listening,
      Melissa

  2. Thanks Marty – I’m very glad to read this critique before I start the book, due any day now. One does wonder, with all the sources and resources at Wright’s disposal, why he chose to go this route though? Was it just with one eye on the projected sales figures, or laziness, or…what?

  3. As some of you know – quik recap – i have never met a Co$ member or believer in person, that Im aware of. Married, 38 w 2 year old son.

    I have watched Co$ for probably 20 years. (Man has shit got exciting the past 5 )

    Anyway, I am at Tony Ortega blog and I have read ONE SENTENCE of the email forwarded to Samantha Domingo. I want to read the rest of it and comment in real time, to give you an understanding of what someone COMPLETELY unrelated to the church or any of its members.

    While I obviously have a bias towards the Co$ & that guy dM, that bias is not extended to Scientologist; current or former. I have never met Rinder or Rathbun. But, from following these guys from afar for a little less than a decade and much more closely since news spread about Martys blog. (I remember when it was one page but it was awesome. What he was saying, I could not BELIEVE. All I could think: they are going to ***K w him and **** with him. We all know how that turned out.

    Back to my reason for posting. I doubt I will be surprised by anything else I read of the email posted on Tonys blog. I know that this email is not FOR ME, it is for the people dM is hitting up for more money, its for the rank and file SO members who are not allowed to have a bad thought about cult leadership. What about normal people who barely follow the Co$. People like my wife, who knows nothing more than what I tell her from time to time.

    The problem is people like my wife along with many others who know nothing about the current C0$. Do church leaders really believe that people outside of the cult are not going to see these emails? Or Freedom Magazine, with terrible, altered photos of Ms Scobee & things written about her, that no person should be subject to. When I showed my wife THAT article, “THATS DISGUSTING & these people want to be called a church?”

    Reading emails about Co$ trying to come between another family (prominent Damingo Family). The Headleys, to think about where that man and woman have gotten to, in a short amount of time. Gives me hope for anyone that is currently trapped in this cult.

    I am really sorry, I am going to stop typing now because I did not mean for this to be a rant or anything else, I could keep that up forever.

    I know more about this cult, than I need to. If someone is reading this posting, and if Marty allows for it to be posted. I want you to know that I do not think badly of YOU. I am not anti Scientologist. I am anti-dM & the current Co$ leadership. If you are reading this, then I am sure that you have the same feeling deep inside. Just a nagging question….

    maybe a WTF moment ???

    Anyway, here are my thoughts on the email forwarded to Samantho Domingo.
    ———————————
    “We’ve been wondering lately about Marty Rathbun’s flair for self-promotion and whether the so-called “guru” of Bulverde, Texas is more content indulging in showmanship than he is in guiding his clients on the path to self-knowledge.”

    ….Showmanship? Rathbun has done nothing that comes close to the showmanship provided by Church of Scientology volunteers running around a small Texas town, with Tshirts w/bigoted messages, written above a rodents body w/ Martys head on top. These poor folks were used as propaganda, they actually became “walking billboards” for dM & the Co$.

    ———————————–
    “A look at Rathbun’s blog shows a couple of vanity books he has authored, a self-idolizing photo of himself – dressed in his classic Southern “good old boy” look – and a page from a magazine in which he appeared”

    …….. I dont know about you, but I dont have even ONE book published. I am not sure how anyone criticizes another, for publishing a book. I would say its pretty f-ing awesome. “Good ol boy” – clothing smack? really? Is the writer of this email actually reading this shit, before hitting send? Who is approving this copy? You are talking shit about how a guy dresses and about him writing books..

    ——————————

    At any rate, Rathbun is a busy man these days – penning a new book

    …………… ah sh** , here we go again with the books thing – there are plenty of things to hate someone for, penning a book is not one of them – have you seen the literacy rate in this country, “truss mah – mo buukz iz gudd”

    —————————–

    “Rathbun has been trying to chill out of late as he discusses philosophy and literature in his blog postings, rambling entries that often run far afield from the altered tech that used to be at the core of his counseling”

    _________________________

    …….I have never studied using any kind of TECH. I have seen former Co$ members who are still wanting to practice their faith/self help/ religion. I have seen videos of persons helped by Rathbun. Why does the CoS care what Marty is doing? He is practicing their religion.
    To anyone reading my “every mans” or “wog” thoughts. I am not trying to tell you one way or the other. I am calling it how I see it and I am encourging you to THINK FOR YOURSELF, thats it just think for YOU. What do YOU think about what you have heard from inside and outide of the COS.
    back to the email

    back to the email
    ———————————

    “Maybe he and wife Monique “Mosey” Rathbun” –

    ……… I am not even going to read any further, just yet. Why in the **** are you bringing up a mans wife?

    ” getting used to their land-locked Texas compound, pining for the breezes wafting outside their previous home where they could throw a line or take the boat out”

    ………………. WOW. I do not know what to type here. They are bragging about the threats that were made against Marty & his Mrs. Constant harassment & invasion. I can tell you this much, I promise you that I would have handled those people differently that Marty. Watching the unedited videos Mary posted, I was so mad I wanted to be there, so that I could punch someone in the eye. Congrats you made someone need to live in a compound. For a group that doesnt want Marty practicing Scientology, they sure want him to continue EXPERIENCING it

    ———————-

    “We are reminded where they spent their honeymoon”

    ………… can you believe you are reading this shit?

    “Mosey drunkenly danced the night away in a Bourbon St. hole in the wall, getting groped by fellow patrons”

    …………. I want to spray a full can of mace into the face of whoever wrote this – I do not care who you’re talking about, I don’t care how good or bad they are – this is 100% not acceptable

    —————————-
    “Mosey cooks the meals and does the dishes while her “hubby” pecks away on the computer, working on his next vanity publication masterpiece.”

    …….. . I dont know about you, but my wife cooks & amazingly I might add………. the ass-hat that wrote this email, is talking trash about someone for “positive things”, they are attacking things that are 100% GOOD – even if your wife is the sh*ttiest cook in the world, she is at least cooking for your sorry ass, which means she is awesome – way to foul this one up, jack ass

    ——————–

    “It’s a phenomenon that some call “Going Hollywood,” when someone is so impressed with themselves it goes right to their heads”

    ………. this one is way too easy

    ———————————–

    Final thought: I dont know if this is too long for Ma&Mo to post, or if anyone even gives a shit. But, it is from my true thoughts as I experienced them. I am sure that some of my reaction, be it muted or exaggerated – is slanted by current view of Corporate Scientology. But, I would like to see anyone spin this email or any article in Freedom magazine. I can be very opened minded, its a wonderful thing.

    Bed Man in Okc
    ———————————

    “Maybe he and wife Monique “Mosey” Rathbun” –

    ……… I am not even going to read any further, just yet. Why in the **** are you bringing up a mans wife?

    ” getting used to their land-locked Texas compound, pining for the breezes wafting outside their previous home where they could throw a line or take the boat out”

    ………………. WOW. I do not know what to type here. They are bragging about the threats that were made against Marty & his Mrs. Constant harassment & invasion. I can tell you this much, I promise you that I would have handled those people differently that Marty. Watching the unedited videos Mary posted, I was so mad I wanted to be there, so that I could punch someone in the eye. Congrats you made someone need to live in a compound. For a group that doesnt want Marty practicing Scientology, they sure want him to continue EXPERIENCING it

    ———————-

    “We are reminded where they spent their honeymoon”

    ………… can you believe you are reading this shit?

    “Mosey drunkenly danced the night away in a Bourbon St. hole in the wall, getting groped by fellow patrons”

    …………. I want to spray a full can of mace into the face of whoever wrote this – I do not care who you’re talking about, I don’t care how good or bad they are – this is 100% not acceptable

    —————————-
    “Mosey cooks the meals and does the dishes while her “hubby” pecks away on the computer, working on his next vanity publication masterpiece.”

    …….. . I dont know about you, but my wife cooks & amazingly I might add………. the ass-hat that wrote this email, is talking trash about someone for “positive things”, they are attacking things that are 100% GOOD – even if your wife is the sh*ttiest cook in the world, she is at least cooking for your sorry ass, which means she is awesome – way to foul this one up, jack ass

    ——————–

    “It’s a phenomenon that some call “Going Hollywood,” when someone is so impressed with themselves it goes right to their heads”

    ………. this one is way too easy

    ———————————–

    Final thought: I dont know if this is too long for Ma&Mo to post, or if anyone even gives a shit. But, it is from my true thoughts as I experienced them. I am sure that some of my reaction, be it muted or exaggerated – is slanted by current view of Corporate Scientology. But, I would like to see anyone spin this email or any article in Freedom magazine. I can be very opened minded, its a wonderful thing.

    Bed Man in Okc

  4. Marty,

    I’d like to acknowledge that you exemplify the state of “Knowing How to Know” and that I trust you. You are a fine being.

  5. Marty: Thank you for posting. You have my unqualified respect.

  6. As an aside, my post above was inspired by Marty’s statement, “To independent-minded Scientologists the book will be a test of how well they understand Scientology and correspondingly how well they differentiate the technology of Scientology from personage of its original author.”

    That is correct. L. Ron Hubbard did not originate “Knowing How To Know”. He did however write extensively on the subject and collaborate with many others on his research of the subject. That he codified and developed various methodologies toward achieving the state of “Knowing How To Know” into a workable technology is LRH’s distinction from most others who have attempted to do the same.

    That is why Marty used the phrase “its original author” when referring to “the technology of Scientology”.

  7. Thanks a lot for the info.

  8. I’m eagerly waiting for your next more comprehensive book. In the meantime, what’s really happening is that Lawrence Wright is merely “filling the vacuum,” just as Miller did back in the eighties. The COS has been unable or unwilling to pen a mass market $28 biography (and not a hagiography), so others are doing it.

    If you think about it, every person of any historical note has books written about them and it can’t be avoided. If LRH viewed himself as the next earthly messiah (The Messiah Program) then he had to have expected his life and times would be closely examined by dozens of authors as the decades rolled on. Like Buddha, like Christ, and others. That’s what happens. So it’s a matter of filling the vacuum of public interest and curiosity.

    The closest the COS got was the Omar Garrison biography, which I understand was fully written in manuscript form and delivered, Maybe you could fill us in on that back story and why it wasn’t a go, especially after he had successfully written three previous books for the COS and Hubbard liked Omar as an author.

    All that said, I await your balanced look at the subject and the man.

    I have one burning question though today. I know Sarge is a friend of the blog and a friend to you. What do you make of his comments at the end of the Wright book. I find them very disturbing, to say the least. Someone needs to say something about them. They shouldn’t be swept under the carpet because otherwise they’ll create a firestorm of disaffection, I’m afraid. (It’s already happening amongst a couple on-the-fence long-term Scientologists and Wright book readers I know.)

    I hope you or Mike know something and could post a comment about Sarge’s stories at the end of the Wright book.

    It does matter in a big way that someone speak up. IMO, silence would be an admission of the veracity of those stories.

    Thanks

    • I didn’t take LRH’s extremely harsh words about himself to be a condemnation of all that LRH did do. I didn’t take them to mean all of Scientology is for naught.

      In LRH’s final candid thoughts, here and there in the ASI traffic, I saw even then LRH lament that the world would never appreciate him, nor that he even had a proper label for what he considered he was doing. Civilization changer is how he conceived himself, and how I thought that could still be possibly true, was if Scientology were to produce really real OTs who could exteriorize at will, etc, etc an demonstrate real OT powers, and if that still is doable with existing tech, then great.

      I sort of took the final sentence about what LRH told Sarge, about where LRH was headed, to be sort of similar to the quote in the beginning of those old tech vols, “The stars twnkile….I’ll not always be here….”

      I took it to mean he was not immediately coming back, and if he said that in 1985, that means that is later than the 1982 Mayo despatch, where in 1982 he said he was coming back to earth in 21 or so years.

      I’d love to hear Ken Urquhart’s thoughts.

    • “They shouldn’t be swept under the carpet because otherwise they’ll create a firestorm of disaffection, I’m afraid..”

      One thing that comes up here regularly is people finding out their “friends” were false friends, when they fall out of the Scn, Corp fold and everyone they knew and loved disposes of them quietly and with out sorrow.

      The last thing Hubbard ever needed was false friends. Probably at the bottom of every ruin or set back. Anyone turning against him or Scientology because he may have had a bad day, been sad, remorseful or sick or needing comfort or aid from suffering or pain, has clearly missed the boat all the way with the subject of Scientology. He had wants and needs too. Beyond stat reports. He committed overts, why do you think he withdrew and withdrew and withdrew? Just because he wrote and pointed things out to people didn’t mean none of it did not apply to him.
      He was a thetan with a body too. And he was forced into non existence, a low condition for him, by present time problems, pain, illness, old age and suppression. What was he supposed to be doing a few days before he died? Whistling Dixie?

    • Thank you for directing attention to Sarge’s comments at the end of the book. I found them strangely freeing and reassuring to me. There’s two reasons for that. One reason is, from my view at least, it is true that LRH failed. After 30 years of being in Scientology and having thousands of hours of auditing, I still find myself with the same old psychosomatic illnesses and aberrations. And I certainly can’t exteriorize at will and operate independently from the body. So, for me at least, that settles the matter of Clear and OT. That doesn’t mean I got nothing from all the auditing. I do have a calmness and serenity I would have otherwise lacked and that is very valuable to me. But there is another reason I found LRH’s statement that he had failed to be oddly reassuring. This one was hard for me to spot: if LRH had felt that he failed, it means he had sincerely tried to succeed. In other words, Scientology wasn’t born out of some elaborate con. If that was what Scientology was – a big con meant to result in wealth and power for Hubbard – then he would have seen himself as a success. But he didn’t. That is a big relief to me – to be reassured that I wasn’t necessarily duped into participating in a large con for 30 years. The dream of the states of Clear and OT, and the creation of a Bridge for all to cross to reach those states is a good one. Personally, based on my own extensive experience with the subject, I don’t think Hubbard fully succeeded with that dream. But perhaps he made progress. And maybe, now that his work is all recorded and laid out for all to see, someone else can pick up where he left off. Like Einstein and others did with Newton. Well, maybe that latter analogy isn’t wholly accurate, but you probably get the idea.

  9. Marty,

    Excellent review. It would have been one thing if Wright hadn’t claimed that his goal were to understand the appeal of Scientology. But of course he did — and on that account, he fell far short. And we’re not the only ones who noticed it:

    THE NEW YORK TIMES – BOOKS

    An Effort to Untangle Scientology’s Mysteries

    ‘Going Clear,’ by Lawrence Wright, Examines Scientology

    By JANET MASLIN

    Published: January 13, 2013

    Lawrence Wright’s avowed purpose in writing “Going Clear” is to understand why Scientology, a religion known for its bizarre creation myth, mining of church members’ secrets and draconian punishment system, has appeal. “What do its adherents get out of it?” he asks. “How can seemingly rational people subscribe to beliefs that others find incomprehensible? Why do public personalities” — he’s talking to you, Tom Cruise — “associate themselves with a faith that is likely to create a kind of public relations martyrdom?”

    Mr. Wright says that he has spent much of his career “examining the effects of religious beliefs on people’s lives.” He did this most notably in “The Looming Tower,” his Pulitzer Prize-winning book about Sept. 11. But Mr. Wright was more successful at penetrating the thought processes of Al Qaeda than he is at seriously grasping whatever Scientology has to offer.
    … .

  10. “But, do not delude yourself that Going Clear is any insightful, definitive, and least of all, balanced look at either L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology.
    Now that the big guns have issued, I can settle down to attempting to deliver something more along that line.”

    Yes Marty please do.
    I am sure it will be a very rewarding and revealing reading as all of your books have been !!
    Thanks for saving us the time….

  11. Well all I can say is… it is what I thought!!!! I had/have no interest in purchasing the book!

    • If Marty’s review caused you to come to this decision, I would say that was a very bad thing, indeed.

      • wogson, Marty’s review had nothing to do with it. I read for knowledge, understanding and pleasure. I don’t see the need to read a book published about about a subject that I personally know works. Opinions are just that opinions and we are all entitled to our own…not a book of interest in anyway to me!

  12. I am only at the beggining part of the book and Mr. Wright says that when the needle of the e-meter goes to the right the resisitance is increasing and when the needle goes to the left the resistance is decreasing. This is the exact opposite of what happens. Not that this is that big of a deal, but it alerted me right away that he may not have checked his facts well, and/or had an experienced Scientologist proof read it.

    • Right Tony! I have that in my notes as well. Now I don’t have to mention it as you already have.

    • In the Rock Center interview he is shown sitting at a table with a stack of LRH books, as if to show he’s “done his homework”. I would like to give him a Spot Check on any of those books. I bet he has zero duplication or conceptual understanding of any of it. Not that I expect him too, but he did stack those books there. I would bet they still have very stiff bindings.

    • Regular Dog formerly Underdog

      Nice call Tony. As Marty said, Mr. Wright was missing the required subjective understanding. It’s amazing how many people get it wrong when writing about the E-meter.

    • Right, I noted that one too.

      • Theo Sismanides

        Marty, thanks for the review and your viewpoint on the book. Thanks for opening the blog here so we can have a closer and better look of it. Some wanna read it, some don’t wanna read it. When I hear that he’s got the meter reads wrong, I go pffff…. what a great “documentation”.

        I like the way you put things saying that a certain amount of subjectiveness is needed to write about such stuff. I think that your review was a good one and you didn’t give Mr. Wright a chance as we at least have the most balanced perspective on the matter. We have seen both sides, in and out.

        Anticipating a book from you as many of us do. And to hell with those paid journalists who do a lousy job of reporting facts. I think we can do and will do a much better job to inform people. At least how the e-meter reads, lol!

    • Theo Sismanides

      Hahaha, Tony this is hilarious! They don’t know and yet they write things for others to read and understand. This is outrageous to me. Such a mistake. This is glibness to the extreme and a big outpoint. Someone should sit down Mr. Wright and show him the e-meter. Then he might be able to write a book on why all those people joined Scientology.

      • I’m sure Wright would not want to get anywhere close to an e-meter, especially if it had an Auditor on the other side of the table.

        Great Post Marty!

    • Amazing. People just do not get the E-Meter. In this case, it is a cussing plain as day: On the left of the dial, it says… “Rise”. On the right it says… “Fall”. Rise means UP, as in HIGHER. Higher what? Resistance you cussing twit!

      I mean, what the CUSS can’t people see about this? Look, I admit I was raised with e-meters. I saw my first one at five or six years old. But, really, there must be some whole-track resistance to this thing that haters just can. not. get. it. right. Or even cussing close.

      I don’t care if Ron sold baby organs to black market pimps. One thing that DOES do what Ron and Mary Sue and I say it does is that cussing meter.

      Anyone who has steered using a meter, and anyone who has been the recipient of competent meter steering will cussing get it. Anyone who has seen an LFBD item knows that the cussing hands did not suddenly spring a cussing leak. Or that the PC decided it would be a really good time to squeeze the cans.

      Anyone who has done the “dirty and clean” the emeter drill knows how treacherous that drill is, and knows what a dirty meter is, and also knows what happens when you clean the meter.

      L. Ron Hubbard could have just shat Scientology on the sidewalk and the meter would still do what it does.

      This is cussing basic. I will read the book. But I cannot believe… well, actually I can. Reporters never get it right. Lawrence Wright is a reporter. There is something about being so detached from the world that you spectate and write down what you see (or think you see) without getting involved with whatever it is you are reporting, because of fear of “bias” and lack of “objectivity”. Reporters cannot commit. How could they ever understand Scientology?

      • Hi Mark;

        I dead agented a nay sayer about the meter once. He was loudly declaring it to be based on sweat, squeezing, etc.

