Louis Theroux’s Scientology Movie

 

synopsis at:  yahoo news

I found the film “My Scientology Movie” to be saddening.  It evidences the degeneration of a once considerable talent, award-winning producer Simon Chinn. During my involvement in the movie’s creation I witnessed Chinn being sucked into the staged-news, infotainment vortex that seems to have consumed the erstwhile Fourth Estate.  I will share a back story to the project to illustrate the concern.

In 2012 Chinn flew from the UK to my home in remote, South Texas. He and an associate producer spent an afternoon pitching my involvement in a proposed documentary. He said his film would break the cookie-cutter mold of Scientology projects to that date. That was, the lazy method of highlighting and rehashing what has been alleged before and doing some gratuitous baiting and button pushing of Scientologists to provoke aggressive responses. Chinn assured me the project would be closely supervised by him from beginning to end so that it would primarily serve as a vehicle to portray my insights into the philosophical basis of Scientology learned from practicing it for nearly thirty years within the organization and another several years outside of Church of Scientology control. He sold me on the idea of chronicling my evolution from fighting for the church, then against it and finally advocating that people transcend from fights about Scientology altogether.

Chinn effectively stalked me for the next two years while he secured funding for the project, repeatedly reiterating the purpose and nature of the planned work. That included sending Louis Theroux and the assistant producer to Texas the next year to spend two days beseeching me to stay committed to the project. Because of Chinn’s continual promotion of his previous serious documentary work and our original agreements, I wound up spending nearly one hundred hours on film explaining and demonstrating what Scientology is, its origins, its historical and philosophical context and its battles from both sides of the divide.

That extended filming was interrupted repeatedly by Theroux’s recurring attempts to use me as bait to incite the wrath of the Church of Scientology. When Theroux persisted with those efforts, his and director John Dower’s promises that none of that horseplay would make it into the film began to ring hollow. At that point I expressed my intention to cease work on the project.

Simon Chinn flew from London to Los Angeles to assuage my concerns and reassure me that his original representations would be fully honored, and that Theroux’s vanity theatrics would not make the cut in the movie. I informed Chinn, Dower and Theroux that the latter’s antics were not only unprofessional but they had already been performed twice by a BBC personality in the past couple of years. We discussed John Sweeny’s BBC Panorama ‘documentaries’ as consisting almost entirely of Sweeny attempting to poke sticks in Scientologists’ eyes to get them to react on camera. All three acted offended that I would compare their work to that of Mr. Sweeny whom they characterized as being more of a publicity hound than journalist. Chinn again warranted that that was not the purpose of his project and no hint of it would find its way into the film.

When nearly two years later I saw the product, “My Scientology Movie”, which clearly referred to being Louis Theroux’s personal movie, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Chinn had regressed into a tabloid hack, Mr. Theroux remained the ass clown Chinn had represented he would not be, and Mr. Dower was a rimless zero – a lackey assigned to pretend to ‘direct’ while he did nothing more than provide plausible deniability that ‘My Scientology Movie’ was something other than the latest unoriginal Theroux-shtick vehicle aimed at clowning with scientology.

More troubling was the promotional roll out and press junket behaviors of Chinn, Theroux and Dower.  The three repeatedly flat out lied to the press on two scores. First, they represented that they genuinely undertook the mission of understanding the core of Scientology practice and its appeal and portraying it. The film does not even begin to attempt to do such. None of the dozens of hours I spent attempting to impart that understanding appeared. Significantly, my views on Scientology were as antagonistic to the subject as they had ever been during the filming.  So, the mass editing cannot be written off as avoiding Scientology public relations or promotional pitches; clarity – no matter how non-partisan – could play no part in a movie purporting to bring clarity to the widely misunderstood subject. Second, they represented that they were stalked and harassed by scientology agents for doing nothing but attempting to carry out the mission they never even attempted to carry out.

In fact, I witnessed Theroux and Dower stalk and harass Scientologists repeatedly with no sign that the Scientologists were interested in the bait. Theroux went so far as to relocate to Los Angeles from London for an entire year, residing near to Scientology premises and regularly and loudly cavorting with Anti-Scientologists. When I pointed out to him his failure to provoke the Church of Scientology notwithstanding such extraordinary efforts, he acknowledged that that was his intent and that the effort had been made in vain.

The jiggery-pokery Theroux and Dower attempted in provoking Scientologists – and were called out for in real time as I witnessed it – was legion. For example, on my first of several visits to Los Angeles, they put me up in a motel that was less than a block from the office and apartment of Scientology leader David Miscavige. I chastised them for obviously attempting to use my unnaturally close proximity to bait scientology. Theroux’s response was his trademark impish smirk. Dower profusely apologized for Theroux’s obvious childish shenanigans. Over the next several months of filming sessions, Theroux repeatedly attempted to convince me to do drive bys and walk ups to scientology facilities. On each occasion I noted that such pranks violated Chinn’s original agreements – the provocation route had been done several times before by tabloid types posing as journalists and he expressly guaranteed this project was not going there. After I refused on a number of occasions, Theroux and Dower found other ‘talent’ who was willing to partner with Theroux during his spates of juvenile delinquency.