        I picked it up the cans, and with the book 08, the section of ‘reality spotting by emeter’, began to create reads, R/Ss, theta bops and so forth. As I was doing that, I kept asking him how does sweat react that way? Am I squeezing the cans? Watch! I went down the whole list, creating all the reads.

        It was the first time he ever saw an emeter work. He was quite taken aback, didn’t know what to say,which was fine with me, I let him off the hook, but he never mentioned it again.

    • Tony, that seems to be a common mistake. In Nancy Many’s ducodrama, the needle went to the right to show her “resistance” to the sec-check.

  13. One would expect that after a perfect powerchange, this all would have been unnecessary, but what the heck, keep it coming.

    ML/A

  14. one of those who see

    Thank you for your well written review of the book. You, your thinking, your writing are filled with differentiation. To me differentiation may be the key road to total freedom. This is the road I am on too so i really love hanging with you via this blog and your books. I plan to continue getting auditing in the indie field with the goal of more freedom to differentiate. Once again, thank you for the boots you have chosen to wear this lifetime.

  15. This is going to be very tricky IMHO. I apologize for the length but it’s complex.

    The Corporate Church already has a website up slamming Lawrence Wright – and presenting a “white paper”.

    They seemed most aggrieved by the lack of mention of the incredible straight up and vertical expansion that has occurred while Wright spent writing his book. One could say for every page of Larry’s book, a new Org/Mission or fantastic Volunteer Minister’s event took place.

    Larry clearly is a slaggard. He merely wrote a book. dm built 30 ideal orgs.

    I haven’t read the entire “white paper” but did find it interesting in their introduction that Marty and Mike are STILL the two bitterest apostates. I on the other hand agree with Marty and found that the sources Wright most quoted, I’ve stayed away from for over 15 years.

    I am still – nonetheless – troubled with LRH’s own avowed friendship with Aleister Crowley and black magic. All stuff I’d heard before but somehow it was more troubling in the telling, yet again.

    The essence of black magic is “power over others”

    I believe we all would be wise to step back a moment and view just how much of our training and our drills are intended to help us gain an upper hand. Or very crudely – have power over others.

    Were this particular thread of superiority not part of the woof and warp of the subject — NO ONE would disconnect, IMHO, from those they love. People want their SPIRITUAL ADVANTAGE/FUTURE more than they want their loved ones. How messed up is THAT?

    The familial bond is extremely deep. LRH even mentions this. A child has a natural affinity for his parents OR the people who raised him and therefore a grandmother or others would do well to never try to break this bond.

    HOWEVER — we find almost endless examples of indy’s who have been disconnected from.

    It is this policy, this act, this crime against families that is so utterly damaging.

    If just ONE well-known scientologist were to stand up and say —

    FORGET IT – I refuse to disconnect from my father (for example) AND I refuse to not continue auditing or give back my materials.

    This could happen. It could start an avalanche. Rather than everyone de-friending on FB, we’d have people start to private message. What is needed is COURAGE. And little steps of courage build more courage.

    There was a great deal “behind the scenes” before the Berlin Wall fell –

    “After allowing for loopholes throughout the summer, Hungary effectively disabled its physical border defenses with Austria on 19 August 1989 and, in September, more than 13,000 East German tourists escaped through Hungary to Austria.[69] This set up a chain of events. The Hungarians prevented many more East Germans from crossing the border and returned them to Budapest. These East Germans flooded the West German embassy and refused to return to East Germany.[70]” (wikipedia)

    No one feels good when a slice of their life has been cut from them.

    I’m going to start private messaging my old friends. The worse that can happen is that they will not answer and they’ll write me up.

    So I’ll continue to be shunned. Gosh.

    I see absolutely no way forward until that which divides us begins to be confronted. And in my opinion what divides us is this default negative human mode that seeks to be greater than another.

    Once this absolutely fabricated wall of disconnection is pierced, then the subject of scientology and LRH can be mended. The wheat separated from the chaff and the wonderful valuable pieces brought forward. What Marty I believe has been trying to illuminate.

    I wish us all an abundance of luck/good will that we might look forward to year where those that have left us, now talk to us. Get creative. Find ways to communicate. And keep it loving.

    Love,
    Christine

    • Yes, Crowley and black magic. It is hard to dismiss the tie. For example, it is hard to minimize the tie as a clandestine infiltration operation LRH was covering when LRH later refers on tape to Crowley as his good friend.

      Another link that is either accidentally unfortunate or purposely dismaying is the Scientology cross, which bears a strong similarity to Crowley’s tarot deck cross of the same period. (Not to mention that the cross is usually a Christian symbol, and LRH was definitely not a supporter of Christianity.)

      So great, all the media have pretty much put it all out there for everyone to see the good, the bad, the ugly of Scientology — but unfortunately, mainly the focus is on the bad and the ugly.

      What I would like to see is a well-reasoned, well-documented exploration of the good. What are the successes of auditing and training? Can they be documented and tested in some way? Can they be compared statistically with other practices (do Scientologists live longer, have less disease, have higher IQs, fewer divorces, etc.?). How does the reactive-analytical mind model compare with other models in achieving explanation and resolution of human behavior? Can the results be explained by other models? It seems to me that many former Scientologists — myself included — have ample stories of things we liked, loved, learned from, done or experienced with auditing, witnessed, and so forth.

      In the end, where I think CoS, Inc. went off the rails — and I consider it partly the result of LRH — was that some of the End Phenomena (EP) are wrong. For example, the EP of Scientology should not be a David Miscavige, it should be a free being who may not even label him/herself a Scientologist (in the sense of being locked into the organizational worldview).

      Anyway, with the pretty thorough airing of the bad and ugly now, could someone write a well-researched, credible book about the good?

      • FOTF2012,
        Please read my comment clarifying Aleister Crowley practices and philosophy.
        https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/going-clear-muddies-the-water/#comment-250096 (MaBű January 20, 2013 at 7:50 pm)

        • Read your post and the link. What do you make of Crowley quotes like the following? (By the way, thelemites sound just a wee bit like OTs.)

          “I was not content to believe in a personal devil and serve him, in the ordinary sense of the word. I wanted to get hold of him personally and become his chief of staff.” Aleister Crowley
          Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/aleister_crowley.html#QgRmBThovg45qPd8.99

          And yes, I’m aware that some consider the devil to be Lucifer, the light-bearer. And that LRH reportedly claimed to be that light-bearer. Reportedly even the anti-Christ (which should not be surprisingly shocking as LRH described Christ as a pedophile and some sort of cosmic character who showed up around the galaxy from time to time).

          The ignorant part of that it is linguistically naive. Lucifer/light-bearer/etc. have not been accurately translated. Lucifer actually referred to the planet Venus (lucifer was a word in vulgar Latin that referred to Venus), and its tie to Lucifer in the sense of a devil or “Satan” evidently stems from bad translations.

          These are not pleasant things to ponder, but minimizing Crowley’s forays into the occult does not absolve LRH of his missteps in the same direction.

    • Christine, there are many things I love about your post but let me choose just one.

      “If just ONE well-known scientologist were to stand up and say______.”

      I love this because one standing up leads to another and then others begin to look and listen and stand up themselves. Soon you have a group and a movement growing and pushing together in a worthwhile cause.

    • Christine aka WindHorse,

      I’m surprised that you are so irresponsible as to make this comment without due research.

      WindHorse: “I am still – nonetheless – troubled with LRH’s own avowed friendship with Aleister Crowley and black magic. All stuff I’d heard before but somehow it was more troubling in the telling, yet again.
      The essence of black magic is ‘power over others’”

      Aleister Crowley: “To practice black magic you have to violate every principle of science, decency, and intelligence. You must be obsessed with an insane idea of the importance of the petty object of your wretched and selfish desires.
      I have been accused of being a ‘black magician.’ No more foolish statement was ever made about me. I despise the thing to such an extent that I can hardly believe in the existence of people so debased and idiotic as to practice it.”
      Quoted from Black Magic is Not a Myth by Aleister Crowley, originally published in the London Sunday Dispatch, 2 July 1933
      http://lib.oto-usa.org/crowley/essays/black-magic.html (US OTO’s official site)

      As a proof that Aleister Crowley was a black-magician, etc, the uninformed (or malicious) critics cite, out of context, his famous rule “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.

      From Wikipedia:

      “’Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law’. This statement indicates that adherents, who are known as Thelemites, should seek out and follow their own true path in life, known as their True Will rather than their egoic desires.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema

      “True Will is a term found within the mystical system of Thelema, a religion founded in 1904 with Aleister Crowley’s writing of The Book of the Law. It is defined at times as a person’s grand destiny in life, and at other times as a moment to moment path of action that operates in perfect harmony with Nature. This Will does not spring from conscious intent, but from the interplay between the deepest Self and the entire Universe. Thelemites in touch with their True Will are said to have eliminated or bypassed their false desires, conflicts, and habits, and accessed their connection with the divine. Theoretically, at this point, the Thelemite acts in alignment with Nature, just as a stream flows downhill, with neither resistance nor ‘lust of result.’”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Will

      “According to Crowley, every individual has a True Will, to be distinguished from the ordinary wants and desires of the ego. The True Will is essentially one’s “calling” or “purpose” in life.” … “one’s own will in pure form is nothing other than the divine will.Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law for Crowley refers not to hedonism, fulfilling everyday desires, but to acting in response to that calling. “
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema#True_Will

      More info:
      U.S. Grand Lodge, Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.)
      Aleister Crowley’s Thelema: http://oto-usa.org/about_thelema.html
      Home page: http://www.oto-usa.org/

      • Excellent post MaBu.
        This makes me think of how people (myself included) often jump to rash conclusions about people and situations. I guess sometimes it is easier to just buy into what someone is saying who “looks like” they did the research.
        I also think there is a lot of evidence that LRH was a bit nutty. A lot of it is personal testimony. If we cannot accept that there is to a large degree enough personal testimony that he was a bit nutty then we would also have to buy into the cults lie that “the physical abuse never happened” “they are all a bunch of self admitted, defrocked, apostate,liars.”

        • Tony: “I also think there is a lot of evidence that LRH was a bit nutty.”

          I don’t have problem about LRH being a bit nutty.

          I reacted and clarified because Scn and LRH critics are trying to use the Crowley (and black magic) issue as an “evidence” that Scn is evil.

          Btw, Otto Roos was, during some time, in charge of LRH’s auditing. According to Otto Roos:
          LRH has more out tech on his case than ten people combined. He gave us a technology towards immortality, but he denied himself the only thing which could have saved him: auditing.
          http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/roos/roos-story.html
          In other words, he sacrificed himself for OUR benefit.

    • Hi, Windhorse. LRH’s friendship with Aleister Crowley may be less troubling after you read more of Crowley’s works. True, his Magick was all nonsense. True, he was as racist and sexist as most other Englishmen of his generation. True, he took drugs. But he was not a criminal, and his interest in the occult seems to have been motivated by a desire for freedom from the prison of this world, rather than any need for power over his fellow prisoners.

      For example, Crowley’s novel ‘Confessions of a Dope Fiend’ is anything but pro-drug use. It’s about a young WW1 veteran who loses his purpose in life and treads a downward spiral of heroin addiction. His salvation lies in recovering his basic purpose.

      I get the impression that Crowley’s sense of humour and sense of play were quite similar to Hubbard’s. In the PDC lectures LRH calls Crowley “my very good friend”, and notes that the media had “played hockey with his head.” And that’s just what Wright is still trying to do to Hubbard.

    • The Crowley connection is played up because of its notoriety and if there was one thing that Crowley sought and even instigated, it was notoriety. He flew into the teeth of mainstream religion in the early 20th century publicly flaunting his disdain for dogma and puritanical behavior and fanning the flames. He simply did not care what anyone thought and notoriety gets press and publicity.

      Crowley’s main work is Thelema. It is not black magic, although it certainly has an occult basis along with eastern religious beliefs and alchemy. The occult was very often labeled as Satanic by the mainstream Christian religions of the time and still is.

      “Do what thou wilt” is the divine law of Thelema. This law is not a license to harm or engage in every passing whim, it is the Thelemic mandate to discover one’s true will or true purpose in life, and to accomplish it. To be Thelemic means that one is working under the divine law of Thelema. The materials of Thelema employ a range of spiritual practices intended to obtain spiritual insights into one’s true nature and purpose, including prayer, meditation, study of religious texts (those of Thelema and of other religions as well), chanting, symbolic and initiatory ritual, devotional exercises, self-discipline, and occult practices such as astrology, divination, numerology, yoga, tantra, alchemy, and discourse with “angels” or “spirits.” Many of these practices have been and still are denounced by fundamentalists as demonic even though many of them have been borrowed whole cloth from Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism and a number of other mystical practices.

      Under Thelema doctrine, acts of domination of or interference with others own efforts to discover and accomplish their own true will are considered to be “black magic.” Under Thelemic doctrine, such acts recoil on the user in a karmic like fashion.

      You can read more about it at this site:
      http://www.religioustolerance.org/thelema1.htm

      As far as LRH’s friendship with Crowley, I ran into a document purported to be written by Crowley where he denies any friendship with LRH. Who knows? Both LRH and Crowley are dead. I wish I had downloaded it, I can’t seem to find it now.

      Other than LRH’s personal statement that he knew Crowley and studied his works, the only other evidence I could find on this came from a letter written by Jack Parsons who was a Thelema member. Jon Atak quotes it in his book, and it says:

      “About 3 months ago I met Capt L Ron Hubbard, a writer and explorer of whom I had known for some time …. [no omission] He is a gentleman, red hair, green eyes, honest and intelligent and we have become great friends. He moved in with me about two months ago, and although Betty and I are still friendly, she has transferred her sexual affections to him.

      Although he has no formal training in Magick he has an extraordinary amount of experience and understanding in the field. From some of his experiences I deduce he is in direct touch with some higher intelligence, possibly his Guardian Angel. He is the most Thelemic person I have ever met and is in complete accord with our own principles. He is also interested in establishing the New Aeon, but for cogent reasons I have not introduced him to the Lodge.

      We are pooling our resources in a partnership which will act as a parent company to control our business ventures. I think I have made a great gain, and as Betty and I are the best of friends, there is little loss ….

      I need a magical partner. I have many experiments in mind. I hope my elemental gets off the dime [gets moving] – the next time I tie up with a woman it will be on [my] own terms.”

      Notice that there is no statement to the effect that Parsons worked with LRH on magic. Notice that there is no statement that LRH was even introduced to the Lodge. And notice how different this quotation reads when you understand what Jack means when he says he is a Thelemic person. Parsons does not say that LRH is is magic partner. He says he needs a magical partner. He states clearly that LRH has NO FORMAL TRAINING in Magick.

      This appears to be the sole source of this unfounded assumption that LRH was a black magician, at least that I can find. The similarities that are asserted are no doubt because Crowley did study and did take whole cloth from eastern religions, spiritualism, alchemy and the Jewish kabbalah,

      In all my studies of Dianetics and Scientology (and they are extensive) I find that is not even a single spell or incantation or magical ritual even remotely resembling Thelema. Not one. There should be at least one for heaven’s sakes! But there isn’t. Pure bunk!

    • “The essence of black magic is “power over others””

      The essence of TR’s is power over others.

      • How are you supposed to clear someone if you do not have more power over them than their bank has?

        • For the record though, Hubbard did not know Aleister. Never had a conversation with him, never met him. And Jack Parson’s was NOT into BLACK MAGIC! He was into Magic. And if he was not curious about forces and conditions he never could have developed the science he did or would have been able to understand it! And he did not have sex with Hubbard and Hubbard did not have sex with him and they were not having orgies together. Who the fuck could say this happened if they were not in the room when this supposedly happened? Did anybody see this happen? NO! Because IT DIDN’T! This is PURE GOSSIP. What kind of person WAS Parsons? Let him talk to you, and you decide:

          “Three essays on Freedom” can be purchased here:

          http://www.teitanpress.com/

          Other, here:

          http://www.paultoner.com/WORDPRESS/?tag=three-essays-on-freedom

          Parson’s was NOT an evil man.

          Hubbard was NOT an evil man.

          They were explorers. And they explored the super natural. And that is all there was to it. They also had visions and dreams for a better world. That is because they CARED about the world and the people in it!

          • Thanks for the accurate observations helping with sane differentiation and association.

            • ”I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.”
              Martin Luther King Jr.

            • I’d like to make another observation, too, regarding the whole history around Ron, Jack Parsons and Aleister Crowley.

              Critics have accused Ron of “swindling” Jack Parsons, and while Wright doesn’t add new news to this theory, he certainly manages to leave some important facts out.

              Basically, Ron and Jack, in the short 4-5 months that they hung out and became good friends in 1945/1946, decided to go into business together — it was going to be a wide ranging enterprise, and the first idea was to buy three yachts cheaply on the east coast (Miami), bring them across the Panama Canal by hiring crews, and then selling them at a significant mark-up to the rich celebrity crowd in southern California. Parsons put up most of the money, but didn’t have to do any work. Hubbard put in a bit of money, but was responsible for doing all the legwork. This is a common business arrangement, where one partner provides the money, the other takes care of operations.

              Beyond that, there were a number of future ideas that the two had thought up, including adding Hubbard’s writings to the partnership, Parsons was going to add some of the assets from his rocket work. (Source: Strange Angel, by Pendle). According to Heinlein, Hubbard talked up an idea of going to other countries, including a “China venture” — in one letter to Hubbard in 1946, Heinlein scolded Hubbard for being too talkative about China, getting his (Heinlein’s) nephews overly excited about exotic trips there. [Source: Heinlein biography by Patterson]).

              But forty years later, this became “Hubbard tried to swindle Parsons” in the minds of his critics, for two reasons:

              (1) Because Ron was still in the Navy, he was required to get permission to leave the country. He listed South America, Central America and China as possible destinations. Because China was nowhere near the Panama Canal, this, in the minds of Hubbard’s critics, was due to Ron’s “secret plans to go to China”. Yeah, real secret — Heinlein was actually upset that Ron was talking about it too much.

              (2) Crowely and his OTO team didn’t trust people — they didn’t trust Jack (to think for himself), they didn’t trust someone named Smith. They had endless back-stabbing drama amongst themselves. And their latest object of distrust was Ron. When Crowley (living in England, and having never met Ron) heard about the business venture, he decided that it was all a con by Ron and that he needed to brow-beat Jack, and with the help from other members of the drama-filled OTO, ultimately convinced Jack that Ron was swindling him.

              In the mean time, Ron was busily carrying out the business plan (with the help of Betty) in Miami for about a month, had bought the boats and even hired the crews. But Jack had been convinced by Crowley and others that Ron wasn’t staying in touch with Jack enough, and therefore Ron must be onto something tricky. So Jack races across the country to find Ron and Betty doing exactly what they had all agreed to do. Ron had actually purchased three yachts! And worse, he had arranged the crews to sail them through the Panama Canal. The horror of it all!

              Jack, having been all worked up by the OTO (and wanting to stay in good graces with Crowley), forced the partnership to be dissolved.

              Hubbard and Betty were left thinking: WTF?

              (Sources: “Strange Angel”, by Pendle; “Heinlein Biography, Vol 1”, by Patterson.)

              Believe me, when Hubbard later referred to Aleister Crowley in a lecture as his “good friend”, he was joking. And the audience knew it. They chuckled when he said it.

              The later narrative that “Ron swindled Jack Parsons” is a fantasy.

              Though I don’t know what the relationship between Ron and Jack became after the Miami episode, it doesn’t seem that Ron had any hard feelings a decade later.