The Scientology encounters that Theroux himself initiated were so weak in terms of peculiar scientology behavior that he and Dower resorted to creating and acting out a scene where they discussed the possibility that scientology agents were following them. The basis for the suspicion they discussed in the film had already been admitted by them to me as no basis at all for suspicion. That admission of course was edited out of the film.

Late in the project I learned that Theroux and Dower had made gratuitous representations to Church of Scientology lawyers detailing my involvement in the film. There could be no other purpose to the correspondence I reviewed than to incite the Church of Scientology to look into what I was up to. Several years into the project Theroux and Dower finally got their wish. They were able to capture Scientologists filming and confronting me during my trips to Los Angeles. Theroux and Dower reacted with a mix of relief and glee. Chinn even referred to the confrontations and their fallout as the saving grace of an otherwise potentially failed project. He effectively stated to the press that every representation that he made to me over a four-year period about the purpose and substance of the film was false and fraudulent. He stated the film was salvaged by the Church of Scientology finally taking me as bait and my venting on Theroux on film for his having used me as bait. The latter was carefully edited to ensure that the truth of Theroux’s duplicity was not included, and instead paint me as somehow duplicitous.

In the light of these facts, I find it pathetic that media positions Theroux and Dower as exhibiting some level of bravery for having incurred the wrath of scientology.  They never did incur such wrath despite years of attempting to through sophomoric capers.

All of the infotainment play-acting by Theroux diverts attention from perhaps the greatest fraud perpetrated by Theroux and company. The film centers on a purported re-creation of a scene where Scientology leader David Miscavige blows his top in a conference room. The ‘re-creation’ was in fact a creation. Even though they worked with me for a year on that scene, I was not able to submit a script for an actual past occurrence to ‘re-create’ that could pass Theroux’s standards for lurid and shocking theater. The ‘re-creation’ portrayed is an ad lib by actors who had been conditioned for months by Theroux to disdain and fear Scientology.

I did have input on the final scene. Upon reflection however, perhaps I had too much input. Viewing it as objectively as possible I see the final edit containing quite a bit of me projecting my own behavior on Miscavige. That my own personality would rub off on the principle actor is not surprising given the extraordinary amount of hours Theroux and Dower had him spend with me over a year-long period.

At the end of the day, My Scientology Movie brings nothing intelligent to public discussion on Scientology. If you have shallow, preconceived and perhaps bigoted notions about Scientology and are the type who loves laughing out loud at the misfortunes or perceived imperfections of others, then you may get a kick out of ‘My Scientology Movie.’ If you wish to learn anything about the subject the movie will be an utter waste of your time, as much as I consider that my participation in the project was a waste of my time.

302 responses to “Louis Theroux’s Scientology Movie

  1. “…and finally advocating that people transcend from fights about Scientology altogether.”

    I was going to comment that the above statement should help resolve all the confusion and speculation being expressed by posters who find it so mysterious as to where you’re coming from in recent blog posts. (Not that you haven’t already stated it in various other ways for a good while.) However, it probably won’t do much for anyone who is still stuck in black-and-white or us-vs.-them thinking.

  2. I’m curious if when the film comes out on DVD, I won’t watch it until it does, and buy it then, and study it.

    From the clips I have seen of the movie so far, I will wish to ask your thoughts on Miscavige’s actor’s acting, and specifically which moments of history shown in the film are the closest to actual history.

    Long range, the future researchers of Scientology are the ones I think will need the senior ex members’ hindsights well summarized and expressed.

    I appreciate all your thoughts, and hope you in later years summarize your thoughts.

    Of this movie, will there be anything future researchers should take note of?

    Your blog article today paints some very good critical points.

    But will any of the scenes in this movie we worthy of future expert researchers of Scientology to appreciate.

    Especially so that experts do take note of any of the parts of this movie that you did put your valuable input into.

    No need to answer now, but in the weeks or months ahead, as this movie rolls out, as this movie makes its way to DVD and then can be scrutinized minute by minute, as an “expert” of history, I’d be interested in your thoughts of anything positive that future researchers ought to take note of that is in this film.

    • Once Upon a Time

      Chuck, you have been talking about scholars for as long as I remember. Unfortunately, the only scholars that will quench your vindictive thirst are the biased ones.

  3. Interesting.
    Theroux’s style has always grated on me, but I was curious to see if he’d find new info/or bring a different perspective to the subject.The fact that there was never release date, and that project dragged on, seemed like bad signs.
    It also seemed funny that there were no cast interviews, or promo stuff going round.
    When I heard the wacky ‘other people acting as prominent Scientologists’ idea, it felt like he’d gotten no film, so decided to go this way. But, I was hoping he just decided to try something completely different than anything he’d done before.
    Sadly, looks like the former.
    Hopefully you, and the others who gave them time, got paid.

  4. IMO, Theroux said it all in the first sentence of one of his interviews about the film. He said something like “religion is like Heinekin” ( the beer). I have watched Theroux often. Theroux holds nothing sacred. How could he empathetically do any story about any religion? It takes a special type of mind to equate religion with beer. I saw him interview Evangelicals in Dallas. He starts with the assumption that they are fanatics. His greatest film was doing interviews with the space alien watchers in Nevada. This fits his style and it was a very funny film.
    Theroux is typical of the “bright mind” trying to penetrate the truth of behavior with a camera. Actually it was more interesting to watch his own interviews. He seems to try to play the part of the genius while the interviewers grope for the “deeper meaning” that escaped the camera this time.
    Don’t see Theroux doing anything great about Scientology until he calms his own mind.