              Ron would later, in 1956, refer to Jack as a “real genius” and “quite a man”:

              “Now, I have known, been very fortunate to know in my life, quite a few real geniuses, chaps that really wrote their names fairly large in the world of literature and science, and I consider myself very fortunate because they are very rare. … One chap, by the way, who gave us solid fuel rockets and assist takeoffs for airplanes too heavily loaded from aircraft carriers and all the rest of this whole panorama of rocketry, who formed Aerojet in California and so on, (the late Jack Parsons, by the way) was not a chemist the way we think of chemists. He was not taught in the field of chemistry beyond this fact: there was a little professor who opened up a school (and nobody could do anything with Jack, he was a pretty wild boy), and though, they sent him over there and this fellow found out that he was interested in chemical experiments, so he turned him loose in the laboratory and gave him a lot of encouragement. And this was quite a man.”
              (Source: LRH lecture “EDUCATION: POINT OF AGREEMENT”, from 30 October 1956.)

              • Margaret,
                You are a researcher par excellence. This whole “scandal” of Aleister Crowley, Jack Parsons and L. Ron Hubbard is made up. I’ve never heard LRH refer to Parsons in any way other than with respect for the man’s ability and intelligence and what I sensed as remorse that the relationship soured. As to Crowley, yes the “good friend” quip was a joke as to his relationship with him personally. It didn’t exist. Crowley’s material is a mix of inscrutable channeling and insightful exposition of the works of the East at times. A fascinating read. A syncretic philosophy and his own road to truth, which I’m sure he’s still on, somewhere in this continuum.

                Again, Margaret, you have made more honest effort and accomplishment in the area of a valid biography than any other person I know. I hope you get together with Steve Hall at some point, and with his efforts to work on websites that portray actual Scientology, get up some sort of repository of this material. It’s “the shit” so to speak, and cuts through the lies (well, probably not totally as then the identity would as-is!.)

              • Good Lord Margaret, your relentless. Hats off to you. You said something incredibly interesting below;
                “Believe me, when Hubbard later referred to Aleister Crowley in a lecture as his “good friend”, he was joking. And the audience knew it. They chuckled when he said it.”
                If it was indeed sarcasm when he called him his “good friend”, that would pretty much undermine the repeated use of that friendship against LRH. I had always thought it was a boast that came back to haunt him. Its been 35 years since i heard the tape. I dont recall the audience chuckling or not. And if they did I wouldnt have been able to read into it without knowing the backstory. But that would be a very telling reaction. I wonder if others recall chucking or could relisten to it. I would like to hear some other opinions on the background noice.

                • Peter,
                  To me it sure sounded like sarcasm. LRH’s voice changed into that slightly sarcastic tone, and it was pretty clear to me that he was joking (especially in light of his known history with Crowley, above). But just to correct things a bit, I just re-listened to that lecture (lecture 18 on the PDCs — I don’t have the original reel-to-reel handy, only the GAK version), and I didn’t hear any chuckles from the audience as I thought I remembered. But LRH’s voice clearly changes when he starts to talk about Crowley being a “very good friend”. But LRH’s interest in the over-all history and subject of magick and a recognition of Crowley’s contribution by having exhumed old data in the area, does seem sincere.

                  • Thank you Margaret. If one was in the audience, perhaps an eye-roll or expression would allow a fuller appreciation of LRH’s sincerity. I have read most of Crowleys work looking for something special. I can say that I am definitely not a big fan of him or his work. But he made some contributions and I am sure LRH used what was usable in either application or understanding. It would not have bothered me if Crowley was indeed his very good friend. Many of us have had friends that others abhor. It bothered me that he called someone his very good friend who he did not have a very close friendship with. That always stayed with me as bothersome, as minor as it may seem. Probably because I had LRH on a pedestal as most here did.

              • Thank you for your rational thinking and input with facts Margaret. Quite a relief to sit on your comm lines, for anyone I’m sure. In your self, particles of bright magic to sooth the soul.

                I think a major source of confusion, again, WORDS.

                ALL magic was considered a dark matter in the 1940’s. Viewed and treated as “unholy”. ALL exploration into the supernatural was considered taboo unless it was done under the protective arm of a priest and the supernatural you were exploring was in a licensed Bible.

                “Freelove” in the 40’s, simply meant cohabitation
                without contracts and relationships governed by the state. People living together without being married first. That is ALL it meant. It came to mean something different in the 70’s.

                Without an understanding of society in the 40’s, people reading accounts of social intercourse in the 40’s can get charged up on situations based on words, that have different meanings half a century later.

                I do not believe Jack Parson’s died in any accident. And I think perhaps Hubbard was not “paranoid” as presented in some books, about security. I think he was very aware Parsons did not come to an early end as a result of some accident dropping a bottle. I think he KNEW.

                Someday, in your keen view of surveying this scene, you may want to look at how Hubbard changed his own operating basis shortly after the “accident” that removed Jack Parsons from the social fabric of the 1950’s.

                • Thanks T.O. I totally agree on the change in mores/values/words/etc. used over the generations.

                  What’s your theory on the accident that killed Jack Parsons? I know several theories floated around after his death. A few were listed in “Strange Angel” in the Epilogue.

                  • My theory is that there was no “accident”. He was out of favor with the F.B.I., but not over the magic. It was politics and technology.
                    He was considered very dangerous. I think some branch of the Government or someone in the government just decided it was time for him to go. It was too easy to manage an explosion in that space and make it look like an accident. He wasn’t even working at the time, he was on his way out of town and someone was waiting for him in his car, he went in to fetch something he wanted to take with him. I think at the time he knew he was in danger, he was leaving the country and probably, heading toward greener pastures and better prospects. He might have done something to fuck them over. Or maybe they didn’t want him working for another government. He had been in bed with the F.B.I.. That group was notorious at that time for being a loose cannon with it’s own justice. All he had to do was piss someone off . And he did piss someone there off. They did not want him leaving the country. And he was in the process of leaving the country.

                    • I think a study of the F.B.I. files on Jack Parsons would make it clear who had a motive for that “accident”.

                    • According to “Strange Angel”, just before leaving town, one of his regular customers ordered a quick mix of chemicals. He was just taking care of that last order, and a container with highly explosive liquid slipped through his fingers, landed on the ground and exploded — killing him. He was said to often be sweaty, and so the thinking was that his fingers were sweaty and that’s how he dropped it.
                      But he also apparently has quite an extensive FBI file. I actually have it on order from the FBI as we speak.

                    • You will probably discover in the F.B.I. file, that Parsons was profiting in some way that displeased the F.B.I., he was viewed as treasonous and unpatriotic. He was not patriotic. He did not have a view of governments as being anything beyond self serving and bureaucratic. He saw the world as “One World”. He refused to sign “loyalty oaths” or get sucked into surrendering any of his human and/or civil rights. I think that included the right of exchange of knowledge and/or information with anyone he chose to have exchanges with. It may come down to that, that is what I would look for as a motive. Happy Hunting!🙂 Do let me know if that turns out to be the case if you would be so kind.

                    • I don’t think someone in the process of fleeing to another country stopped to go mix chemicals for a customer? Whoever wrote Strange Angel obviously thought that made a lot of sense. It makes no sense to me.

        • I believe the equation is auditor PLUS pc is greater than the bank. It is not auditor minus pc, which I consider to be reverse Dianetics. And I believe that is why you cannot enforce or coerce auditing, not even on objectives. You need the pc to be willing,interested in his own case and involved. That would be in-session.

          • All true. But look at the communications formula, CAUSE, distance, EFFECT. There is crime in having power over others. That is why we have ambulances. If your purpose is to help, it is a very holy matter.

      • Yeah, but what is the purpose of the ‘control’ (more accurate description than ‘power’) in TRs. See Act One, Advance Procedure and Axioms.

        • “Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”
          Martin Luther King, Jr.

  16. There’s a very apt saying in the military for the wordy response when one doesn’t want to or can’t confront something for real – “bullshit baffles minds.” Wright apparently has done a splendid job of applying that.

  17. Your humble servant

    Marty,

    Thanks for your reasoned analysis of what appears to be a hatchet-job book. What excuse could there be for any supposedly responsible journalist to pepper his work with unproven statements presented as facts and, even worse, statements that are provably wrong? It makes me wonder what are the motivations or reasons for dong that: Money? Spite? Arrogant pride? Hateful prejudice? Rampant irresponsibility? An impulse to jump on the bandwagon with recent LRH attackers? An unworthy desire for accolades and fame?

    Whatever the underlying motivations, I do not see any excuse for it.

    A journalist or investigative reporter has a sacred obligation to stick to the proven facts, since even “proven” facts are often subject to legitimate dispute and could later be shown to be wrong. This is especially so for allegations which, for a living person, would amount to libel and slander.

    • Crashing Upwards

      The title should have been the tip-off with the word prison in it. Lawrence Wright may have gotten 99.5% of the facts right, but the sequence, manner and emphasis he used slanted episode after episode. Scientology is down, and Wright saw an opportunity to add his boots to it. A print journalists version of picking the low hanging fruit. The good news is that I think we are at or near the bottom for the expose hungry. Hopefully most of the lies and false emphasis that were part of the LRH myth have now manifested themselves as part of the “future” Marty always likes to say that lies have. At some point the needle will unstick. Once that happens, those who want to keep scientology “tech” obscured or bash it by default under an organizational and biographical “cloud”, will be denied that benefit, and the tech will be free to face a scrutiny of efficacy for which it can more than stand and is sure to benefit.

  18. “…differentiate the technology of Scientology from personage of its original author.”

    I don’t know if that’s really possible, Marty. Granted, this is coming from the perspective that Scientology tech is not a universal truth, but rather the invention of one man to suit his ends, and the willingness of people to perceive things the way they want to perceive them.

    CV

    PS — Is that *the* Kevin Tighe? As in “10-4, Rampart”?

  19. Lawrence Wright, Janet Reitman,Tony Ortega and all these folks who write about Scientology without experiencing are rather like people writing about sex, ski-jumping, carburetor repair or any damn thing without having actually experienced it. I was interviewed by Larry Wright for his book and answered his questions, but like Janet Reitman’s book which was on the money while at the same time missing the boat (pretty remarkable to pull that off), I more or less expect Larry’s book to do likewise. I would expect anyone investigating Scientology to write about it to at least do some TRs or the Student Hat or maybe a couple lists from the Self Analysis book. How about listening to a few LRH lectures. But nooooooooooo! It is enough to discuss LRH’s foibles and DM’s sociopathy and call that a book on Scientology. Same as writing about book about the theory of relativity and concentrating on Einstein’s world record string of bad hair days. In the long run, all this nonsense will likely have the effect of protecting the subject (i.e., the philosophy and its application) for those who are actually interested in it.

    • Hey Dan,

      You are a person I highly respect but you need to ask yourself this question: Why haven’t Lawrence Wright, Janet Reitman,Tony Ortega and other bright, able people decided to experience Scientology? To compare LRH’s documented embellishments to Einstein’s hair does you a disservice. A contemporary comparison might be to the recent Lance Armstrong saga.

      • Seems to me you are obviously correct.

      • Kevin Bloody Mackey

        John Atack, Bent Croydon, and Ronald DeWolf had first hand experience in Scientology Dan. Are you any happier with the job they did?

      • Kevin, to counter your statement, have you ever taken a journalism course or two? I have. Maintenance of a neutral viewpoint is a cornerstone of journalistic practice. Given the nature of Scientology, taking courses leaves the journalist open to the charge of compromising that neutrality, and therefore compromising his/her integrity as a journalist in the act of writing about his/her subject.

        It can most be easily summed up by one of the giants of modern physics, Heisenberg: “The act of observing disturbs the observed”. By the way, I’m a much better physicist than LRH ever was. I’ve got the degree certificate to prove it.

        • I will give Wright this much credit — he handled a good deal of the pre-WWII period of Ron’s life better than his predecessors I thought. He even provided additional evidence which supported the idea that Cmdr. “Snake” Thompson trained Ron, at age 12, on the fundamentals of Freud’s theories. He missed a few things though — didn’t mention the “Eagle Scout at age 13” stuff, nor the “Puerto Rican Mineralogical Survey”.
          But Wright then dove into WW II, and from that point on, I think he really muffed it.

      • Kevin, I have thought about that some and came to the conclusion that they are approaching Scientology through the lens of their vocations as writers. I approached Scientology from my then beingness as a knuckleheaded college student who did not know which way was up. Of the many avenues I explored, Scientology gave me the most return on my investment so I stuck with it. That is a big difference between an investigative journalist who is putting food on their table via their “interest” in Scientology and my interest which was more personal.
        As for my crack about Einstein’s hair, I happen to know that he stuck his finger in a light socket each morning after showering to cultivate his look.

    • Right about that Dan. Paul Thomas Anderson, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman actually listened to some LRH lectures as part of their research for “The Master”, which in my opinion was a decent take of LRH and the early Dianetics movement.

      • Theo Sismanides

        mreppen, to me the film is awesome. It’s a first gradient of presenting a man who sought truth and really wanted to help others. Anderson and Hoffman did a great job though in no way you can say that the Master represents the life of LRH, really. But it is still a decent take on the man as you say. I hope all this though is just Anderson’s initiative and not something deeper. To present little by little Ron Hubbard to a society which is awaiting another Messiah. And of course with DM on the helm, lol!

    • I’m not so sure about protecting the subject in the end Dan, although I do get the basis of thought, and for the sake of the Tech, hope you are right on. Perhaps I’m cynical, and perhaps some will look beyond Wright’s critical analysis to see for themselves, but I think the opposite will more likely prevail, unfortunate for the Technology itself. LRH’s ideas that even bad press is beneficial, likely wasn’t thinking the Sea Org itself would end up squirreling the Tech.

    • I have had a couple auditing sessions, one on camera and one not. They did nothing for me but I could see how others could benefit from them. I’ve listened to plenty of Hubbard lectures but not nearly as many as you have.

      Let me ask this, did someone need to be a member of the Nazi party to write about Hitler’s Germany? Must Doris Kearns Goodwin have been a member of Lincoln’s cabinet to have written her book about his administration?

      Journalists everyday write about subjects they themselves are not part of, whether it is politics, science, entertainment, sports and so on. Why does Scientology rely on the “they’ve never even been a member” defense and why do you feel it is valid? The former members and current indies that I’ve met and talked with were involved in the group. Their experiences are part of what I rely upon to form an opinion of Scientology. You examine what they say, look at the evidence pro and con and try to come to the right conclusions. What seems evident is, that contrary to what Scientology says, disconnection, freeloader bills, the Hole, forced abortions, and so on are part of what gives Scientology its bad name. Scientology defends these practices or denies their existence. If I were to become a member of Scientology to objectively write about these abuses, I would likely not write about them because Keeping Scientology Working would then become the greater good and I would likely shut down those negative thoughts so they wouldn’t get me in ethics trouble. At least that is what it seems like to an outsider who has been looking into this for a number of years.

      • If I were to become a member of Scientology to objectively write about these abuses, I would likely not write about them because Keeping Scientology Working would then become the greater good and I would likely shut down those negative thoughts…

        Mark, I would agree with you that in the current culture of the Scientology organization, this is true. But many of us here still agree with and practice KSW (as it applies to auditing techniques, as it was intended), using good sense and judgment, and we still speak out about enforced disconnection, freeloader bills, the Hole, forced abortions and so on.

        Here’s my take on the the main point above. Wright held himself out, in the Introduction to his book, as having as his primary goal trying to find out (paraphrased): “What is the allure of Scientology?” “Why do Scientologists stick around despite all the bad publicity?”

        But then we find out that that was fundamentally a dishonest statement. Or if it wasn’t, then perhaps he should have concluded the book: I have no f**king idea why Scientologists stick around.

        In any event, he wrote his book, imbalanced and imperfect as it was. He certainly got a lot of things right. But I think he also missed a great opportunity to honestly understand and explain why (as he put it): Seemingly rational people subscribe to beliefs that others find incomprehensible? I don’t think he made an honest attempt to do that.

        • I haven’t gotten very far into the Wright book but in the first few chapters he’s talked about how it gave Haggis a sense of belonging, that he was getting answers and enjoying auditing, it was helping his career and that he stayed in because, among other reasons, his family, friends and whole life revolved around the church and he didn’t want to lose all that. That seems to be a general answer to Wright’s main question.

          • Haggis would have felt more belonging, had more friends, and would have had far far more acceptance in the world around him, if he had joined something more conventional, like an Atheists or Artists Club or something.

            When you finish the book, let me know if you really felt the question(s) has been answered.

      • There are two brands of Scientology. One is what LRH actually taught.
        The other is what is practised by David Miscavage today. They are not the same.

        I have been a student of LRH since 1975. What LRH says in the green volumnes is almost exactly the opposite of what DM does. Until the internet came along, most Scientologists-like me were completely unaware of what was going on.

        Miscavage presents himself as a demi-god, but he is the classic case of what LRH descibes as a suppressive person.

        You should get a copy of Intro To Scientology Ethics. Read chapter 8 The Basics of Suppression page 171. I think you will see how dm and others twisted what LRH actually said.

        I totally agree with Tory when she says look at both sides. I am certainly willing to dig deeply into both sides, I find the search fascinating. Scientology means “knowing how to know”.

    • Spectator culture, derived from the current Spectator culture rampant throughout modern western society.

  20. Thankyou Marty.
    Wright will discover unfortunately,
    When you tell the truth it becomes your past,
    When you lie it becomes your future.

  21. Regarding your last sentence on this post , Marty – yes please! A balanced and informed view is what is called for. No-one on the outside looking in could possibly do justice to the subject. I was watching a documentary on Rommel – the famous Nazi General – feared by his enemy and revered by the Nazi Party. It turns out his own men on the ground did not think he was a strategist at all. (Just pointing out that the recordal of history, even as it occurs, is not always the truth – I am not comparing LRH with Rommel.)

    The truth about Scientology and LRH can only be separated from the this mirage that is often presented (by journalists/writers and CofS alike), by an up-close, insider’s view. The truth must out – whatever it is.

    • I meant to add that the insIder view would also have to be without bias – the insiders still in the CofS reek of vested interests and KoolAide. Marty, you are best placed to record the history truthfully. I am so looking forward to your book.

  22. Thank you Marty for doing this analysis and writing the article.

    I have not yet read the book but have read what quite a few others have decided to highlight in their observations about the book.

    My first hesitant response to what I read was that he was focusing on the material he could use to characterize LRH and Scientology as completely and utterly without value. I will read the book to further my view of what he wrote.

    The product he has created indicates his intention.

    One would expect, at least, as you clarify, some modicum of an attempt to illustrate what the subject is.

    I have personally collected literally thousands of successes of those who have used some of LRH’s material. If we add these up around the world we will have thousands more. This is simply and factually part of the history of the subject as well.

    To not point this out or illustrate it clearly, shows the intent, IMO.

    I don’t care what LRH got up to personally, but hell it makes it so much tougher to get others interested in the subject when its author is trashed to such a degree.

    Muddy the water is certainly one way of putting it!!! I can’t see the fish.

  23. Thanks Marty for the review of “Going Clear…”. That really
    helped in determining if I should spend the time on it or not.
    Now I am just really looking forward to the issue of your
    “big gun”.

  24. Either they want to make money with their anti LRH or anti Scientology stuff or/and they want to accomplish that the subject is not going underground.
    I have still the opinion „read it, shelf it, forget it.“ Or better „do not buy it, do not read it, forget about it“.
    Why giving someone income that is anti LRH. If you are anti LRH you do not need to read a book from another anti LRH writer. If you are not anti LRH you do not need to read a book you anyway would not beleive in.

    • I think the key thing is: teenagers, growing up, who may be interested in Scientology, now have another barrier to understanding the truth.

      Never forget, people, that there is a wave of new interest coming into the world – interest in the world – in the form of newly-adulted young people.

      *These* are the targets of books such as this. Us old-timers don’t like to admit it, but the world of interest belongs, mostly, to the 18-20’somethings ..

      • What?
        I am 55 and still interested in life. Would like to do many things. Shure I have attention on my body death. But only thus far that I try to figure out how to get through the in between area better the next time I have to go through.

  25. I’m only a short way into the book. I’ve come to the conclusion that Larry is suffering from the same maladay as most corporate scientologists: A rather acute inability to LOOK.

    I really hope Christine (Windhorse) wrights a book on her findings. That would be fascinating. Neither the abject haters nor the abject adorers would like it…But I would.

    • LDW: Freudian slip LDW about me wrighting a book or do you put me in a similar camp to Larry?

      I just wonder how we are ever go to move forward when we have abject haters or abject adorers.

      • brain fart on the “wrighting.” minus the fart, i meant “writing.”

        • Theo Sismanides

          Hahaha, Christine…. No way anyone here would think you would be “wrighting” a book, we all know you would write a book!

      • Christine (Windhorse),
        “I am still – nonetheless – troubled with LRH’s own avowed friendship with Aleister Crowley and black magic. All stuff I’d heard before but somehow it was more troubling in the telling, yet again.”

        I have seen many similar complaints and fault finding with LRH because of his research and supposedly involvement with Aleister Crowley and the “Black Magic” traditions.

        My two cents observations on the above are as follows:

        The spirits and the spiritual realms are magic and do not really bend to the will of the physical universe. To the contrary, our infinitude of viewpoints are forever acting on the physical universe to impose our will upon it.

        That knowledge was more or less available to people in ancient times.

        Christianity and later others, reversed that immortal truth into one of subjection and submission to One God’s will and to its brutal physical order and arbitrarily imposed rules.

        Thus, the Magic Realm turned into the Evil’s Dominion, and all free spirits into demons.

        Thus, our individual wills are evil and only God’s will is good.

        Thus, the religious fanatic’s claims to own “Heaven” and all spiritual knowledge, while actually trapping free beings by forcefully binding us to the physically imposed “God’s Laws”.

        Thus, true spiritual knowledge could not be found in these so called Salvation religions, but on the magic and occult groups, whom themselves, in turn, fell prey to the false evil characterization, assigned to them by the corrupt and idiotic High Priests.

        LRH was researching truth and the freeing of the soul, traditional religion, including the Church of Scientology is seeking the subjection of the soul.

        Hope this helps.

  26. I do hope the PR his book is getting with free or protect some people.

  27. Crashing Upwards

    Ah shit. I had already paid for the book and it just showed up. I do like the feel of the dust jacket, however, rubbery with raised letters. But that aint worth 25 bucks. Sounds like Wright took the safe, lazy route, as most print reporters have always done, digging in the dead files of previously written material. Its a disappointment.

    • what do you mean? you paid for the book and it showed up? you decide that the book is rubbish without
      reading? Sounds like Wright took the safe way out….. Do you realize how ignorant you sound?

      • Crashing Upwards

        Oh Lara, relax. I am reading the book. It was an attempt at levity, which I can see you did not appreciate. But had i waited until I read some reviews I probably would not have ordered this book. And if the books plays out as Marty indicates, it will be a dissapointment, as I said.

    • Frankly I don’t intend on buying or reading the book, have other things to do.

  28. Half way through the book. It is a page turner. I can understand why people may be upset. The descriptions of Ron’s life is not very flattering. I’m curious why people feel the need to defend by tearing down the author, rather than continuing the conversation to clarify details. How is this different than the Church dismissing Marty or Rinder as squirrels when they describe what happened to them? Take a step back and give it a little thought.

    • I am not upset. How is it different? I specifically pointed out what Larry did – clearly noting it is my opinion – and refrained from labeling him or calling him any name. Methinks you are more defensive of Wright than I am of Hubbard.

      • Since I never met Ron and only heard the official stories about almost everything about the Church for decades, I only knew him from his books, tapes, etc. So I guess I’m feeling offended to find out that he was not the person I imagined him to be. I have to go back to what is true for me – that benefits gained are there, regardless of the failings of the source. However, with relation to the culture of the Church under Miscavige, the end does not justify the means.

  29. As a layman but intensly interested in SoC, I spent the weekend reading Larry Wrights book. I feel deeply sorry for all of you that are involved with”it” on any level.

    • I feel your sympathy Lara.

      You make the point almost better than Marty’s post.

      Based on reading Larry’s book, you feel deeply sorry for all of us that are involved with “it” on any level. And you have no idea what “it” is or why anyone would be “involved.”

      I don’t feel the slightest bit sorry about being involved with “it”. I do feel sad about the abuses being meted out in the name of “it” and the sometimes idiotic blind faith that goes along with “it”, but until you have experienced “it” for yourself, or at least have a bit of an understanding about what “it” is and not just the hubbub that surrounds “it”, it’s difficult to grasp it seems….

      • I haven’t read Larry’s book, nor did he interview me even though I offered twice to drive down to Austin at my own expense. Perhaps my views didn’t align with his angle, I don’t know. What I do know is this: to overset any confusion, no matter how big, just continue to put in order; don’t try to stop the confusion. Why even worry about the confusion? Just keep putting in order.

        Sometimes people get confused themselves and their efforts drift from the clean intention “to put in order” which is an exact live intention. Based on my own experiences, I think the moment that happens the person is just batting back against the confusion instead of putting in order. This is the threshold of antagonism — 2.0 on the tone scale — above which is the effort to survive and below is the active effort to succumb.

        No matter how humongous the confusion, one has to realize that all those who are contributing to the creation of confusion are themselves refusing responsibility in favor of gaining bank agreement. They are themselves in confusion and by definition they are weak.

        Those who are working to put in order will always be a minority, but they have understanding and power because they are not in confusion.

        I hope Larry’s book will do some good. But if it doesn’t, I’m not even going to waste my breath on it. I will continue to put in order.

      • Mike, Exactly. All this incredible uproar surrounding LRH, Scientology, the organization, Kool Aid drinkers, the viciousness of DM, on and on and in the center of the hurricane you find Self Analysis List One: Can you recall a time when:
        You were happy.
        You had just finished constructing something.
        Life was cheerful.
        Somebody had given you something.
        You ate something good.

        From one viewpoint (mine) it is hilarious at times.

      • That is very true for me as well. I appreciate the concern from Lara but I would not trade the experience nor do I regret it. Having the knowledge gained from my involvement with the Scientology philosophy, the willingness to be responsible for all aspects of that experience and exercise control to bring about a change in condition is really what I consider a positive gain. And that is enthusiasm or higher for me.

      • good reply mike, very sensitive

    • You are sorry that Scientology saved my sanity if not my life?
      That it has enabled me to easily make more money in my profession than ever i could have if i didnt learn how to understand and predict human behaviour–that of myself and others?
      What a very wicked girl you are Lara.
      (my upset with Co$ stems not so much with the insults and injuries personally suffered–and yes, there have been some–but more with the hijacking of this great philosphy/religion/spiritual movement by the less-than-well-intentioned leading to a betrayal of its social potential)

    • Why don’t you read some books about Scientology, then?

  30. Is it possible, Marty, that you didn’t know everything that was going on, and somebody did buy guns for Gold?

    • I very much doubt it. The source of the information in Larry’s book also says that “explosive devices were placed around the perimeter [of Gold] tyo be used in case of assault by law enforcement officials.” Not a single other person in history has tried running that one up the flag pole…. There is just no support for the claim from anyone other than a single source.

      • Rick Aznaran – husband of Vicki Aznaran I believe at one time was part of security at Gold. I heard him tell my ex-husband that there were guns at gold, that he trained other security at gold on how to shoot. My ex and I knew Rick and saw him once in Clearwater. I was in disagreement about having guns and Rick kinda substantiated that it was A-OK to have guns.

        I continued to disagree then and now.

        As for explosive devices around the perimeter — I too considered that way over the top.

        Also — Rick and Vicki left the SO (I believe with a settlement) early after the dm coup to take out Vicki.

        So — perhaps all the guns disappeared with Rick.

        I personally doubt it – but I wasn’t there.

        • There were guns at Gold, but they were locked up in a security controlled outdoor closet on the side of the upper lodges facing the main security booth. Many staff members owned guns as part of their personal belongings. JB, Becket Wells and Byron are a few I can think of. All their guns were in one place and the security chief had the keys. In the 90’s you could temporarily get your guns back while having a day off if you wanted to go to a shooting range or such things. Becket used his guns many times on days off in the 90’s and so did JB, whom I went with to target practice once in 1994.

          At least at one point they also had a handgun in the main security booth.

          Throughout the entire time I was at Gold I never heard or saw anything having to do with explosives. As a matter of fact, I was on the electrical/security all-hands team that put in much of the security systems around that base. Plenty of motion detectors, cameras, including night-vision versions and infra-red beams hooked up to trigger alarms if broken – usually on top of all the fencing.

          The combination of barb or razor-wire fence tops, cameras, motion detectors (to detect the fencing rattling – often being set off by opossums…) and infra-red beams on top of the fence are “standard issue” for Scientology security systems in all facilities in the US.

          Within the property there are long-range cameras looking in to the main base as well as out, capturing license plates, head-shots in cars, etc. There are also cameras monitoring the main paths staff takes as well as motion detection devices in key buildings.

          Factually, Flag has WAY more security cameras than the Int Base. There are more security cameras at the Flag crew berthings than in total at the Int Base… I know – I helped install many of them.

  31. No matter how hard I try, I can’t seem to get it through my thick head that all the phenomenal wins I’ve had applying the tech are just delusions because LRH was imperfect and wasn’t always 100% honest about his exploits.

    Using lies in PR always eventually backfires on the user. Especially nowadays in the internet world. That goes for miscavige as well as Wright and LRH.

    I think that in the long long run, LRH’s work will trump his shortcomings. In the shorter long run, miscavige and corporate scientology will be seen for who and what they really are.

    Maybe it’s a good thing that LRH led a less than exemplary life full of contradictions. That way, those of us who are looking for the real truth will have make damn sure we’re not taking the lazy route by “believing.”

    Those who are looking for the most scurrilous of scandals to sensationalize can always find them somewhere. And there will always be those who are fixated on that level of “truth.”

    • Regular Dog formerly Underdog

      Great comment you make LDW.

    • I don’t care if LRH used to be a voodoo priest who smoked peyote every day.
      The wins I had were the wins I had and I don’t care what anyone thinks about that. LRh did develop a workable tech that at least worked to a large degree on me. Did he oversell it?? Yes. Did he make mistakes? Yes. Did I have some great wins? Yes. Am I a perfect being? Hell no!!
      I am glad that I went through my experience with Scientology. It was and is a quest for truth and knowledge and how to become a better person. I am still on that quest. I think LRH gave me some profound gifts and I will always thank him for that. I never worshipped the man.
      I do think he got carried away with all the busts of himself in the Orgs and always saying hip hip hurray and all that kind of thing.

      • Hey Tony, I agree with you.

        In the very early 70’s my little brother and I were wandering the hills in southern Mexico looking for Carlos Castenada so we could get some philosophical insights and do peyote with him. Never found him, but we had a ball.
        Does that adventure make me a lousy auditor?

      • Standing ovation Tony! Parnell was a political figure that represented the common people against the aristocracy. His reputation and power, ruined by malicious gossip that he purchased his wife.

        Come Gather Round Me, Parnellites

        Come gather round me, Parnellites,
        And praise our chosen man,
        Stand upright on your legs awhile,
        Stand upright while you can,
        For soon we lie where he is laid
        And he is underground;
        Come fill up all those glasses
        And pass the bottle round.

        And here’s a cogent reason
        And I have many more,
        He fought the might of Ireland
        And saved the Irish poor,
        Whatever good a farmer’s got
        He brought it all to pass;
        And here’s another reason,
        That Parnell loved a lass.

        And here’s a final reason,
        He was of such a kind
        Every man that sings a song
        Keeps Parnell in his mind
        For Parnell was a proud man,
        No prouder trod the ground,
        And a proud man’s a lovely man
        So pass the bottle round.

        The Bishops and the Party
        That tragic story made,
        A husband that had sold his wife
        And after that betrayed;
        But stories that live longest
        Are sung above the glass,
        And Parnell loved his country
        And Parnell loved his lass.

    • The usual method applied to bring about invalidation is by taking a standard of one subject and apply it to another area. This could be called inconsistency.
      Each time you do that you arrive at some illogic: The light bulb is bad, because the inventor drank to much. etc. etc.

  32. Preface: I really enjoy reading expose books. I only wonder if it’s because I couldn’t for so many years. There’s lots of data to be had whether it be true or false.

    Because there’s never been a fully accurate biography published about LRH, and because I’ve never had access to the accurate data in any form, the best I can do is compare one account with another in the exposes.

    One example is comparing the Wright account of the FDA raid (p 89) with an account by Dr Christopher Evans in his 1973 book, CULTS OF UNREASON.

    Evans writes on p 80, the FDA raid of January 1963:

    “The raid seems to have come as a complete surprise to the
    Scientologists, who by all accounts were simply going about their
    business auditing each other, or attending to the routine
    administration of the establishment. The press, however, who had
    been tipped off in advance by the FDA, were present in large
    numbers and were thus favoured with photographs of solemn-looking
    US Marshals trudging out of the building with armloads of E-
    meters.”

    I find it fascinating that Evans simply drops in the data about the press having been tipped of in advance by the FDA. Why in the world would the FDA ever tip off the press in advance of a raid? Publicity? Is it true? I have no idea.

    However, in the Wright account of the FDA raid there is not even a hint of the press being tipped off. And that presents a totally different picture and perhaps intent than the earlier account.

    So, there’s an inconsistency in the telling which I find fascinating. At this point, neither account is actually factual until substantiated through further research.

  33. I have another inconsistency:

    Wright states on p 96 that LRH’s vision was corrected to 20/20.

    However, in the 1997 Expose – “Secret Lives” – UK, a document called
    “Report of Physical Examination” shows uncorrected vision in both right and left eyes at 20/200, subsequently corrected to 20/40 and 20/50, respectively.

    • I noticed that too Rachel. But Wright doesn’t seem to be aware that the VA disability which covered his eyes was for a completely different condition/injury related to his eyes; the VA specifically excluded Ron’s deteriorating eyesight from coverage.

  34. Everybody who have read Christine aka WindHorse comment about LRH & Aleister Crowley & black magic:

    Please read my comment clarifying Aleister Crowley practices and philosophy.
    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/going-clear-muddies-the-water/#comment-250096 (MaBű January 20, 2013 at 7:50 pm)

    • You’ve convinced me MaBu AKA ??? …

      Crowley was a great guy.

      • Christine,
        Actually, after posting my comment I realized that I was glad that you made that comment, because it made me the opportunity of clarifying the Crowley issue which critics use for bashing LRH.

  35. Before the internet, it used to be that the “Handle” step of the Dissem Drill would be pretty much a piece of cake. One way or another you could get it all out of the way within a few minutes.

    Now that there has been all this stuff that we read about in books like these and all the other more-difficult-to-swallow stuff is so well known and circulated, I imagine that getting through “handle” might be very difficult indeed.

    I used to do lots and lots of coffee shopping using the presession processes viewpoint of dissemination (HCOB 21 Apr 60, PRE-SESSION PROCESSES). It’s a few years before the Dissem Drill, but it was THE tech that was prescribed for dissemination from the date of issuance till the dissem drill was published.

    You can find the HCOB by googling for it by date and title if you don’t have the Tech vols handy.

    This type of dissem just ignores handle and puts the guy gradiently in session.

    I think it’s the best dissem tool in any field auditor’s pocket who might want to deliver to a new guy. I think that it would not be hard to disseminate to new people if your TR-4 to any antagonism about Scientology was something along the lines of “Yes, there’s been some crazy shit that’s happened! Now I want to ask you some questions about yourself and you do your best to answer my questions, OK? Can you recall a time you wanted to help another?”

    What got me into Scientology was the Saturday Evening Post article, “Have You Ever Been a Boo-hoo?” No one bothered trying to handle my antagonism; I didn’t evidence any. I just wanted to feel better. That’s all anyone wants from anything!

    So, use it to make people feel better. Give wins. Throw lots of validation around, even to your corporate buddies. Have fun with it. There is a lot of fun in Scientology and it’s no fun to treat it as deadly serious.

    I think the idea that a lot of people are coming to is let’s stop talking about Scientology and let’s deliver some! Let’s stop apologizing for the founder or explaining away or finding whos for all this 3D mess and get the Basic Auditing Series Recognition of Rightness of the Being “in” on ourselves and the people around us and have fun again!

    • I like this part:

      I think the idea that a lot of people are coming to is let’s stop talking about Scientology and let’s deliver some! Let’s stop apologizing for the founder or explaining away or finding whos for all this 3D mess and get the Basic Auditing Series Recognition of Rightness of the Being “in” on ourselves and the people around us and have fun again!

    • Right on the money, Dan.

      Les

      • You are a bit of a mind reader, Les. Fact is, as I was writing this, I thought often of you and Anita and other old friends who are doing exactly what I’m talking about. Caring about people, one at a time, getting them in session and giving them wins. How cool is that? Hats off to ALL auditors. Take a bow, all of you reading this. Even if you are no longer auditing.

        If you’ve EVER taken a p.c. to a win… with a realization, relief and even a “fleeting F/N”; take a moment to reflect on the FACT that you really, actually helped another human being. That sort of help is something to be proud of.

    • Dan, i found the subject you brought up on dissemination interesting, especially disseminating to the antagonistic. And you are spot on. The thing is, I have found it easy to disseminate to people no matter how antagonistic the environment if you kept it about answering their questions honestly and helping them with whatever their ruin is.
      I used to get people into the Org all the time that initially presented as rather antago. I was never defensive, though i would give data if asked for…mainly i kept it to my wins with the subject followed by what they wanted to change to better their life.
      It used to be that i could take them to the Org and they would sell them the book, or sign them up for the beginning course i recommended for that guy. If they had a trainee auditor, then maybe some Life Repair at super cheap rates. The recommended action almost always bit nicely, and they progressed from there.
      Then DM’s “Golden Age” really started kicking in, and then everone i brought in had to watch that horrrible film “orientation.” They were no longer just satisfied to sell the guy a book, or put him on the course that he wanted. No more Life Repair. The Age of Robotic Dissemination had arrived.
      Now, instead of the Public Dissem Sec or Public Reg being my friend, i had to fight with them to get my guys what they needed, but to no avail. After three guys in a row crashed and burned after watching the Orientation film and getting regged for the Personal Efficiency Course, i stopped FSMing for the Org.

  36. “What are you doing that is right?” Repetitive. I’m going to advise a little squirrelly self-auditing right now to all you old timers who have managed t make your selves feel sour about the whole subject. Sit down with a notebook and right down answers to that question till you feel better. Give yourself a win.

    • Scientology is the tech.

      People who’ve become successful tech auditors and C/Ses I think have a less hard time when scathing books come out about LRH and Scientology history.

      If someone has the bug to become a therapist counselor and/or Case Supervisor, and is curious and dedicated enough learn it so as to do it on others, and make a living at it, that is what will keep Scientology going as a subject; then they really don’t give a damn about critical books. I didn’t, when I got in, and I spent 2 weeks at the Arizona State Univ library reading all the critical magazines and newspaper articles written from 1950 until 1975, and none of that dissuaded me from carrying for 27 years in Scientology.