  5. Evidently Theroux has been influenced by too many “reality” shows, in which manufactured conflict is a necessary element for marketing and promotion. All these are indulgent, voyeuristic crap. Reading this post, I don’t doubt for a minute that this has occurred with this “documentary”. Scientology has now become a cottage industry, .so unless Ken Burns decides to take a look at the subject, the future for a substantial unbiased treatment appears dim. Sorry you were hornswoggled, but after almost 50 years in the film and television industry, it doesn’t surprise me. It is an industry rife with hornswogglers.

  6. Thank you for this, Marty. Everything I read, see and witness scientological since my departure in August 2014 helps me work in becoming more myself again. I’ve been observing what has occurred recently through your blog and others. It’s all a learning experience; I enjoy the opportunity to see it all first-hand.

    Fred G, Haseney & JennyAtLAX

  7. Marty,
    For what it’s worth, it seems to me that most people are trying to determine if you are for or against Scientology. You have written your own harrowing story followed by another book detailing how Scientology should be reformed, given many interviews and were in Alex Gibney’s excellent documentary. Your wife’s lawsuit against Scientology was avidly followed by many, many people (myself included) who were thrilled by the prospect of DM being compelled to testify. Then suddenly Monique withdrew her suit. People were stunned. This was followed by speculation that you and she were somehow paid off or wooed back into the fold. There was even a rumor that you had gone to the UK to audit Tom Cruise who had “lost it.” Now your post expressing distaste for anti Scientology bigots and “My Scientology Movie” is in the mix. So, people are confused, “is you is or is you aint Scientology’s baby?”

    I get you have pointed out there are more than two ways to view Scientology, or anything else for that matter, and certainly bigotry about Scientology exists on many levels.

    It is important to note, however, that ex Scientologists are not bigots. They are survivors. The bigots who jump on the anti Scientology bandwagon with no or very little first-hand knowledge to join in the fun of trashing DM, “sheeple,” etc., ARE annoying. Then there are people who have been attacked by Scientology after looking into it, like Paulette Cooper and Paul Krassner. Bigots? Not really.

    It makes sense that you might want to ride off into the sunset with your family and leave all things Scientology behind you. But like Shane, some people will still be gunning for you to make a name for themselves, in or out of the church. So why not end the suspense and plainly state your actual position?

    • Kathy: “For what it’s worth, it seems to me that most people are trying to determine if you are for or against Scientology.”

      Quote from the blog post:
      “He sold me on the idea of chronicling my evolution from fighting for the church, then against it and finally advocating that people transcend from fights about Scientology altogether.”

      He spells out his evolution right there, to where he is now “advocating that people transcend from fights about Scientology altogether.”

      Of course, to my understanding, that doesn’t mean he won’t stand up for himself and others where either scientologists or anti-scientologists are concerned, whether they’re fighting or not fighting.

      • I find it amazing that so few actually read and consider what is written. I respond to you because obviously you did. From my perspective, my confidence and credibility factors began a steady decline in both indie and anti camps with a single post I published on 23 December 2012, Christmas. It was the beginning of the end for me – no matter how many times I repeated it in different ways and forms thereafter, indie and anti were convinced I was joshing and had to instead interpret every utterance on some arbitrary us vs them scale. I’m long since done with trying to convince anyone anymore. As I noted several posts ago – I am doing nothing but housekeeping, trying to leave the place with nothing left undone or unsaid.

        • Marty: “As I noted several posts ago – I am doing nothing but housekeeping, trying to leave the place with nothing left undone or unsaid.”

          Hope you enjoy it and that it’s as beneficial to you as the rest of us.

        • From Mike McClaughry –

          Hello Mark.

          Many of the core teachings attributed to Jesus are either grossly misunderstood or outright misrepresented. I agree with many of the words imputed to Jesus, and I also understand where they have been misunderstood. As in the case of “Love thy Enemy”, most people’s understanding of this is far too shallow. He meant love the real person underlying however many constructs the person has placed on top of that. There is no love possible nor deserved (beyond a fleeting admiration for the quality of the creation) for any construct or narrow confines of crappy substitutes, since those are mere aspects – never the person themselves in full.

          You wrote:

          “…trying to leave the place with nothing left undone or unsaid.”

          I would like to ask you what you may know about any of the specifics of black operations that have been run towards me, my wife, my family etc., and who were/are the agents involved – their names.

          It would help me to dead-agent* their efforts with their targets, my children, for example.

          * “break the spell”, as Oracle put it on your Ruthless Review post
          (which I responded to today).

          Either a public or private answer would serve, but a public one is harder to discount.

        • I (re)read your Dec ’12 Christmas and learned something very important.

          The entire post sailed right over my head even though Brene Brown is one of my favorites …

          And why did it sail? Because 2012 was the year the disappeared for me. I was so mired down in my own outrageous attempt to MAKE my world be as I wanted it — to change things that would not or could not or didn’t want to change that I couldn’t hear or see a word outside of my bubble.

          Had I been more awake, less frantic and upset perhaps I would have heard your words in your Christmas post.

          Perhaps it wouldn’t have taken me another 4 years to FINALLY get what I feel is important about this entire me/them/he/she/others/alt-scio/OSA/antiOSA etc …

          “It’s only with the heart that one can see rightly; What is essential is invisible to the eye.” The Little Prince Saint-Exupery

          Love to you, Monique and Billy (my B-day twin!!)

          Windhorse

      • Thank you, Marildi. That was nice.

    • Kathy, I have followed this blog from early on and I do feel confused or perplexed at all. He has stated his position and view on various aspects of the subject over the years. There is no yes or no answer that covers it all if your a thinking sentient person. I recall one time where Marty said he would not recommend Scientology as a path. And then when he does not agree with the way or the wisdom behind a man trashing his kid in a book, your confused. Why? What is the conflict. I could tell from the Bunkers own updates on this movie that it was going to be crap. Not surprised at all that Marty wants to distance himself from it and regrets any involvement. Since you bring up Shane, recall little Joey’s last lines: “Mommy wants you Shane, I know she does”. Well, Shane cannot give Mommy what she wants for many good and noble reasons. You say no one can blame Marty for wanting to ride off into the sunset. But yet you ask for a black and white final pronouncement on Scientology. That will never happen because it does not exist. If that is something you need, I suggest you think for yourself and make up your own mind. If its something you think you will get Marty to say for some other agenda, good luck with that. You have not been paying any attention to what this man has been writing for years now. Your not coming close to understanding it. Reread this Blogs posts and you will have your answer. Not the comments, just the posts Mary leads off with.

      • Salamander – picking upon what you’re saying here –

        The university I attended once sponsored a debate between William F. Buckley Jr. and Norman Thomas. Buckley was an arch conservative and Thomas was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

        I don’t remember details, but refecting back I recall that even with diametrically opposed ideas, each man was able to duplicate the viewpoints of the other and respond.

        So duplication would precede understanding and possible compromise can exist. If someone wants to practice some aspects of scn in the field, go ahead, without contemptuous sneers from uniformed or misinformed outsiders.

        For myself, I already know enough about scn and LRH. I’m interested in the many other subjects discussed on this blog.

        • Richard, I think we have a lot of sane people who post here. They can understand both sides of an issue, or at least are willing to hear both sides. The can come away with some deeper understanding, and perhaps a shift in their own position. Others seek reinforcement of their views or are simply forwarding an agenda or fixed idea. Heres to our always being able to tell the difference.

    • Dear Kathy,

      Please allow me to explain. Marty does not even know. He is in the lower conditions – that being confusion. The formula is: “Find out where you are.” However he needs the additional step to this condition. The additional step is a ‘Locational.’ The only problem I see is this may not work for such a troubled case. He is psychotic.
      Guy

      • If he is psychotic, what does that make you? Straight up evil. Gaslighting and mind fucking. You would come up a notch if you went type 3.

    • “For or against”. “In or out”. “Helping, or harming attacking or suppressing”?

      Not every one is an extremist. You can’t bully everyone into being one. It’s never going to happen.

  8. To me, that’s because it’s the #1 cover choice for the scientology intelligence operation. The wacky science-fiction cult by the occultist pill-popping Hubbard – almost exactly like MI6 agent Aleister Crowley’s outward persona.

    The same cartoonish, galumphing character portrayal of Hubbard is actually also present within the Church of Scientology. Hubbard the galactic hero rising above the trap to save humanity. That one was specifically created by Hubbard himself, starting way back in the 1950’s and continuing on out from there, with additions to the “galactic true history” being added/plagiarized as he went along.

    – Virginia

  9. Veranda Millicent Smartwater

    You whore. I’m sorry I ever defended you. Traitor. Sellout. Evil son of a bitch. Hope you choke on your thirty pieces of silver.

    • If Mark actually did sell out, as you say, then I might agree with you. But not like this, in some sort of lynch-mob mentality whipped up by a few well-placed snide comments and semi-twisted facts.

      Try providing some actual evidence and I might listen to you, but I gotta tell ya – I’ve seen everything here, and everything at ESMB and whatever Ortega has presented and it’s most definitely not enough for a “conviction”.

      In fact, the proof, in my opinion is running in the OTHER direction.

      Surely you don’t want to add to that river of shit that’s making y’all look far more guilty of something than Mark is…

    • Please don’t hold back and tell us how you really feel!

  10. So there you have it folks. Marty is done with hating scientology, hating anti scientology, hating altogether. If you do decide to tell your story in book, audio, movie or any form, go to Marty first because he can, with no bias whatsoever, inform you on exactly how you should tell your story to not only present it truthfully but also make it acceptable for the ascendance of mankind.

    • Hi George – Not relating specifically to your comment, but I find it refreshing that someone can finally make an anti-Marty comment without being corrected.🙂

  11. Marty, just reread your post from 23 Dec 2012. Superb concept and one I’m working on at the moment myself, believe it or not.

  12. I am sorry to read this, Marty, as I was hoping at last to see something produced for a general audience that presented the subject in an intelligent manner.

  13. Louis Theroux was talking about this documentary on the Joe Rogan Podcast last week. It was entirely what I expected from a middle class, liberal, London atheist/materialist.. He sniggered at the idea of past lives as if it were obviously ridiculous (which it is to a funda-materialist) and he is clearly coming from a position of boilerplate materialism. (Sweeny’s documentary was indeed also tabloid trash yet he is lauded by the Guardian etc precisely for being so snarky in it).