      It’s the tech! It’s all those other writings of Hubbard’s, in the red Subject Volumes 1-4, all those thousands of process commands, and rundowns, and series explaining case supervision, etc, etc, all the stuff that writers don’t talk about in the popular books. The Bridge steps, the details, the guts of the subject.

      I’m an atheist ex member, but if someone asks me, like when I went and did a tiny one day guest show and tell lecture at a university religion class, I took along Subject Volumes 1-4, and let the college students see the processes, and rundowns, just totally overwhelm them with the thousands of steps, that make up the Bridge to Total Freedom!

      That’s Scientology! The details of the actual procedures, the commands, the rundowns!

      I didn’t lecture on the theory behind all those dozens and dozens of levels, but that’s what someone ought put into a book form, and lay it out.

      Scientology’s “What Is Scientology” book is horrible.

      And we’d need those extra Subject Volumes for all the “secret’ upper levels, so that’s defined.

      Hubbard left the tech. That’s Scientology, to me.

      If someone really got the tech, and knows how to use it, and uses it, etc, etc, then the critical books can be read with impunity, I think.

      And the biggest criticism is that the critical book writers haven’t taken up the sub subjects of all the various parts and pieces of the tech, in any of the critical books!

      So they’ve in a sense, missed the subject, is why I don’t think any critical book on Hubbard or Scientology’s admin totalitarian idiocies really dent a tech person’s concept of Scientology.

      • Very nice to hear from you on this subject and with this attitude, Chuck. The various times we’d talk when we were both posted in different orgs at the PAC base, you at INCOMM or representing middle management and me at one of the ASHOs or at FLWUS; I also knew you to be sincere but concerned. I always valued our conversations.

        I think you’ve nailed it in regards to the attitude of a tech person; with very few exceptions all of them that I know are exactly as you describe. Their ability to evaluate relative importances is intact. They know the workability of the processes and procedure and respect the philosophy these came from.

        Typically they recognize only these things; these processes, procedures and underlying philosophy to truly be Scientology. The meaner or punitive admin policies, the errors and eccentricities of the founder, the ongoing blunders of a nervous and harried “management”; when I’d watch a tech person observing these, I’d typically see eyes roll and hear a long sigh, right before pivoting out of the conversation and rushing to get back into the C/S office or to the auditor’s chair.

  37. When I first got interested in Scientology I read Dianetics. Then I want to the library and read every Scientology book they had. Then I read Messiah or Madman, A Peice of blue Sky ,and some other anti Scientology books just out of curiosity. I felt it was a bunch of hateful writings and therefore probably wasnt the kind of “truth” I was interested in. Maybe there was some true data in there, but I knew there was probably mostly half truths and people who for some reason desperately wanted to be a victim of this horrible, evil satan L Ron Hubbard.
    LRH developed something that really does work and when applied correctly brings about more positive change in beings than any other practice I am aware of. Some people do not like that and they will pick at a person like that like angry vultures until they are dead and stop doing what they are doing. Somehow LRH survived that during his lifetime which alone is proof of his OT’ness. Now, 26 years after his death they are still pecking away, I guess until no trace of him remains. if you guys want to participate and contribute to that activity that is your choice.

    I dont have green vols here. I want to look up the HCOPL’s on reporters and the press. I believe there is one in particular where he says do not talk to the press because they have a hidden agenda or some such thing. They decide what they are going to write before they interview you. Anyone know that one?

    • I found one place that says that in ABILITY 1 15 March 1955 THE SCIENTOLOGIST, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL on OEC 2:43

    • And, i don’t mean to be a dick and suggest that people speaking out should not talk to the press. It is unfortunately the best available access to the most people. These people dont always screw you over, however it seems to me that they often do, particularly if there is some controversy. It’s not just us. Look how they treat celebrities or politicians for example. Watch the “news”, read a newspaper, try to watch FOX news or MSNBC for an hour. Watch your local news if you live in a big city. The people who pump out this garbage are the same people who these reporters work for. I know I’m generalizing a bit, but it is an industry that has certain tech to it. Reporters have to make house payments, publishers have to sell books and news shows must have viewers, and for some reason (LRH might blame is on the “GE”) blood sells. Ratings go up when there are explosions and blood and sex and war. War is a real good ratings-getter. If independent Scientologists went to actual, physical war with the Hemet base, man that would be a big news story. Anderson Cooper would be out there in his helmet with mortars going off in the background. To the news, this would be the best possible news story regarding Scientology. Thats approaching their “ideal scene” with Scientology stories

    • Hi Chris,
      Not sure but it may be in the policy on A to J. Policies on sources of trouble. Probably in OEC 1.

    • Well said Chrismann9. LRH’s tech has helped so many people to have better and happier lives and inspired so many people to be better citizens and to behave better towards their fellow man. The observed results are heavily in a positive, good direction for anyone willing to LOOK, count, and evaluate the results honestly instead of cherry-picking for a pre-conceived conclusion. It really does not take a rocket scientist.
      I never expected LRH to be perfect in the first place. He himself said that he was not perfect and that the tech was not necessarily “perfect”. But I am very happy with what he did leave as his legacy to mankind.
      As Jesus reportedly said, “Let ye who are without sin cast the first stone.”

    • Don’t let those affect you who think everything you say has to be backed up by an exact LRH quote. Your words make perfect sense to me. The media is guilty of non-factual criticism on a global scale. I have green Vols here but zero interest in looking it up, because those who require an LRH quote for everything you say will not be satisfied anyhow.

      Why did LRH write all those policies on the first place?
      Because certain people were not truly getting what SC is about. It is about thinking for yourself.

      Non-factual criticism will be around for as long as there are people who can be controlled/swayed by it. Not just in the media but everywhere.

      IMHO if you lay stuff out as useful as LRH did, one shouldn’t care if he was digging ditches or discussing Mein Kampf with Hitler prior to that.

      • I like to quote LRH because I think he should have voice in this conversation.
        Did Mr. Wright quote LRH anywhere in his book?

    • “In all the history of Scientology no interviewing reporter ever helped. They all meant the worst when they acted their best and we are always sorry ever to have spoken. Even if the reporter is all right, his newspaper isn’t and will twist his story. We have done best when we have blocked off reporters and worst when we’ve been nice.” -LRH (HCO PL 26 Dec 66 – PTS SECTIONS, PERSONNEL AND EXECS)

      Dealing with reporters will always be a double-edged sword. It may have been necessary for opinion leaders such as Marty Rathbun and Debbie Cook to engage the press in order to get their stories broadly reported in the hope that it would get enough people’s attention and wake them up to the possibility of a solution. It certainly worked for me!

      However, I doubt its effectiveness as a way to get the job done overall. Usually, that method results in only further destruction because the press only embraces sensationalism & gossip which only appeals to those with the agenda to “destroy” Scientology. Thus we ultimately get books such as Wright’s as a result.

      • Thank you for this comment, Class IV Auditor. I had the chance to be interviewed by Lawrence Wright for this book. I sought advice (Marty) and, in the end, decided it was not a good idea. I’m only on p 142 at this writing but doubt I personally could have affected the final outcome of the book through any interview with the author.

    • HCO PL 27 Oct. 1964R POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE p.985 OEC Vol 1

      j.Persons attempting to sit in judgement on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instuctive have done nothing beneficial, as their first idea is a firm “I don’t know”and this usaully ends with an equally firm ” I don’t know.” If a person can’t see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence… In the matters of reporters, etc., it is not worthwhile to give them any time, contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they say by saying anything.”

      This is also in the Admin Dictionary under PTS Type J.

  38. breppen aka Cured Robot

    My time is valuable and do not want to waste my time reading something where the Author clearly did not collaborate his some of his facts, leaving me wondering if this is true or not? A real shame on him and lowers his status as a professional that is expected to be doing his job. It’s also a very good point about writing a review on a subject without ever experiencing it i.e., it would be like me writing a review on the food at a restaurant I’ve never eaten at! Writing a review on TM, but never did it. From this point forward I’m not reading anything by these so called experts that haven’t even gotten in the boxing ring to experience it. Thanks Marty for saving me the time, I’ve got bigger & better things to do than sink into “Inquirer Mag” type mentality.

  39. It is true he didn’t have anything new to offer that has not already been bought forward here on this blog that was anything big. He fair gamed David Miscavige, SHHWOOOSH! He is ruined. Possibly unemployable.

    Because of who Lawrence is , he will inspire interest in Scientology, which I thought was a good thing. He describes it very well I thought. Made it even more interesting to me!

    He did get some facts wrong, I saw that. He threw in some dick reports too that were nothing but malicious gossip. He did not make me think any less of Hubbard. He does present him as a man. And until people can see him as a man, and view his early life with it’s comical twists and turns, I don’t think Hubbard can be fully appreciated for the genius that he was, and his ability to make the impossible, possible.

  40. If any of you seriously believe an author and publishers writing about an organisation that cost Time magazine nine million dollars in legal costs did not fact check to stand up to the most heavy duty industrial level legal scrutiny ever – you are out of your minds.

    • Hi whingeybingey,
      Things get stated in such a way by authors/publishers to cover their asses every day. Just say “according to experts” or “according to this source” blah blah, and you’ve told “the truth”. Doesn’t matter that “the experts” were wrong — or that “other experts” or “other sources” might know better, as long you word it in such a way that it’s a “true statement”, you’re covered. We see this in controversial topics on wikipedia every day.
      That’s the difference between a truly balanced, critical biography or narrative of someone or something, and a one-sided one.

  41. I haven’t read Wright’s book. But I have read both of Marty’s books
    and they give the real story of Scientology – having been in Scientology for
    more than 3 decades I found them very enlightening and they answered a
    lot of questions for me.

    One thing I think would be a good idea is if someone could write a book
    called something like “what do people get out of Scientology” and fill it with
    real success stories from people who have done services in the Independant field. .

  42. I appreciate Sarge’s going public with what LRH confided with Sarge, if what Wright wrote is accurate, which I’m presuming is true.

    The final page of the book, is worth the book. Sarge’s final story of what LRH told Sarge, to me, is so important to think a lot about.

    I’m in the camp of the harshest critics, mostly, but I also consider that what LRH told Sarge, isn’t to be construed as a reason to give up Scientology, but that LRH was being extremely harsh on himself, in his final month of life, in grading his task here on earth, at this time, as he viewed all of world history and it’s current state of reaction to him.

    The last page of the book set me into deep thought, in any case. .

  43. Great post! Ron wrote in SOS “Some of them even assumed that they could judge the mental state of an author by reviewing his writings. This is somewhat on the order of a snail giving his opinion of the Parthenon by crawling through it’s reliefs.” Now he was talking about artists here, but this insight applies to someone reviewing an entire philosophy with no subjective reality and virtually no track.

  44. If one is beaten to pieces in one’s beliefs by the first 100 pages, I urge you to skip to the final Epilogue, and read that.

    The Epilogue is the best summary of any critical book ever written on Hubbard and Scientology.

  45. Marty,

    I thought Wright gave you incredible good sympathetic hearing of your views!

    Maybe that’s just my take, but things I’ve read from your hand, to me, came out more convincingly when Wright digested his thoughts of you and wrote on your feelings.

    Like that there is no more tech to be written into the upper OT levels, which you’ve discussed, and I wasn’t convinced, personally, in how you presented your feelings.

    To me, having worked for a few months, in RTRC under Dan Koon and next ot Russ Williams and Tom Ford and others, I studied carefully the LRH Compilaitons Officer Hat Pack of issues and detailed writings how LRH says to compile his raw stuff into polished issues, I learned that the going through LRH PC folders, his research PC folders, to dig up the tech he was experimenting with, and then turning that into pilot tech, then perfect the piloting, get it all figured out, and then write the issues based on the piloting, that is whole long drawn out, months and sometimes years of work.

    All starts with LRH’s pc folders.

    Dan Koon and Russ, I hoped would maybe co author a chapter, and have that chapter in some book, about the whole series of stages, all laid out by LRH in his compilations writings, he ordered for RTRC to do.

    So, to me, I wanted to know, from you, from any book, and Wright’s at least convinced me more than from just reading this blog, that indeed, LRH did NOT leave a lot of raw pc folder material, from which to do the steps of compiling all the things from his pc folders, where he was researching the upper OT levels.

    To me, it’d be in those pc folders of LRH. The folders where he noted that he was researching, and the person who goes through his folders, or his technical notes, saying to look in this or that folder in this or that time period, when he was researching this or that.

    It technically gets into this level of a discussion, like something that Ray Mitoff, or whoever had access to ALL of LRH’s pc folders, and who had access to ALL of LRH’s technical notes, to see where in his notes he sasy “….this goes with X…..” even it is’t just a tiny note, and half of a worksheet page in one of his sessions, or however he noted these things, as he was auditing himself, or how he ordered whoever audited him, to try on him.

    This book is a must read, in my opinion.

  46. Until Scientology allows it’s tech to be scrutinized, like ample free wide quoting of the processes, and the theory behind the processes, from the top to the bottom of the Bridge, and all neatly laid out, and made layman language friendly, then no reporter is gonna get the Scientology tech practices correctly.

    From 1975 to now, there’s not been a detailed book that lays out both sides of the Bridge, details the theory and process commands, and makes it readable in a single volume.

    The only Sicentology book published that covered a pretty big chunk was “Dianetics Today”, which has the TRs, the basic auditing series, the comm cycle, the picture book stuff, and then the commands 1-9 A-D, and LRH C/Sed sessions with the LRH C/Ses all in one book! That’s the kind of book, that I was expecting, when I walked in the door of Scientology.

    A single volume that has what you need to become an auditor, and do it, and all the admin rules and folder keeping rules, to actually get a pretty even by today’s standards, a Clear, with that one book, and really help a person explore their past lives, and tackle their drug history, and all their aches and pains (NED Grade 5 is way better compartmented, but the Dianetics Today book would make a legitimate Clear, compared to just banging away with Book 1, I mean by comparison).

    So, in answer to Dan Koon, I think Wright’s book doesn’t really delve at all into Scientology, in the same way that NO reporter, NO scholar, excepting for just maybe Harriet Whitehead, just a little bit, in her “Renunciation and Reformulation” very hard to read scholarly book on Dianetics and Scientology, and even she does not really get into the thickets of even what is all contained in Dianetics Today.

    I think, to satify coverage, by scholars, by reporters, by authors, that Scienotlogists would have to force these outsiders to at least digest and DO, like Dan says, what’s in the book, like Dianetics Today, get their whole feet wet, and go plowing into their own cases, and see what happens, and see the fruitfulness of plowing into one’s case.

    Scientology’s so may layers of protective copyright rules, and the checksheets and endless courses to get up to being a Grad 5, being able to knock off the C/S 53 and Green Form 40 on someone else, seeing all the myriad ways a case is delved into, peeling off the layers of charge, until at the OT band you’re dealing with no more the person’s own case, but the case coming at one from where the OT case stuff comes from.

    I mean no one’s even properly defended the whole shebang.

    And I’m not even a Scientologist, but for decades, I’ve been wishing someone would simplify and write this up so Scientologists who have become tech people and learned their tech Grad 5 and above, who have done at least a couple years on the RPF and learned the tech that way, which in my opinion, a lot of people finally got the tech only when they finally got to the RPF, sadly or not, some I think appreciated the chance to at least get tech trained while on the RPF (in my 7 years on the RPF, I learned it out of curiosity, knowing I’d never really be an auditor ever in practice, thinking as I do today, that only some people are suited to be good therapist/counselors and I was not gifted enough).

    So I sympathize with tech minded Scientologists, in fact, there still to date hasn’t been a book ever, that I think has satisfied tech Scientologists who just even for a minute consider all that LRH wrote in the Case Supervisor Series, or the Special Rundowns series, and all the myriad tech series, Expanded Dianetics Rundowns, NED Rundowns, the NOTS Rundowns.

    I mean, for Christ’s sake, the truth is no fucking journalists and no damn new religion scholars, I know, I tried to force feed some and they are anathma to look at what LRH even wrote.

    And I’m not a Scientologist. SO i feel the frustration.

    The subject isn’t being even read nor duplicated!

    Oh well.

    Hang in there!

  47. Thanks for the review, Marty. Sounds a missed opportunity on Wright’s part.

    I have a question – regardless of any embellishments Ron ever made, or outright lies, do you think there was an intent to defraud? Because I don’t see that at all. Regardless of what Ron believed or said, he put an awful lot of himself into this to be guilty of fraud or outright fabrication of the tech itself.

    • I don’t believe anyone can make a credible case that he did not believe what he preached – I don’t even think Wright tried to.

    • Grasshopper,
      Even Wright acknowledged your conclusion:
      “…It would be easy to dismiss Hubbard as a fraud, but that would fail to explain his total absorption in his project. He would spend the rest of his life elaborating his theory…”
      (- Lawrence Wright, “Going Clear”, p. 79)

      Sadly, Wright never did seem to really grok Hubbard’s “theory” — despite Wright’s statement at the outset in the book that he was trying to figure out what “keeps Scientologists interested”.

  48. I am really struggling with this topic and i mean no offence in my comments.
    Some comments go along this line”how could you possibly understand scientology if you have not been “in”.
    In my mind this is an absurd and popular comment used by many cults(j.witness,mormons,raliens etc).I have talked to scientologists and asked for evidence on how the tech can cure insanity,bad eyesight even leukemia and the standard response is either i get ignored,insulted or worse personal testimony.
    Again no offence but what has LRH and scientology contributed to any sciences in the last 30 yrs in fact the gap between science and scientology has grown into a chasm.
    The reality is LRH was a proven liar and both he and Scientology will be remebered as a footnote in a future cult handbook.
    My advice(for what its worth)is to drop this superior homonovis attitude,the sooner you guys realise you are just the same as us wogs and there are no OT super powers(please provide evidence and prove me wrong please)the better off you will be.
    I wish you guys all the best and support your right to believe in whatever you want,but if your going to push the claim that the tech works you better be prepared to back it up and listen to criticism not simply say”you would not understand”Remember they dont give Putlitzer prizes to people who are idiots.

    • I suppose you would only buy and read Consumer Reports reviews of products ONLY IF you were sure they did not actually “test drive” any of the products they reviewed?

    • 4chan,

      Please, elucidate on this “proven liar” business.

      they dont give Putlitzer prizes to people who are idiots.

      Oh, Wright is not an idiot. He’s just so desperately trying avoid a “prison of belief” that he doesn’t seem to recognize that he’s already in one.

    • Hi Anon,

      I have the utmost respeckt for the research skills of the Anons and what they have contributed. No superior attitude here from my side.

      I do have to take issue with one point you make, though, which is that eyewitness testimony is invalid as a primary source. If that held true, then why did Anons put so much time and effort in compiling this most excellent resource, comprised of eyewitness testimony?

      https://whyweprotest.net/wiki/Former_Church_of_Scientology_members_who_have_spoken_out – which I see is now up to 2023 names.

      The list is balanced and includes people who continue to practice Scientology, but have left the Corporation for the many reasons cited in their testimony, as well as those who decry the subject of Scientology.

      So how can you say eyewitness testimony is not valid? I do agree that claims regarding increased abilities or improvement in life could benefit from being balanced with other evidentiary measures, such as medical reports for improved or cured health conditions, measurement of IQ before and after, and so on and so forth. The problematic variable for this kind of research in this context, though, IS the Corporation, which does not allow its members to speak freely, it will always “coach and drill” them on what to say, and it will not allow its members to be exposed to independent testing.

      If ever anyone did do some serious research into this aspect, they would need to draw from people who are independently practicing Scientology.

      As for stating that because Hubbard has been found to have serious character deficiencies, the techniques are invalid – well, that is ad hominen, and while anyone is free to hold that opinion, it is not an argument that is logically sound, or complete, IMHO.