    My reticence about some Ortega-style Scn criticism is that it too comes from a place of cult think, unwittingly.

  14. From the beginning I was sceptical about this film by Louis Theroux. I suggested it had more to do with Louis himself, than a honest image of Scientology. The ‘Theroux style’ is past its shelf-life. With his clever tactic of reversed psychology he manipulates people. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn’t. But it is always voyeuristic. What does that say about Louis Theroux?

  15. Andrea 'i-Betty' Garner

    Hi Marty, I was at the London premiere of My Scientology Movie. During the subsequent Q&A someone asked whether you had watched the movie and were happy with how it had turned out. Either Louis or Simon Chinn read from a letter you had sent them where you said (I paraphrase, but there is online video of the Q&A if anyone wishes to clarify) you had enjoyed the copy of the movie they had sent you for personal viewing and were happy with the result. I would be interested to know what has changed your mind in the interim.

    • I think I might have actually seen that. If it’s what I’m thinking of though, it seems to me there was an element of sarcasm involved about Mark’s response.

      • Andrea 'i-Betty' Garner

        Many thanks for your reply. Whoever read the snippet from Marty’s letter simply stated that he enjoyed the film and was happy with the result so I don’t really think any sarcasm can be inferred from those few written words. But of course I didn’t see the letter so perhaps Marty had included a series of exclamation marks at the end of his sentence or drawn a little furious face with devil horns🙂 I think Marty would be far more likely to state precisely what he meant in his letter: that he was very unhappy with the outcome of the film, if that was how he felt, as it is tricky to convey “tone” with the written word and am sure he wouldn’t have wanted there to be any room for doubt.

        • I was referring to the “delivery” not necessarily the words themselves. I have a number of friends who are from the UK who do it (sarcasm) so subtly it’s easy to miss for us Yanks, which is part of why my friends crack me up so much when they do it. It’s SO dry.

          But I could be wrong in my take on what happened, because of that kind of subtlety, it’s so barely there it’s meant to be missed by anyone not really paying attention. (which I think is the inside joke of it all for the one doing it).

          Virginia

  16. I will be forever grateful to you and Mike Rinder for helping to produce the original Truth Rundown interviews created by the SP Times and the blog that you had originated with video of you and Mike. All of this helped strengthen me and gave me the courage to be myself and no longer be the effect of Scientology or it’s personnel. Again, thank you Marty and I pray that you and your family have a peaceful and prosperous future.

  17. In Theroux’s defense, he has a long track record and consistent methodology and style. His “grown-up schoolboy” persona often disarms his subject, allowing him to peek behind the curtain. Throughout, the ever present dry British humor.

    So, why on earth would you be disappointed that My Scientology Movie was not a serious philosophic examination of the subject? Did you not view his earlier works before signing up?

    When I heard Theroux was tackling the subject I knew exactly what to expect.

    From what you describe, this apparently was a business agreement you had with Theroux and the producers. Did you have a contract? Were there stipulations about content control? Did you invest money in film production? Or were you employed by them? If you had a contract, are they in breach of contract?

    If not, well…gosh.

    Make your own movie.

    • Good points, statpush.

      Louis Theroux has his own distinct style. Anyone wishing to get involved with him in the making of a documentary will have plenty of opportunity to learn how he does things. If you don’t like it, don’t get involved.

      Did he look to ‘sex things up’ or try to provoke a reaction from the cult? I expect he did. No one can afford to ignore the financial realties of making (and selling) a documentary. But does it inform as well as entertain us?

      I will reserve judgement until I have seen the documentary in question…

    • Thank you for a rational response statpush.

    • While directing movie scenes of Miscavige blowing his top Marty thought Theroux was creating a serious philosophic examination of the subject.

  18. Well, we….the collective we plus Marty….are being accused of attacking Karen De la Carriere now. Doing my best Johnny Carson impersonation…”I did not know that”.

    I have read every sentence of Marty’s posts over the past several months including the most recent ones. I don’t recall one disparaging word against Karen. I have not read every post by every poster though so I suppose that someone attacked Karen, and then if Marty let it go past moderating then he his guilty by default. Can someone help me out here? Are we supposed to be attacking Karen now? Did I not get the Dispatch from COB? Or from the PIs that he regularly talks with? Lol…..

    • Marty has never harmed, attacked, or suppressed Karen. Some people are mocking it up, but Marty isn’t mocking it up.

      Not the only invention this week to discredit him. Mean spirited people swarming all over ESMB and Tony’s blog. When there is no new blood spill, they invent it. Sadism must be worse than a heroin habit. You never duplicate that first high again, It gets less and less. People are just thirsty for some blood spill.

      If David Miscavige dropped dead tomorrow, and the doors to the Church closed. the on lookers and protesters would turn on one another and gobble each other up. There is a feeding frenzy going on right now. I read your post that Ortega had to call an HCO bring order on his blog. Laughter! Given any excuse, they will turn on him and smoke him like a Jamaican joint. He has no idea what he has unleashed, nurtured and coddled. 2FF!