      Apologies if this was tl;dr, but I felt your point/s deserved an answer.

      • Folks with known character deficiencies include Henry Ford, Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., etc etc. They nonetheless made significant contributions to humanity.

  49. Marty,
    Thanks for the thoughtful and informative review. I will save my dollar.

  50. I am not posting this under my own name, simply because I do not have the time or the patience to deal with the blow-back I would receive, right now. If it ever became really important, I would come out under my own name. At the moment, it is not, so for now, this is a first hand personal testimony, posted under a handle, that relates to the point of: can you objectively analyse something in an area like Scientology if you have not personally experienced it yourself?

    Actually, yes you can, if you obtain a representative sample of first hand testimony. However, because the Corporation of Scientology is as it is, obtaining said representative sample is not possible, because the people in the organizations will say whatever they are told to say, and the people outside the organization are very scattered.

    Hubbards’ flaws and dispositions are not news to me. I was briefly in the Corporation of Scientology for a short while. I never had any auditing when I was in. I saw all the hideous things happening in the organization, and left. However, I did have a traumatic time, and have carried the burden of that trauma for almost two decades. I used a variety of other methods to work through it. I managed to reduce it from occupying about 75% of my consciousness, down to about 15% over the years. But that last 15% I could not resolve. It was a burden that lessened my quality of life, and hung heavy.

    Recently, I had the opportunity to receive some auditing from someone practicing independently, outside the Corporation. Not naming that person here either, as I do not want to put a target on their back. They offered, and I thought “Why not? All else has failed.”

    Nothing could have prepared me for what followed. The person was amazing, is highly experienced and trained, and a brilliant auditor. The methodology of being asked questions, in a session, with an e-meter, brought the heaviness to the surface, it was so intense, it was almost physical. I had not felt that before when using other methods to try and resolve it. And as I went through it, the grief of it was overwhelming. Then, I could feel it lifting, and it went. I cannot even begin to describe the relief I felt. I am not one to cry, but I cried. I was finally, and completely, relieved of the burden. Afterwards, for a few days, I was almost disorientated from not having that thing weighing on me anymore, and it took time to adjust. But the effect is permanent, and I am feeling like a whole new person, with a whole new life ahead of me. I am happy for the first time in YEARS.

    So if anyone wants to know what is it about Scientology that is so compelling for those who have experienced what I recently experienced for the first time, THAT is what it is, THAT is what it is about. The techniques and methodology have a precision that is still without equal, and they can be used for harm, or they can be used to heal people. In this case, it healed me. Completely. And, I had an experienced auditor who knew what they were doing, following the methodology precisely, who cared about me, and who was there for me through the whole thing. THIS is what Scientology is, stripped of all hubris, down to the bare essence, and THIS is what is worth preserving. Because Scientology can really heal people. I know. I have been healed by it.

    • First class post.

    • What a wonderful comment! I am so glad you commented here.

    • Thank you Eagle for this tremendous communication.

      Like you I was healed with Scientology- Scientology properly applied by an auditor who understood what LRH had delivered into his hands.

    • Wow ! Thanks for this!

    • One of those who see

      Dearest Eagle, I am so happy for you! Thank you for your inspiring post. Thank you for the truth. Scientology works.

      • Karcha, Dan, KFrancis, Li Po, and One of those who see – thank you, and you are most welcome. I can add here that I have been a critic for many years. I was always willing to accept that people had positive experiences, but I did not really understand it. Until now. While I still view the Corporation as ruthless and destructive – and it has done a massive disservice to the healing methods of Scientology and Dianetics – this experience has completely changed the way I view the subject of Scientology itself.

        I am happy to make my small contribution here, to add balance.

        Oh, and one more observation – I note the “blind spot” that critics of the subject have, whereby they are happy to use the personal testimony of people who have had negative experiences to support their stance, but not willing to consider the testimony of those who have had positive experiences.with the subject. – obvious bias is obvious. 🙂

        • Thank you for your posts, Eagle. And I am happy Scientology auditing
          helped you the way it did. Great experiences like that is what kept me going for years, as a pc, as an auditor, as a scientologist, despite of any organizational bullshit. Yet, I am a critic now, but definitely not because of the above. As any con, scientology has things that are helpful, otherwise it would not be attractive to others. Those helpful things are mainly based on two individuals interested in helping one another using communication tools. That applies to a majority of a lower Bridge and that’s most likely why scientology is still around. Clear and OT is a whole
          entire matter, imho. Some people who achieved those states, had various spiritual experiences that they felt were beneficial, but so did many non-scientologists! That’s why scientology gets so much flak and always had – it delivers, but a lot less than it promises. My point is – some scientology auditing can be helpful, but so is some Cognitive behavioral therapy, from what I’ve heard. I hope it makes sense.

          • Thanks for your comment, dodothe laser, and yes, it makes sense to me. I fully respect your right to your view, and do not wish to globalize and project my own experience as a solution for others. I simply offered it as a real experience, of healing, and thank you for not trashing my experience, although that would not have bothered me. Nothing, simply nothing, could spoil this feeling for me.🙂

            I do wish to expand on my view in the light of your comments above. For me, personally, things like cognitive behavioural therapy would not have been able to solve this one. And I am not saying it cannot solve other issues for others, just that it would not have solved this one, for me. My issue was complex, tangled, and contained things I could not see, that were embedded in my subconscious. It was only the precision of the technique whereby “reads” happened on the e-meter, and thus guided me and gave direction of where to look, that could pick up and extract what was buried. Believe me, I had tried just about everything available over the years, and as I said earlier, did make some progress, but could not resolve it completely. This resolved it completely, for me.

            My view is that these techniques should be available to people who want to use them, along with all other therapies out there. In the end, their efficacy, or not, is determined by the experiences of the people using them. The vast majority of bad experiences recorded are from people having taken services in the Corporation. I have heard very few negative experiences from those who have had these services outside of the Corporation.

            And yes, I agree, there are many myriad individuals in the world who have achieved greatness, and had wonderful experiences who have never had anything to do with Scientology, and did not need it in order to make wonderful contributions. Too long to list them all, but included are the Martin Luther Kings, the Isaac Newtons, the Carl Sagans, the Beethovens, the Steve Job’s, and so on and so forth. No argument there. However. I strongly feel that if people want to pursue the path of Clear to OT, they have every right to do so. Those things, as are many spiritual traditions, are seen as complete B/S for those who are atheists or fundamentalists who cannot tolerate any view other than their own, but people have the right to pursue whatever beliefs they want – so long as those beliefs do not harm others.

            I cannot, any longer, see the auditing techniques as harmful in themselves. As I said earlier, they can be used to harm, or they can be used to heal. They are not for everyone. But they should be available for those who do want to use them, and find them of benefit . I would not, however, recommend that anyone pursue this in the Corporation, for all the many obvious reasons recorded over the decades.

            So there we have it – I was a critic for many years, and am now a believer in the auditing techniques, used to help (not harm), and you were an auditor for many years, and now you are a critic.

            There is something very amusing in that for me. 🙂

    • Amazing and wonderful post. I’m so glad you posted as this is one I would like to share with others who have had a similar first experience.

  51. I’d like to see someone write a book about authors who write books about subjects they don’t really understand. The problem is that they would probably take the approach Wright appears to have taken here and they would probably get it wrong.

  52. The book is titled “Going Clear”. But it has absolutely nothing to do with going clear. Lawrence could have paid someone to audit him up to clear. And he could have kept a journal and actually written about going clear. But he didn’t. And I doubt he ever will. So I do not expect him to write a book about Scientology, or Hubbard or Scientologists, with any real understanding or balance. I do not expect him to be fair. I expect him to focus on whatever serves his purposes for writing the book. No matter how he may cast judgment and where he may focus the light, he has different a agenda than I do. And different purposes for speaking of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. I respect his rights. I respect the path he has chosen. We are in the business of lifting ourselves and others up. That is a worthy purpose and something to be proud of. Whether we are getting any applause from Lawrence Wright or not. He piggy backed on us, our tribe, our burdens, to write a lengthy memo about it. Perhaps, it was a knowledge report. That is all that I see happened. Just another particle, flowing into David’s motivator flow. NOT MINE. And I don’t think, OURS, either. I hope nobody uses this bullet to wound themselves. It was not meant for us.

  53. The issue with Lawerence Wright, Tony Ortega, Mark Bunker and company: They suscribe and to operate from a totally different paradigm. Much like you have people, that suscribe to the medical paradigm and those that don’t.

    What I mean is people that suscribe, to the medical paradigm, may in general terms operate something like this: Headache is maintained and surpressed with pills. Any physical condition, is instantly taken care of, by whatever medication the doctor suscribes. Feelings of sadness and depression is kept in check by psychotropic drugs. Psychology and Psychiatry.

    Now we take the paradigm of alternative medicin: headaches handled by finding its source, typically it would be dehydration. Knock back a huge glass of water and eat some fruit. Instead of pills for physical conditions, change your diet, go on a juice fast and detox the body. Bad back? Go to the gym and make your back stronger and strech. Try acupunture, Cultivate health instead of managing disease. Depression, try getting out for a walk and getting your anchor points out. Enlightenment.

    My point is how can somebody, that doesn’t suscribe to any of the paradigms, not limited to Scientology but any number of belief systems. Ever understand or write about the subject, without being biased and finding flaws, since it violates their own stable datums, so strongly.

    Its laughable, when I hear Mark Bunker say: Well its up people if they want to believe in space aliens. Haha are you kidding me? In 20 years growing up in sea org berthing, I have never heard mention of space aliens. I mean Mark spends decade on Scientology and doesn’t get it! It pisses me off, that some takes someting best described a mythology. Have never heard of it? Then lumps it together with current Scientology.

    Yes I use Scientology knowledege, for everyday life. Yes it gave me a edge, because I beat 100 people for a job, I had no prior experience in. I used exact techniques from L.R.H. Thats what I use it for.. To improve my life and its conditions.

    • You haven’t done OT III yet, have you? Glad you are doing well in life.

    • You know, “space aliens” is just a shorthand for the “space opera” aspects of Scientology. I could say I don’t care if you believe you are covered with Body Thetans and want to devote years and precious dollars to believe you have removed them from your body so you can become a true OT and control MEST…but space aliens is quicker and is more interesting to someone who has never heard of Scientology and might then be interested to find out more.

      Space opera is in the Scientology dictionary. Scientologists should not be afraid to discuss those elements. .

      • Sure, as long as you add that “space aliens r us!”

        The problem here isn’t that some believe that, the problem is that what some believe is then bandied about as an article of faith and scripture (like the holy word of God) and so spreads a false characterization of other individuals’ personal beliefs on this subject.

        If you want to be helpful perhaps you could come up with a great buzzword that expresses this idea: an immortal spiritual being can become confused and entangled with experiences it is having (real or imagined,) or experiences it once had (real or imagined) and can dramatize those experiences in a fixated manner and thus come to believe it IS a rock, or a penguin, or a human being, or a bicycle or a poltergeist, etc. when what it is really doing is EXPERIENCING from those particular states of being or points of view. It really hasn’t BECOME any of those things, but will act as if it has until someone else comes along and says, hey! what are you doing? Wake up!

        Its a tough assignment, I know. The buzzword needs to be funny, catchy and easy to remember. If you can get it to be a bit cartoon-like that will greatly improve its chances of being memorable. If you can get a thigh-slap out of it, even better and if it makes the named people cringe as they are ridiculed, you’ll know you’ve got a winner.

        Now Mark, you may think I am joking about this assignment, and you may think that I am expressing some kind of sarcastic hostile humor, but I assure you, I’m not. I’ve spent most of my life studying world religions, psychology and the so-called “perennial truths” of the human race and there just plain well isn’t a good English word that encapsulates this overriding element of life.

        Of course, all I’ve done here is expressed my belief system so maybe the exercise is futile after all. But maybe someday I will bow and accept accolades to choruses of Maria-bots!

  54. Margaret (and anyone else who cares about such things): Please do not mistake me for an LRH basher. I am not. As I’ve stated many times I’d likely be dead or in jail if not for Ron. In some ways I could care less about what Ron may or may not have lied about especially pre 1950. However I believe you cannot separate the subject from LRH. Certainly, for the most part, the general public does not. LRH and Scientology would have been better served with LRH being 100% truthful about his past as well as avoiding stating possibilities as certainties as results. Where the subject goes from here I will leave to people far smarter than I to discuss. With that I wish you and everyone else safe and productive journeys.

    • Kevin,
      I don’t take you as an LRH basher.
      I am frustrated by authors like Wright, Miller, Chris Owen and others, who take part of the truth, and present it as the whole truth, or a balanced truth — when it is not. I gave examples above.
      Some accuse LRH as having done the same thing — but he never sat down and wrote a full, detailed autobiography of himself. He wrote marketing blurbs for book flaps, to sell books. And he gave some offhand anecdotes in lectures. And frankly, by and large, these hold up. Did he list out the indiscretions of his life? Of course not. You don’t hear about indiscretions or STDs in book flaps.
      At the end of his life, Ron handed over the whole tamale to his biographers — warts and all. But Ron was too trusting — and they turned it into tabloid fodder, instead of the balanced, critical biography that they were charged with.
      If I got anything wrong in the above summary, I’d love to know.

    • Kevin, I do not view you as a basher. When you read a book, you are going to view through the author’s eyes. You just viewed Hubbard through Lawrence Wrights eyes and found it disturbing. If Lawrence Wright could view through your eyes, he may find great peace and balance about it all.

    • Kevin. I sense your feeling betrayed. We were all fed a rather rosey story, werent we. Of course your right about the truth having been the preferred route. But its certainly possible to use the subject without maintaining an infatuation with its author. And if the material produces results, then we should. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. I doubt any practitioner who sees they results of their work would abandon it becuase the author of the material embellished his personal life. Imagine the list of everyday products we would not use if we knew more lurid details about the lives of the men who created or invented them. It sounds to me like your thinking about walking away and i would hope you can rise above the public opinion which is currently running so much against the subject.

  55. The list of great men who have significantly advanced Mankind is not long. But the list of those who spat in their faces is almost interminable.

    • P.S. Thanks Marty for documenting and exposing the shallowness of Wright’s “work”. And thanks to Margaret, also. It is a painful task, imo, to take up shields and lay to rest specious criticisms. One knows these attacks have no meaning other than dramatizations of hatreds and jealousies, but those same hatreds and jealousies seem to restimulate others, so there is value in defeating them, tedious as it is to do so. – Carcha.

      • I agree with what you say here about Margaret. I’ve seen her at her best, like some amazing kung fu wizard, bobbing and weaving unscathed through the thrown rocks and discolored comment spittle at tony ortega’s blog, always her focus on making sense out of confusion and giving the subject of Scientology a fair shake.

        • Thank you Dan. And thank you too Carcha. I appreciate your kind words.

          • Margaret – More kind words to you. There is a stability and sanity and accuracy about you that really impresses, something I wish more had. It really isn’t an enormous thing to take Scn, benefit from it, and stand as oneself – some people try to describe this quality with the word “integrity”. “To consume without being consumed”, is a phrase that comes to mind, as it may apply to an ideal understanding of Scientology. I think this is what LRH had in mind and wished for everyone. I just got done with a two-hour conversation with a Class VIII, talking seriously about “what is missing”, or what so many Scns seem to “not get”. We came up with some ideas about it, and we came up with the situation (technical usage) (that many do not see the truth LRH saw), and one or three why’s, including Marty’s “held down 3’s” as expressed in his first book, before brain-fry set in. I just want to express that, imho, whatever is missing in many is distinctly not missing in you! – Carcha

          • I third that. Margaret’s objective research skills are a breath of fresh air, and are most appreciated. Respect.

  56. This quote blow off this blog message seems to me that Dm didn’t act alone
    to arrange this scenario on MSH or even the attempt to inforce
    divorce. He must have had some lead or leads/ politically arranged
    for this scenario to attempt full executed
    The guy was young and brainless, and he and he alone didn’t run this
    scenario alone. Its just not realitic . He had some backup/ He certaintly was t
    the major party managing to cut com between them both and to make it
    hard for MSH .I wouldn’t put it past DM to have attempted forgeing written
    declare of request to divorce .He Dm so capable of doing something
    only under political advice that he was following . Who knows. But he and
    he alone stealing the postion is the one that betrayed LRH and MSH and
    Scientologist.

    .

    “Miscavige attempted to get damning taped admissions from Mary Sue
    and turn her in to the justice department.”
    L Ron Hubbard demanded a divorce from Mary Sue Hubbard and she
    refused.

  57. The spelling error in the beginning of this message above by haldley
    should read ” Below ” and not read as written above Sorry.

  58. Some of you guys seem to have expected a more balanced book on account of Wright’s factual report on Terrorism.
    I bet that for guys who knew and worked with Osama Bin Laden “The Looming Tower” is about as factual as the book on LRH is for Scientologists.

    • Very doubtful.

      • Sorry Marty, that’s like saying “What’s Wrong with Scientology”
        is a good factual book, but “The Scientology Reformation” is not.
        I read and admire both books and would say they hold about the same level of truth. As most books, fiction or non fiction, by most authors do.
        To think that Wright did a great job on Bin Laden and a shoddy one on LRH, just does not make sense.
        Also some guys on this blog seem to think, that LRH solved the riddle of the mind, but privately was a very questionable character.
        In my opinion, this does not make sense either. Gross out-point.
        (And just in case someone misunderstands:
        LRH DID solve the riddle of the mind!

        Marcel Wenger

        • Did you read either of Wright’s books that I referred to?

          • No, I did not Marty. I read reviews though. (including yours!) And what
            Margret said, about their com., which in my eyes already disqualified him.
            But then, I’m not talking about Wright in particular, I’m talking about spotting out points, and adding things up, a thing, as regards to LRH and Scientology, for reasons best known to God, Registrars and Implanters, a lot of people seem to have trouble with.
            Marcel Wenger

  59. ” vital subjective component that truth requires”. If truth is that which corresponds with reality (the correspondence theory of truth), which is the best match to the parochial use of the term, then it is subjectivity that muddies the water and not objectivity. Religions in general prefer subjective truth as a shield from objective criticism, but it is also the surest way to deviate from reality.

    • Yes Dan, except it is subjective realities we are talking about here. Can one be objective about one’s subjectiveness?

      Well, isn’t that the essence of “being aware of being aware”? Of “awareness of awareness?

      Does one judge a cooking contest by pointedly not sampling the foods one is supposed to be judging?
      Do the reporters for Consumer Reports make it a point to not test drive the products they review?
      Do the judges of the dance contest shows make it a point to close their eyes or wear blindfolds while the contestants are dancing?
      Do the judges of the singing contests use earplugs during the singing?

      ETC.

      A lot of the “subjective/objective” arguments I hear are red herrings at best, or just plain misinterpretation and inappropriate application of someone’s concept of what constitutes “evidence”.

      • Valkov – I think you are confused. We can have subjective experiences of reality, but the reality itself is singular and objective. Unless you of the school that everything begins with experience, in which case you would have to wonder what is having the experience and what it / they are experiencing? Materialism is the only rational approach and it presumes an objective reality. Truth then is that which corresponds to that reality.

  60. Bringing down the SP is a painful process.
    Like radiation treatment or chemo therapy for a person with cancer, the process can be painful and sometimes fatal.
    I think the benefits of the tech will survive. If not, you have dm to thank.

  61. Another point in Mr. Wright’s book that is not very reliable is something I think his ex-wife said. She said that LRH wrote the book Science of Survival while in Cuba and that he drank an entire bottle of rum while doing so.
    I think anyone whoever read SOS would say that nobody could write a book like that drunk. If he did write it drunk then he is a better man than I thought possible.
    The more inconsistancies that I find in a book, the more it puts question marks on other points of the book that I am not familiar with.
    In the book he also says that LRH had a daughter before he married Mary Sue. I never knew this. Can anyone confirm whether this is true or not?