  19. For years the CoS has claimed that it was not DM who was violent, but you. With your statement about scenes depicting DM’s wrath and treatment of others you now write, “I see the final edit containing quite a bit of me projecting my own behavior on Miscavige.” Are you validating that accusations the CoS has made about you all these years? Is David Miscavige violent and abusive towards his staff or not?

  20. I believe doing some thing as opposed to no thing is always better and is helpful. Thanks Marty for doing something.

  21. A while back I checked in on Marty’s blog and found a ground war in play between he and his followers and Tony Ortega and his followers. I was totally confused, even a bit saddened. I thought the well-informed were all on the same page with a common goal, mission and foe. I had even posted a comment quoting Sun Su’s tag line ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ and Marty actually deleted my comment! That really surprised me. But I digress. I find Marty’s writing to be incredibly cerebral, insightful and potent. However, despite the oft pointed prose, there is always a vagueness or mercurial nature to where he truly stands on the broader topic. It’s like he is confidently unsure.

    We need a ‘Marty Manifesto’ to finally know not where he’s coming from, but rather where he wants to go. I, for one, would love to read it. Whatever any declared direction may reveal it wouldn’t effect my personal option of him (I am an admitted fan) because I am enamored by character and one’s [his] desire to do the right thing and follow one’s [his] heart. Especially when one’s character is strong enough that to do so abdicates gains like wealth and celebrity (as I believe Marty has done many times and is well illustrated by his position of this film).

    But I, and I believe others, would like to know: are you going to create a Scientology permutation, a religion-less philosophical version or move to eradicate part or all of it? It’s time to take pen to paper and begin the next chapter with the Marty Manifesto.

  22. Fans of Jerry Springer might leave the theater saying “Man, that Rathbun dude was (fill in the blank)”. In a few days they’ll be looking for their next giggle and Mark will be forgotten.

    Others looking for more information or curious would probably do what I did after watching Going Clear and google Mark Rathbun and land on this blog. Whatever their interest is, whether in Mark himself or scn, they will certainly become informed and enjoy the diversity of discussion here. I think Mark will have an influx of new readers if he keeps the blog going.

    • “I think Mark will have an influx of new readers if he keeps the blog going.”

      To speculate further, Marty’s experience with scientology may turn out to be an effective takeoff point for positive impact that is much broader.

      This brings to mind an interview of Eckhart Tolle (a nondualist, btw) that I recently read. Here’s an excerpt:

      “The essential factor in therapy is the state of consciousness of the therapist, regardless of the modality that the therapist is using. One would think that a psychotherapy such as Jungian has much more of a spiritual dimension to it than Freudian, for example. To some extent that’s true, but the actual method or modality used is really secondary. The primary factor is the state of consciousness of the therapist.

      “Even in certain modalities that one would not describe as spiritual at all, there are some therapists who after years of applying their modality will suddenly develop—often without even knowing it—the ability to simply be there and listen. So, to some extent, they let go of trying to apply the particular grid or map that they have learned and applied to that particular person’s situation and they suddenly just go into spacious listening.

      “And then whatever they contribute becomes more spontaneous. They no longer just apply what they have learned to the patient/therapist situation. They go beyond what they have learned and in many cases almost forget completely what they have learned. It’s only then that they become truly effective therapists.

      “If they simply apply the acquired knowledge—even if the acquired knowledge seems to have a spiritual dimension to it—that’s all very good but more importantly is the therapist able to let go of their knowledge? It’s good that they had the knowledge first. They still might use fragments of their knowledge in the therapy situation, but the primary tool becomes awareness.”

      http://communicate.eckharttolle.com/news/2016/08/16/do-you-regard-psychotherapy-or-counseling-as-useful/

      • Hi Miraldi – At the bottom of the site was a Tolle quote “Sometimes letting things go is an act of far greater power than defending or hanging on.” That’s been said before but it’s worth repeating.

        In the article, speaking of one’s “unconscious patterns”, Tolle says “Level one of self-knowledge is to become aware of your own patterns . . . ” Later on he says “Level two of self-knowledge is to know who you are beyond the patterns.” So in essence one would need to follow his writings, teachings or path to gain benefits since its unlikely I could sit down and look for my own “unconscious patterns”. I’m sure he elaborates in his teachings.

        Mooji, Adyashanti and Gangaji to me are more simplistic and intuitive, although for various reasons I see that they wouldn’t resonate with a lot of people. An intellectual thinker would want more words and concepts to ponder. A Theraveda Buddhist might say nondualism with its idea of sudden awakening lacks foundation. An objectivist would obviously have disagreements. As the saying goes, there are many paths to the top of the mountain – laughter

        Regarding the state of consciousness of the therapist providing superior benefits,I think that’s self evident. A distant or uncaring therapist just in it for the money might or might not provide benefits to a client/patient depending on procedures used. I can see that a newbie to, let’s call it Spiritual Seeking, would find many new concepts from Tolle, much like a newbie in scn.

        • Richard: “Regarding the state of consciousness of the therapist providing superior benefits,I think that’s self evident. A distant or uncaring therapist just in it for the money might or might not provide benefits to a client/patient depending on procedures used.”

          I’ve watched a number of Eckhart Tolle’s videos and what I understand him to mean is unrelated to “procedures used,” as per the last paragraph of that interview transcript:

          “To sum up, you could have no knowledge whatsoever of therapy and start working with people and just be present. It would be quite enough, and then the correct answers would come through you and you would be a wonderful reflection for that person. So, the absolute prerequisite to being an effective therapist is presence—to be able to be the awareness; to offer the patient or client the space of awareness. You will intuitively say what is needed if you are present.”

          The last sentence is what I thought was compelling: “You will intuitively say what is needed if you are present.”

          As regards what he said about “Level 1” and “Level 2”, I picked out the 10-minute video below that pretty much sums up his teaching. It really isn’t complex or much different (if different at all) from Adya’s and Mooji’s teachings. Level 1 “patterns” make up the ego and Level 2 is the true “self.”

          The other thing he talks about briefly in this vid is how we create our own reality. It ties in with the link Valkov posted regarding “Ain’t it awful.”

          • Good video – thanks – He’s using some of his own terminology to express nondualism teaching. As in “The many branched tree of Buddhism” as expressed in a book I have, there would be different slants to nondualism.

            Any “therapy” would have a format by definition. Without any format someone would be relying on a guru or healer, so to speak. I’ll listen to more of Tolle, but for now, just for fun:

            (from above) “To sum up, you could have have no knowledge whatsover of therapy and start working with people and just be present.”

            Flunk!! – Squirrel Auditing!! Guru-Land!!

            Some people might remember Rajneesh, also known as Osho. He was the dude that accumulated 93 Rolls Royces at his ashram in Oregon. He was later kicked out of the U.S. and went back to India. Here’s something that might be of interest to some ex-scios. It’s from the bottom of a wiki entry on “Rajneesh movement”:

            (After Osho’s death) “One of the central disagreements related to OIF’s (Osho International Foundation’s) copyright control over his works. One group, Osho Friends International, spent 10 years challenging the OIF’s use of the title OSHO as an exclusive trademark. In the United States on 13 January 2009, the exclusive rights that OIF held over the trademark were finally lost.”

            • Richard: “(from above) ‘To sum up, you could have have no knowledge whatsover of therapy and start working with people and just be present.’ Flunk!! – Squirrel Auditing!! Guru-Land!!”

              LOL😀

              However, Ron said virtually the same thing: i.e. that beingness alone would get results and that the 20% of practitioners who did – did so for that reason, basically. But Ron was going for 100% results and at least came closer than 20%, IMHO.

              Back to nondualism, I would agree that there are different slants. Each teacher makes it his own – as it should be. Anyway, I think you’ll like Eckhart Tolle.

              Wow – interesting data about the Osho organizations with regard to copyright control of his works. Independents should take note of the precedent.

  23. Marty – Congratulations on the new job!! Good to see you back on COB’s payroll shilling for Scientology. You rock!!

    • I know firsthand how the subject of Scn can polarize a discussion. For many it is an emotional topic. If it weren’t you probably wouldn’t be here. But, this does not justify reducing oneself to an emotional 12 year old.

      Rationale and reason can co-exist with emotional subjects. Ironically, the practice of Scn is supposed to increase ones ability to reason; yet, far too often it is these very practitioners who display a lack of emotional maturity.

      So someone changes their mind or alters their viewpoint? Deal with it. Why attack it? Are you angry because you can’t? If your view of Scn isn’t changing you’re doing something wrong.

      Fixation is one of the factors which got you stuck in Scn. It is equally true in the ASC camp.

      Fighting and attacking are in Scn’s DNA. Fighting the “bank”, destroying the psychs, battling drug addiction…on and on, all orchestrated by a para-military group of Scn warriors.

      Enough.

      Since leaving Scn I have very little hate in my life, very little drama. I can see a day when I will have very little interest in the church or of Scn. Maybe I’ll just run out of things to say.

      • Just run up and kicks someone in the balls and runs away. No confront. No responsibility. Obviously impressed with a television series Broke Bad criminal. Probably feels worse about himself, than he will ever feel about someone else.

  24. Tony Ortega gets Steven Mango – who was at the filming but did not know Miscavige – and Tom DeVocht – who knows David Miscavige but was not at the filming – to dispute Mark Rathbun’s criticism of Louis Theroux for rejecting all his scripts for a year because they were not lurid enough.

    Once again, Tony Ortega’s bias and misunderstanding of a situation gets everyone into a kerfuffle.

    Why isn’t Tony asking the question: “Who writes lurid and dramatic scenes for a documentary? Isn’t that supposed to be for fictional movies? And who improvises scenes for a documentary?”

    I’ll tell you why Tony Ortega isn’t asking those questions: Even though Tony Ortega believes himself to be a “non-believer” he is acting exactly like Marty is dragging his religious beliefs through the mud when Marty says that David Miscavige was not as violent and insane as depicted in the “documentary”.

    This is blasphemy to Ortega and to the whole anti-Scientology ecclesiastical religion!

    Ortega acts like a Scientologist does when you tell them that L Ron Hubbard was not a war hero. The spittle starts spewing onto his chin and he immediately grabs other Scientologists to prove that Marty is an SP Plant who is working for the Psychs!

    This whole thing is hilarious. It is a master-work of heretical subversion, Marty. You have produced the exact thought-grenade necessary to get the bees buzzing in all of their ideological bonnets.