    • Yes Tony. LRH was married to Sara Northrop who was a 2D of Jack Parson. They had a daughter.

    • Tony,
      It was Richard de Mille that made the claim about Ron having written Science of Survival with a bottle of rum by his side, writing the book all through the night, and then the bottle of rum being empty the next morning. I had the same reaction as you — I thought it seemed bizarre, given the incredible clarity in the SOS book. Of course, Ron was a “sailor” and maybe he had a high tolerance for alcohol. Or possibly, de Mille (who was recalling events 35 years later, in an interview by Russell Miller) simply got the time-line or details a bit wrong (like the bottle was 90% empty the previous night, or something). Whatever the truth, it definitely sent my BS detector lights whirring as well.

  62. morelivesthanacat

    So many people–here and elsewhere–spending so much energy trying to discredit a man who died 25 years ago, looking for faults in any one of the 10s of millions of written and spoken word he left behind.
    Tell you what. Disregard all but a few thousand and read a little book called Self Analysis , get a life of your own, and try to do better yourself.

    • “People throw rocks at things that shine. ” -Taylor Swift

      L Ron Hubbard …super shiny.

    • Yes I Second this,and add I think its disrespectful all this
      negative hearsay who said or over heard saying towards
      LRH. He gave the tech and he was not perfect .A good number
      use it. Gained from it . Just leave the guy alone RIP.
      If some one writes a book that aims to discredit any creditability to a man that gave a lot
      and just gather negative views is only out for profit making
      and with the effect to rumour monger and confuse those that
      study Scientology.

  63. Personally, I don’t see how it would be possible to write a book on the CofS and have anything good to say about it, particularly today’s CofS. Any goodness that would appear would be immediately swamped and nullified by all the horrendous activity the CofS did/still does, engage in. Most goodness is in truth just PR.

    Also, there will never be a book written about Scientology. It would not be possible. Anything written on the subject would be about the CofS or LRH; these are three different things.

    I’m pretty immune to any negative comments about LRH these days, because when I jumped into ARS two decades or so ago, one of the first shocks that hit me was that all that I knew about LRH was false; well, not all, but a significant amount. I read all that I could find on LRH, and it was plentiful, and none of it aligned with what we are spoonfed in the CofS.

    I read every word, and I was shaken; I was upset.

    But what was not shaken, not in the least, was my view of the tech. I knew it could be made to work;

    “How can you communicate to a victim?” works! The TA goes up, moves around a bit, comes down, the needle begins to float, the pc brightens up a bit, has a cog, and is released. Every time.

    “What do you use to make another wrong?” works! The TA goes up, moves around a lot, the sputtering of answers, the TA comes down, the pc smiles, and cogs, and it is gone. Every time.

    Repetitive processes work. Every time.

    Alternate repetitive processes work. Every time.

    Prepchecks work. Every time.

    2wc works. Every time.

    R3R works. Every time.

    NED works. Every time.

    -providing you do it as LRH describes-

    That’s what mattered to me. Still does.

    So, given all that I had read about LRH; how was I to deal with that?

    It took a few days, but only a few days, and I realized how I was to deal with it.

    LRH was not this super human being who did all that he did, as per the CofS propaganda. If he was super human, then what would be the big deal; that’s what super human beings are supposed to do. They are only noteworthy if they don’t do anything remarkable.

    LRH had a case; he was human like the rest of us, and THAT is what makes him extraordinary. It’s hard to be yourself when you are all fucked up, and like the rest of us, LRH had his ‘all fucked up’ period. That he was able to accomplish what he did accomplish with all the internal false goals and purposes and evil intentions, O/Ws; that is what is remarkable, and that is why he should be considered remarkable.

    Don’t forget, LRH did the majority of his OT research in the early 50s, a huge chunk of it, and there were no repair lists and so forth to fix him up when things screwed up. Not everything he did worked. Some of it was harmful. It took time for him to get his case addressed and worked out.
    LRH didn’t attest to the state of Clear until the mid 60’s, although Clear then had to do with GPMs and is a tad different than today.

    I don’t need to read another book on how ‘bad’ LRH acted. I know how ‘bad’ he acted. I also know how much good he did.

    After all that I had learned about LRH, I realized how I could deal with the whole thing.

    Given what LRH had to personally overcome, internally and externally, to discover what he did, to make it available to all of us, my admiration for him was much greater than it was when I was in the web of the CofS.

    The truth really did free up my thinking, and I finally met my friend the way he really was; one of us.

    There will never be an honest ‘book’ on LRH until the true value of the subject he codified is recognized. Then, only then, can anyone sit in judgement of him.

    • “How can you communicate to a victim?”
      I am fascinated by that process. Never saw it before. Would someone give me that reference, or at least the purpose behind it? Thanks.

      • Hi;

        There are several such processes in the materials of Level O, among them the various ‘victim’ processes and the reason for them. I don’t have the exact refs at hand, but you probably could google the Scientology Academy Level Zero pack and find one, and in there you will get your answers.

    • Dizzy Mizz Lizzy

      bob grant
      Love your article.
      Thank you for clarifying.
      Your views are very helpful!

  64. ♥ Happy Birthday to Carol Kramer. ♥

  65. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Wow !
    The comments are very interesting but at the end an engram is an engram and one can get rid of them whatever people have as opinions or whatever books are written – It doesn’t matter, an engram is a engram and you can get rid of it. Just try it out ! None of those writers will ever dare to go into session, neither Ortega.
    Lots and lots of noise of things and times that are gone.
    Even if LRH was a devil or satan personally an engram is still an engram and you can get rid of it !
    There is a bright future ahead of us. Get into session and audit yourself or others and enjoy your freedoms !

  66. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    A win :

    LRH writes somewhere that OTs or Clears are sometimes thinking that the rust of their chains, that are gone, are still chains and so behave strange until some lives later they’ll find out that the chains are really gone and then they will build a momument for their auditors !

    It just happened to me some days ago. The RCoS was teaching me heavily that I wasn’t aloud to use the OT-Powers I realized in my Auditng.
    And you know what I just use them and its fun ! I can blow charges at distance. I can hlep people with theta and all that stuff. Feel like an idiot that I wasn’t using my powers for long time thinking I got a Case.

    Thanks to everybody here !

    So please rehab you powers and have fun !

  67. Good post and thanks for the review.
    I won’t bother reading the book since the author has nothing new to contribute. From the review, it looks like one could get all or at least most from the internet.
    What I do know is that the tech LRH discovered or developed or put into workable form, works for me and it works for my pcs.
    The rest is just noise as far as I’m concerned.

  68. Usually we criticize writers for not being OBJECTIVE enough, but now I see Wright catching flack for not being SUBJECTIVE enough. It would be akin to requiring someone to join a faith to write about it, but no one thought Wright should join with bands of terrorists to truly be able to write the Looming Tower.

    When you are addressing controversial subject matter you are bound to make one camp or another unhappy – particularly among those who the subject is close to the heart or very personal and strong opinions are the norm.

    We hear a lot of praise from Marty, and many other Western journalists, on Wright’s extensive work on the “Looming Tower” but I have a feeling any member of Al Qaeda, or people sympathetic to their dogma, weren’t nearly as fulsome with their praise on the work. It just depends on which person and point of view is reading the work in question.

    A writer who makes every one happy has probably failed.

    • ^^^ My thoughts exactly. Thank you, SunnyV.

    • I concur with you on the observation that Wrights’ work on “Looming Tower” won’t be viewed as such a spectacular piece of work by those poor souls currently having their lives torn apart, daily and repeatedly, by the Criminal US War Machine.

      One mans Al Qaeda is another mans fight for freedom, after all. I can’t, with any honesty, find myself compelled to agree with anyone who has written about the fight for freedom from US Tyranny and Oppression without actually having lived in the trenches and seen the bombs fall on villages, childrens limbs torn apart, and so on .. all in the name of “fighting terrorism” while sucking the land dry of Oil, which is what its Really All About, anyway …

  69. When I look back on my beginning days in Scientology in the mid 70s, an obvious truth emerges. Here we were, out on the outskirts of the Churches in a little Scientology Center, reading course packs and doing the drills and then wonder of wonders, auditing each other.

    None of us had ever met LRH, most had never read his books other than what was in the course packs, we had no faith for there was nothing to believe in other than a possibility that by doing these auditing processes we might feel better, do better, have a greater sense of well-being.

    There was no Sea Org looking in on us, no international management making sure we did everything right, no one telling us what we should believe. No charismatic LRH, no magical events, just ordinary people with ordinary lives embarking on an extraordinary journey of exploring our own potentials and sorting out own miseries.

    We weren’t great auditors, we were green auditors! We had so much fun, learned so much about ourselves and experienced relief, well-being and release from the simplest of processes. We laughed and talked and shared our experiences and there was no one to tell us to do any different.

    There was no cultish mind-set, no isolation, no coercion, no abuse, no cruelty, no LRH is the “only truth,” no “love bombing” or any of the so-called cult characteristics. Sadly, by the late 70s that had changed and many of us just faded out of the scene over time.

    A very few of us persisted in the face of the relentless march of the Sea Org under DM, trying to avoid the pitfalls and judgments of the now corporate Church, often becoming “consumer” Scientologists held in contempt by the staffers. Come in, get your auditing, leave. Monitor your calls so that you didn’t get hounded half to death. Even under those trying circumstances some of us were able to glean nuggets of pure gold and find states of being that were amazing and wonderful to us.

    And even as I write this comment, somewhere in the world there are enterprising individuals who will pick up the books and materials off the Internet and set out on their own voyage of discovery. We probably will never hear from them on this blog. I know of at least one such individual that I found by accident online who is having a perfectly wonderful just as we oh so very ordinary people did back in the 70s.

    Wright’s book won’t mean a damned thing to them. And really it wouldn’t have made any difference to me either in the 70s because it was never about the man.

  70. When I met Marty some years ago in London he asked me what my relationship to LRH was. I replied none, I have a relationship with the tech. This has not changed.

    Wrights book has consolidated my thoughts on this issue. he told Sarge he
    had ” failed.”
    Chuck quoted :-
    “The stars twinkile….I’ll not always be here….”

    Looking at LRH’s life it seems PTSness
    rules at times. But how does this incredibly strong and knowledgable person go PTS? I say False PTSness. being out ethics is one way to be false
    PTS. Its there in the tech dictionary. Definitions of cleared theta clear and OT.
    These have not been produced in any numbers at all if at all. Moving matter by thought alone? Cleared theta clear. This may have been achieved by a few, Stanford experiment maybe, but not widely. Actually having surveyed some old timers there have been sporadicly such achievements.

    The old man wanted 100% results. He didn’t find a path to them. Thus failed in
    many promises in his books and writings.

    Thus perhaps in his mind betrayal of us all. He had high standards! This could have affected him badly.

    But he found a direction and some
    truths and workable tech.

    Success. Its mysticism really. Thus hard for lets say journalists to grok. Those who could, have been attacked for decades and been subject to name calling. Furry rodents anyone?

    I follow his path. I’ll continually evaluate anything on it or around it. I’ve
    had numerous occasions of exteriorisation, most pre scientology. I’ve separated from one, cleared theta clear or above, on an upper level, OT 2.

    Its a good direction🙂

    • Terrill Park: “He told Sarge he had failed” … exact citation please. AFAIK, Sarge has only ever posted here on Marty’s blog and I’ve never seen that before.

      Michael A. Hobson
      Independent Scientologist

      • Sarge was interviewed and quoted in the Going Clear book. Denise Brennan also quotes Wright’s quote from Sarge in her review of the book
        “Six weeks before the leader died, Pfauth hesitantly related, Hubbard called him into the bus. He was sitting in his little breakfast nook. `He told me he was dropping his body…….He told me he failed, he’s leaving.’…………………………

        I mentioned the legend in Scientology that Hubbard would return.

        “That’s bull crap,’ Pfauth said. “He wanted to drop the body and leave. And he told me basically that he failed. All the work and everything, he’d failed”.
        http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3INT0L85FO4SI/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp

        • I suppose it’s easy to make a literal interpretation of the words, but I doubt it’s a good idea. I have direct practical experience dealing with a person I was close to who also suffered the physical decline leading to body death. It isn’t the least bit comfortable for anyone involved.

          The words uttered by a person in extremis are simply the words uttered at that time. The impact on Sarge seems to be great but understandable because of the close friendship. But, due to that close friendship and the declining physical condition, it’s probably best that Sarge doesn’t go off repeating such things as may have been confided to a friend.

        • Thank you, Mary.

  71. Well, that book is going down with a yawn.

    Maria: “Wright’s book won’t mean a damned thing to them. And really it wouldn’t have made any difference to me either in the 70s because it was never about the man.”

    Next stop, Miss Miscaviage?

    ML/A

  72. Tony De said:-

    “She said that LRH wrote the book Science of Survival while in Cuba and that he drank an entire bottle of rum while doing so.
    I think anyone whoever read SOS would say that nobody could write a book like that drunk. If he did write it drunk then he is a better man than I thought possible.”

    He spent how long writing this book?

    One bottle per book?

    Thus the lifetime consumption is maybe 20 bottles?

    Is a bit less than current medical advice re best heart health.

  73. I perceive a bifurcation regards this fellow, LRH.

    Ultimately, from my perspective, it’s that 1948 to ’54 time-frame where ‘things’ happened electrifyingly and then at some point sometime thereafter there was the emphasis on the “new” organization’s bent and perpetuation.

    Red on White versus Green on White explains my thoughts. Ron was of genius status, IMHO.

    However, he should’ve left this to a grass roots movement. Fuck PR and celebrities…….

    Yet here we are, “Hello BFFs”.

    • 1948 – 1954 is indeed where it all happened. I’m amazed that a guy of Wright’s intelligence, in trying to understand why folks like us stick around, never figured out this fundamental fact.

      • Margaret, the man Wright is not trying to tell the truth! He, like many others before him, are just trying to make a buck out of a very controversial subject. They are not interested in telling the truth because doing so would land them in a heap of trouble. It’s nothing to do with his level of intelligence. In fact, he’s been intelligent enough to see that if he really told the truth he’d be in deep shit because he doesn’t have enough money to fight the mightily criminal Corporate Church of scientology headed by Master Con David Miscavige. Maybe some day there will be someone with enough balls integrity and money to do a proper job.

        Alex

  74. Last I checked LRH was dead. A detailed and factual expose on the life and career of DM would be much more interesting and relevant.

    • … which is why Darth Midget does nothing effective to prevent Hubbard-bashing books from being published and only makes a token protest (lacking any real teeth) after-the-fact.

      Consider the all-out go-for-broke defense he puts up when it is himself under attack (Debbie Cook case, for instance).

      Michael A. Hobson
      Independent Scientologist

      • You got that right!

        And it is a perfect excuse to edit the shit out of those books and repackage them and sell the entire set for, what is it? the 3rd or 4th time, completely with local library campaigns and translations fund-raisers! And no one will complain because well, LRH, he’s an embarrassment you know, but its okay now — its all been sanitized.

  75. Shame.

    To be honest, I think factual reporting on Tech is more interesting to read than LRH biographies, regardless of slant. I accept I might be alone here, but his body of work is independent to what Hubbard may/may not have done. I want to see it objectively reviewed and judged on its merits.

    Whats noticeable is that a lot of defectors seem to take away benefits from the lower levels of LRH Tech, and say so. Given the size and range of LRH Tech, there is more than enough meat there for a book.

  76. Hey guys: I do not know much about Marty Rathbun other then he recently said: “I don’t believe in anything” which I did not understand for the life of me. He needs to show up and speak with clearness when offered to go on a radio talk show. With respect to his book. What is wrong with Scientology(?), I found about half of it to make any sense. Actually part of the writing put LRH down from what I got. Now regarding Wright’s book ‘Going Clear’, I think it is a book equal to Albert Goldman’s book, ‘the lives of John Lennon’ which was thrown into the fish tank. Complete rubbish. On the story of whether Scientology works or not this is personal thing. It works or some. It works for me. The tech works if applied. It is a life self improvement tool and there are a lot of tools to choose from. Don’t bash anything until you know a little more than just something about it. Take a course. Read a book. If is not for you then that is okay. Find something that works for you.

    Guy Vogel
    Free Zone (Independent Scientologist)

    • Guy Vogel and others of similar mentality,
      You say Marty said: “I don’t believe in anything”. If he actually said that,
      it appears that you have no idea who Marty is, where he’s coming from or what he’s trying to do. You, on the other hand are pretty readable to me, 72 years old, and a veteran of Dianetics, Scientology and the SO (1968-1986). And most certainly NOT a true believer in LRH or Scientology. So for your information and benefit, here are 2 definitions for you. If your mental conditioning allows you, you will understand:

      ” be·lief/bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled [bih-leef] Show IPA
      noun
      1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
      2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.”

      “knowl·edge (nlj)
      n.
      1. The state or fact of knowing.
      2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
      3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
      4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.5. Specific information about something.”

      Faith does NOT equal KNOWLEDGE. Capisce amigo?
      One either KNOWS something on the above basis, or one DOESN’T KNOW and can only BELIEVE.
      And if this doesn’t make sense to you, then you need to go back to basics and start with the original DMSMH and on up, making sure you don’t have MUs.
      Alex

    • Hi Guy,

      I don’t “believe” anything either — especially if someone asks “What does Scientology make you believe?” That’s pretty much what Marty was answering when he said “I don’t ‘believe’ anything.”

      I happen to agree with LRH on quite a bit, but as Marty recognizes, that’s different than just “believing” it. Here’s something that I especially agree with:

      “You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis—a very critical basis. … When you have applied it as it should be, and applied as it is taught at the school, and still find it unworkable, it is your privilege to question it and, if you like, reject it.“
      ( – L. Ron Hubbard, “How to Study Scientology”, 1959)

      • Exactly!!

        I have said this repeatedly, but the so-called “critics” keep ignoring me and insisting I’m a “Kool-Aid” drinker (ie; a True Believer): I do not *believe* one word of Scientology just because Ron Hubbard said so. Not one.

        Scientology Tech is made to be tested by attempted application. Only by personal experience and observation is anyone going to *know* whether any part of Scientology is true and correct or not.

        Michael A. Hobson
        Independent Scientologist

  77. Mike Hobson, This is from, Denise Brennans post on ESMB reviewing the book. Can be validated by the book which I don’t have, or by Sarge.
    Matches my own personal ideas.

    “Six weeks before the leader died, Pfauth hesitantly related, Hubbard called him into the bus. He was sitting in his little breakfast nook. `He told me he was dropping his body…….He told me he failed, he’s leaving.’…………………………

    I mentioned the legend in Scientology that Hubbard would return.

    `That’s bull crap,’ Pfauth said. `He wanted to drop the body and leave. And he told me basically that he failed. All the work and everything, he’d failed”.

  78. Great Post Marty. From my own point of view, anybody who has ever had just ONE really good session, KNOWS that the technology is valid, is SOME measure, AT LEAST! Maybe there is nothing above OT8, OKAY, but does that invalidate everything below OT8? HELL NO!!! To invalidate the technology based on the flaws of the guy who invented it, is tantamount to having a moronic intelligence level. You don’t invalidate a guy’s discovery, based on his character flaws! I mean, come on, how stupid is that people? You check it out, you get in the trenches man, you check out the technology itself, first hand! And you say to yourself, what is really happening here? Is this True? And you make up your mind based on empirical evidence! The problem with the Church of Miscavige (Scientology) is, the tech still works, but they KILL YOUR BUZZ as soon as you come out of session, because all Miscavige really wants is your MONEY. Don’t you SEE, you poor fool? This is exactly how it would be if a real live Suppressive Person took over. And with THIS technology on THIS planet? You should have EXPECTED this to happen!! You really want to know the workability of the Tech? Become an Auditor, as I did, and you will KNOW, beyond any shadow of doubt, of its workability! Because it’s all based on ARC, and Miscavige has a lot of misunderstood concepts in this area. It just amazes me that people who work close to him don’t wake up from their fog and say to themselves, “This guy has NO ARC whatsoever!

    • Yep! Furthermore, how many inventions, music, fine art, drama, and scientific data has been useful to society but originated from folks who are or were flawed in one way or another. If Alexander G. Bell was a cleptomanic, a liar, and a drug addict would we refuse to use the telephone?

  79. Man, this sure stirs things up. I’m probably going to be commenter #300+ and nobody but the die-hard Marty readers will get to my comment but I’m going to post it anyway.

    The reason why I’m still religiously following this blog and the fate of Scientology is dual: I have relatives “in” that I really care for and I have still not sorted out for myself where exactly I stand in my spiritual journey of life and what plus’s and minus’s are related to my long Scientology history. As of where I stand now, I mostly consider my involvement a plus because it made me dare to live my life to it’s fullest rather than “safe” which is in alignment with I think Oracle’s comment earlier in this thread of LRH promoting being adventurous. On the other hand I feel betrayed because I bought into “abandon your difficult searches, the answers have all been found”, KSW’s “Having the right technology” have already been done etc.
    Today, I don’t hold anyone else but myself responsible for basically allowing myself to trust (without verifying) those statements and making life decisions based on those beliefs.

    I wish there could be a Church of Scientology that would be real, one that did not promise more than it could deliver, because what it can deliver is spectacular if you ask me. But then, I don’t know if I’d have gone along if there was no promise of Clear and OT that in the end made me go much further than I ever thought I would go.

    As of now, I don’t believe Scientology will stand the test of time, because LRH ( and he made it very clear that he and the subject were if not identical, then the next thing) has been extremely compromised, I believe mostly by him not following the very sane policies he proscribed: “We always deliver what we promise”, “Never lie in PR” etc. etc. I do hope that someone like Marty and Margareth can rework the subject to a format that can be delivered to the world so that future generations will be able to get the same benefits from it that I’ve had.

  80. Well, our “healing” process is sure attracting a lot of attention. It’s ultimately a good thing, as witness this blog. We also seem to have attracted some opportunists, bystanders, and arm-chair quarterbacks. So be it. While some are comfortable reciting dogma, there are others who can translate words into actions, desires into goals, life into something with meaning outside of “self” You know who you are.

    A necessary ingredient for any Pluralism is Tolerance. Otherwise things devolve into tyrannies, Authoritarianism, Conformance. And there is already enough of that in this world. Learning the basics of Auditing is fairly straightforward: TR’s, Auditor’s Comm Cycle, metering, Tone Arm Action. Maintaining the discipline of application, on the other hand can be a trying experience…but one that is ultimately worth the effort. One of the “takeaways” of that experience for me was the sharing of the joy as a PC reaches the EP of a process or rundown. That was something I didn’t even know was missing from my life at the beginning….now it is an essential part of being. And yes, I DO want others to have that as well.

  81. Jean-François Genest

    Yes, it sure muddies the water. Thank you for this detailed analysis of the book. It confirms my thoughts from back in November. It is a shame that so many lies and untruths went into the book, giving it, and him, the discredibility and low-quality level of grocery-store pulp tabloïds.

    I thought L.Wright had done a fair journalistic job with his long article «The Apostate» in The New Yorker magazine in February 2011. Now he and his team attempt to join the garbage-publishing band waggon, hoping to make money from a sour topic that appears to be a hot commodity at the moment. Perhaps his editors and publishers steered him to write this diarrhea. I sure won’t waste money to buy that book. ♣♦♠♥

  82. I would like to add a bit of my own insight here, if you all don’t mind.

    What all these personal attacks on Ron Hubbard are ultimately about his this:

    Point #3 of Keeping Scientology Working is “Knowing it is correct” and carries this additional remark from Hubbard – “three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way.”

    A great many persons who call themselves “Scientologists”, but have not yet attained point #3 of KSW do not base their faith in Scientology on The Tech, but on their faith in Ron Hubbard himself. Therefore attacks on Ron Hubbard’s credibility are mounted by the so-called “critics” (who never attained point #3 themselves) in hopes of breaking one’s faith in Scientology.

    Persons who have attained point #3 of KSW do not base their faith in Scientology on Ron Hubbard, but on themselves and their own powers of observation. Those of us in this category are pretty much immune to these PR attacks on Ron Hubbard, the man.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist
    Indie 500 #99

    • Concise, to the point and brilliant in its simplicity.

    • Mike, I’d go a step further on the critics of LRH. They never got point one of KSW. Ron was not a perfect person, I don’t believe I’ve ever met one of those types around these parts. I’ve met some mighty good people who strive to live up to their consideration of “perfect” and even less do a damn good job of trying. Ron had his personal faults. He could be a SOB sometimes. But my love of him is for his technology and the incredible beingness he could grant others; his capabilities were far greater than anyone I’ve known for a very long time. The critics are just what they set out to be: Critics. Normally IMO they seldom state verifiable facts, and they act on false data. The man can be criticized factually. The Tech cannot.

    • Right On The Money! It is amazing how many people join staff or ‘hang around’ Scientology without really knowing the tech. They just assimilate what they think are his opinions about life based on a comment made here and there and they wouldn’t dream of disagreeing. If Ron said that the best soup to eat was split pea, then tons of so called Scientologist would stock up on split pea. They would chide anyone who disagreed. Yet, they are easily shaken by critical remarks of LRH, the church, dm etc becasue they don’t have the tech under their belt. Even if they have positive experience as a pc, this can be devalued in time by case moving in or by enough 3rd party etc. Using the tech as an auditor is what really sticks.

  83. If the essence of black magic consists of acts of domination or interference with others own efforts to discover and accomplish their own true will then it follows that the current CofS is practicing black magic. Weird…

    • Good for you overall10,
      There is a division between MENTICIDE and BLACK MAGIC.
      Menticide is a deliberate altering of anothers mental faculties
      such as Debbie Cook type torture descibed in her Court testimony.
      Ordering another to bend someones finger backwards to the breaking point, etc. Black Magic is done on a more spiritual level to invoke deitities, entities, or circumstance to disadvantage someone else. There is White Magic , other side of the coin so to speak to enhance self and others. Voo Doo Priests actually warn of dangers using Black Magic because it can and does turn on the user ( Law of Attraction). Corporate Scientology under David Miscavige is a Pyramid Scheme by factual tests and depositions.( The reason why the Justice Dept. has not moved on lesser inditments. )Summarize, dont waste your time sticking pins in your David Miscavige Voo Doo Doll. Corporate Scientology is collapsing under its own wieght of excesses, crimes and mismagement.

      • Yes I will remark that Debbie Cook’s statement one year nearly
        now. Its Worth to mention the severe facts she gave just now
        seems to have been wiped under the carpet forgotton as she is
        in hiding. and Dm remains at the wheels . As it doesn’t appear
        officials took anything up on leads and data given then about
        others which still remain at lardge under the Suppressor.

  84. Dizzy Mizz Lizzy

    I´ve enjoyed reading all the comments here on Wright´s book, with lots of pieces of the puzzle falling into place for me because of your comments. In fact a lot of charge has blown and lots of questions been answered that were bothering me. I feel I have become enlightened. This might never have happened, if Wright hadn´t written his book, so I´m glad he did! I haven´t even read the book – but somehow I feel I don´t need to now.

  85. My feeling is that LRH is the best friend I have ever had. He would get that vote if the only thing he did was develop Scientology which opened my eyes to how life really works and how to improve it. But that is not all he did.

    He presented an ideal scene – something for me to aspire to. He pointed the way to becoming a better person. He taught me that helping and taking responsibility for others is mandatory for a better life. Not just a nice thing to do. He made me believe that I can do it.

    Because of him and by following his example, I am becoming more and more the person I want to be.

    I don’t think it is kind or fair to criticise someone on the pedestrian, grotty things in their life. We don’t criticize fat people because they aspire to be thin, for example. When I think of Ron, I think of the twinkle in his eye as he explains that the “spirit of play” is just the best thing. I think of statements like this one from an OEC tape:

    “The most valuable asset we have, actually, is our ability to understand, to be kind, to be decent,”

    Ron always presented an incredibly theta, adventurous example of how to live a life. He would buy starving Greenwich village artists a meal, audit a bum in the park for hours, promote the beauty and glamor of being a wife and mother and go on exciting maritime adventures. If he met someone with a problem he’d see what he could do. Teach them to do an assist on themselves perhaps. He spent hours and hours and hours lecturing on basics so people could understand and help themselves. He turned himself inside out helping auditors learn to audit. There are so many stories of how he would see someone having a rough time, he’d sit them down and give them a session which they would rave about for years afterward. My observation was that he just enjoyed being in communication with people.

    Maybe someone could prove to me that he lied about something or that things were exaggerated. Or that under pressure in later life he retreated into defensiveness and that caused David Miscavige to go nuts. Or some other stupid thing. Perhaps they can. But they could never change my opinion of Ron, of how much he cared about others and how theta his intentions were. I just love the guy and will remember him for a long time to come.

    • My sentiments also. Thank you, Steve.

    • Excellent; but I wonder if you would feel this way if your daughter, or your wife or your mother or your father or brother, sister, friends completely disowned you if you decided otherwise.

      • Excellent? It’s only been four months since all my friends and sister-in-law decided they are not my friends any more so I still miss them. I am finding new friends though. None of that has anything to do with the character of L. Ron Hubbard.

        • Steve, I really don’t think it was Excellent. And I am truly sorry about your friends, but you know what they were not your friends. They weren’t if they could leave you because someone told them to. I am so sorry.

  86. “Now that the big guns have issued, I can settle down to attempting to deliver something more along that line”

    Marty, it appears you find yourself in the position of being “the right man in the right place at the right time” when it comes to presenting a more balanced view of LRH. That must feel like a huge burden to have on your shoulders and I don’t envy you. What is admirable is the fact that nobody is putting a gun to your head to carry that burden. You are doing it of your own accord. Waiting for all these other big books to come out first was a smart move – you have their research at your disposal now. And coupled with your own research I am sure you will come up with a factual, balanced and important work.

  87. It seems that one is always judged by what they bring to the neighborhood party. Be it Wright and (thank you Marty for the well backed up opinion) or LRH, the effect you experienced by consummation is as varied as well. Proof is in the pudding (are you counting the cliches?) LRH was a writer and his works and subjects varied but in the fields of philosophy and Scientology as a whole they have been shown to work. In my case I agree because I have seen it work. ARC Bill Dupree

  88. Nitpicking about details doesn’t become you. The book made a lot of good points and opened eyes and minds. If there is value in the Tech you show that by the good work and help and healing you have brought people and will bring people, by applying the standard tech the right way, the way it was intended. Don’t sweat the historical inaccuracies of the book just stick to the good work you do.

  89. Get Down with OPP.

    One of the main problems LRH stated in
    a lecture was OPP – Other People’s Problems.

    You see that is why people are so entrubulated,
    PTS/SP and “it’s all about me and the hell with you”
    attitude.

    Talk shows, new programs, newspapers and vatious authors
    push OPP. Ah! The Merchants of Chaos producing treats
    to a persons survival in order to control them and make
    some money – the buck.

    You have the political circus, the religion circus,
    the money circus, just to name a few, who give to the
    three rings to look at while you sit there with you
    own problems and questions about family, money and
    personal survival and salvation in eternity.

    They have the answers they say. We have God, money,
    a leader, direction to solve the problems when
    they deliver only chaos and confusion.

    Here is where disconnection helps with
    SPs and chaos merchants.

    The hell with LRH bios and intrigues, DM and Co$.
    Continue using the data and tech so you can
    see clearly. Otherwise, you will be the
    unfortunate victim of other peoples problems,
    including your own.

  90. “The old man wanted 100% results. He didn’t find a path to them. Thus failed in many promises in his books and writings.”

    I’d like to expand on this that I posted earlier. In some of his earliest
    writings and lectures Ron talks about achieving “Cleared Theta Clear” and
    OT. He thought he’d achieve such things quite soon. He then spent 30+
    years trying to do so. He certainly failed in 100% achieving such states.
    However his successes were manifold and the path he started has not been completed. Looks like others will have to pick up that baton. A
    tremendous task probably beyond the genius of one man. How many great men have led us to the understanding of physics that we now have?

    One might consider that the early statements and definitions were
    apart from anything else ” Positive Postulates” [ ref tech dictionary]
    Or even affirmations. Another interesting link to Magick.

    ” Some modern psychological techniques such as Neuro-Linguistic Programming work on this level have much in common with Chaos Magic.

    This effect is sometimes referred to as “the power of positive thinking”

  91. “Going Clear” and Lawrence Wright are entirely irrelevant to Scientology.

    Who cares what he thinks, or what he wrote?

    The proof is, as always, in the pudding.

    Either the text of Scientology and Dianetics produce helpful results to individuals who apply the procedures faithfully, or they do not.

    It turns out that they do, and every honest person who has enjoyed the benefits of these procedures will not give a flying farthing for the salacious, or even mundane, details of Hubbard’s life.

    Oh, yes, Lawrence Wrigt and “Going Clear” do have the undesireable effect of leading some people who would otherwise have benefitted from Scientology into losing the opportunity “of a lifetime”. But, that is their personal responsibility as much as anything.

    All we can do who have benefitted from Scientology can do is communicate our ‘wins’. Those who want to be victims and to continue to suffer from their own choices will ignore us. Those who really want to improve will LOOK FOR THEMSELVES.

    No Scientologist, no Psychologist, no Social Worker, no Teacher … no one can force help upon others. They have to want it.

    Now we know that Lawrence Wright is a Grade A, Number One “SP”.

    Big surprise.

    Carry on.

  92. Lets just all agree.

  93. Marty,
    There is no better time than now to write about Scientology as you teach it. Where would Scientology be without Miscavige? Why should a Scientologist have to defend Scientology? Does a Christian have to explain why he/she is a baptist as opposed to an episcopalian as opposed to a catholic every time the subject of his or her religion comes up? Why debate the facts of Hubbard’s life? How much of all the debate about Hubbard’s biography, and defending Scientology, the religion, is because Miscavige has spent the last 27 years associating Scientology and Hubbard with RPF “prisons,” beatings, bankruptcy-producing-fundraising, disconnection, enforced abortions and so on. Not only is now the time for your book, but I think now is the time for an Indie to say, ” oh good, you read Wright’s book, now you understand why I left Miscavige’s church. Did you know that Scientology condemns what Miscavige does and that Scientology supports human rights?”

    You know that I am not a Scientologist, yet I know from reading your book and this blog that Scientology is not what Miscavige has presented to the world. Look at the Islamic religion which has taken a terrible beating since 9/11 but still manages to survive and thrive in the US. The average person in the US doesn’t spew bigoted insults about the Islamic religion largely because since 9/11 members of the Islamic community have put themselves in the public eye in order to educate the public on the real tenents of Islamic theology. So, I may be wrong, but I think that instead of focusing on this fact or that fact that Wright may gave gotten wrong tell the media and the public what the Scientology you practice is and why Miscavige and the church are not Scientology. I think It is great that no one from the church is coming forward to talk publicly, that leaves a vacuum for the real Scientologists to fill.

  94. Wright simply said what others who have left already said, e.g. Scobee, Hawkins, Headley, but the difference is THE BOOK IS PUBLISHED BY RANDOM HOUSE. That is huge. He may have made a few errors – I am not sure – Mr. Rathbun is – But on the whole he gave everyone a good picture of life with LRH and his atrocities. And that is a fitting word for what he did with his children and others and the beat goes on with DM. And if he were so all knowing and so smart why did he have a sociopath like DM around at all. His punishments were absurd. I know, I know but this is all about the tech, the tech. Lets just talk about the tech and overlook everything else. I don’t expect this to be posted either.

    • Well, Solace, surprise, surprise, it was posted!

      No. It is not just all about the tech. Have you noticed that you are on an EXTREME whistleblower site? Have you noticed that no one is denying that there were abuses and stupid behaviors and lies and on and on? I haven’t seen anyone deny anything other than sorting through spurious evidence and clearly biased and loaded statements.

      This is a blog for learning. For seeing from multiple points of view. For gaining support from others who understand what it is to experience the joy of insight that auditing can and does bring to many and understand what it is to be confronted with sickening revelations, terrible losses from disconnection and severance, feeling shame, sorrow and distancing, always more distancing. You see, its just more disconnection to denounce everything good and bad because the man was not perfect.

  95. Well was I wrong! About to finish Wright’s book tonight. Read Scobee’s, Headley’s and Hawkins. I found Jeff Hawkins to be inspiring to anyone who has to go through a life altering situation. It is a wonderful book and I applaud him for his courage and all the others who have left and made a new life.

    • Couldn’t agree with you more, Solace. I am not surprised that Marty gave Wright’s book a bad review, as he does not come off too well in it, does he? How can he complain about the unjust harassment and intimidation that the Church have given him, when he has done a lot worse to others in his very long “career” . I think it is called “being a hypocrite”.

      • Pauline, have to agree with you and Solace here. I am a non Scientologist who has taken an interest in the cult over the past couple of years since the release of Tom’s YouTube Rant. I regularly read this blog and others. To me some of the comments here and the attacks on Wrights book seem more sour grapes. Like how dare he have such good pre sales figures – he is not even a real ex-Scientologist. Marty’s last book came and went without a much fanfare – I bought it, but the majority of it I could have just read straight from this blog. The last book that did cause a lot of interest was Blown for Good by Marc Headley. Rinders book is the one that most people outside Scientology wanted written to read, but he didnt capitalise on him ‘moment in the sun’ after his interview(s) with Sweeney.To me it sometimes it seems like everyone here is playing the waiting game. Holding a lot of their knowledge/facts about what actually happened inside Scientology simply because they are waiting for the powerplay when DM eventually dies, steps down or is overthrown. You wouldnt want to tell everything you know because it may affect your place in the new Scientology order.

  96. Although it must be heart-wrenching to leave children behind. I can’t even conceive of it. It really needs to be talked about so it is STOPPED. So if I have come off as obnoxious and I have at times, it is because there are so many people who are at this moment being hurt. It is good that the book was published and that it was published by Random House. I just believe it can only help the people who are hurting now. That’s all folks.

    • Solace, your love and concern ARE both valuable and needed, and you are in good company here amongst the many who lived what you decry, and live with what you decry and they, like most of us, are here because we care — very, very much.

  97. Hi Tony,

    Tony De said:-

    “She said that LRH wrote the book Science of Survival while in Cuba and that he drank an entire bottle of rum while doing so.
    I think anyone whoever read SOS would say that nobody could write a book like that drunk. If he did write it drunk then he is a better man than I thought possible.”

    My comment was part humour and part ” Reductio ad absurben.”

    SOS is around 300 pages. Nor is it some tossed of novel.
    Its one of the key testaments and teachings of our philosophy.

    LRH was fast. Don’t think even he could write this in one night.

    Rum or no rum.

  98. Pingback: Scientology Inc’s Big Brass Ones

  99. Don’t become another cult Marty. You have inspired so many of us.Do your thing and do it well. You will prevail. Leave the rest alone or you will become one of them and then you too will know Karma. You are too good for that.

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