    And all you are doing is telling the truth as you see it.

    From one heretic to another, Marty – Brav-o!

    Alanzo

    • Good post, Al. I would add one thing to what you wrote here:

      “Ortega acts like a Scientologist does when you tell them that L Ron Hubbard was not a war hero.”

      He also acts like the anti-scientologist he is if anything positive is said about the subject of scientology or Hubbard – such as his mocking and making nothing of success stories.

    • Well what the heck is Tony supposed to do when Marty refuses to answer his or anybody’s questions? Wait, not true, he gave the usual cryptic answer about cog dis and paranoia. I see absolutely *nothing* wrong with asking those two people their thoughts.
      As for the re-enactments that was inspired by an earlier documentary called The Act of Killing. Marty, you should watch it.

    • Do you believe that there could be OSA dropping hints to Marty without his realizing it? Now think on this for a moment before replying. Marty was involved in inside operations during his three decades inside scientology and became very aware of how those operations were run. You tune this ability to a point where you know them in and out, awake or sleeping and you become pretty self confident. You couple that with an expanding self importance and you may come to the belief that you could never be visited by this sort of operation unbeknownst to you. That surety of knowing you can never fall into that trap can be your worst enemy. You could live by some rule akin to “Always expect the unexpected”, but remember the unexpected can be a vast universe.
      Looking at both sides isn’t enough because with scientology involved there are more side than just both.

      • “Looking at both sides isn’t enough because with scientology involved there are more sides than just both.

        That’s a good point, George.

        But you have to remember that the hypothesis that “Marty is working for OSA” is only one of many possible scenarios.

        And although it is the favorite hypothesis if you read Tony Ortega or ESMB, it certainly isn’t the only possible hypothesis that explains the real truth behind what Marty is doing.

        There are other, much simpler and more grounded hypotheses to consider. Such as “Marty is telling the truth as he sees it and he doesn’t care who ‘wins’ or ‘loses’ from that.”

        Or

        “Marty has seen and spoke to enough TV and movie producers, and reporters, in his 7 years of exposing Scientology that he is now sick of all of them and their money-grubbing slants”

        Or

        “Marty believes that the truth about Scientology is complex and completely unsellable as an entertainment commodity. And Scientology as an entertainment commodity is worthless to the people who need to sort out what happened to them in Scientology and to move on down the road from it, positively and constructively”

        Many different hypotheses should be considered.

        Not just Tony Ortega’s pet one that “MARTY IS OSA OSA OSA!!!!”

        If there is one thing that I’ve learned in 32 years of being in and out of Scientology and trying to write about it, it’s that dogs and cats are good to have as pets, hypotheses aren’t.

        Alanzo

        • I did not mean to imply Marty was working with the OSA, I meant he may be being manipulated by the OSA from inside his circle of friends/admiring readers and may not realize that the OSA is as close to him as that. Those cheering on his calling out of the liars, as he sees more and more of his former associates, continuing the momentum of this avalanche of necessary criticism he is using to point out the wrongs against him. If all of the hate and give a care is gone from him, why does the conflict here continue?

          • George, your comment still asserts that Marty is being manipulated by OSA (in other words David “Darth Midget” Miscavige).

            What is so hard conceptually about Marty being manipulated by *Marty* ?

            Michael A. Hobson
            Independent Scientologist

          • George wrote:

            “If all of the hate and give a care is gone from him, why does the conflict here continue?”

            The conflict here continues because Marty’s personal experiences don’t jive with the belief system about Scientology that is being propped up by Tony Ortega and his followers.

        • Alanzo. Where has Tony Ortega said that Marty is OSA? I have never seen him say that, so a link or at least a direct quote would be much appreciated.

          • He has been very covert about it. But he has said it many times:

            “There is nothing in the document referring to a settlement being reached with the defendants. Because Monique fired her lawyers “without cause,” she would be required to pay them for the work they had already done, a contingency fee of something like 40 percent of anything she received in a settlement.

            Ray Jeffrey and the other attorneys will have to wonder if such a deal has been made, and how they will get a piece of it after what Monique has said in this document.”

            Don’t you love the way Tony does the math for people?

            “The other alternative is that Monique has simply walked away from the case after firing her attorneys so that none of them receive a dime, when Ray Jeffrey probably could have garnered her a settlement worth millions. ”

            “There was one somewhat cryptic sentence in Monique’s motion filed last week, however, which made us wonder about that.”

            “My husband and I have effectively achieved the primary purpose that the lawsuit was originally intended to serve by our own independent efforts,” Monique wrote.

            “An attorney pointed out to us that the “primary purpose” of a civil lawsuit is to recover damages, so was Monique saying that she — and her husband — had recovered damages in the form of a secret settlement?”

            “On Monday, at his blog, Marty Rathbun stated outright that there is no settlement… We’re told by numerous legal observers that Ray Jeffrey and his team won’t take Marty’s word for that but will engage in due diligence to make sure that there isn’t a financial deal — a financial deal that they would be entitled to a large percentage of.”

            Marty Rathbun defends Scientology leader David Miscavige………

            As Louis Theroux’s Scientology movie hits theaters, its main subject accuses it of deception……….

    • Harpoona Frittata

      “…who improvises scenes for a documentary?”

      No one; the improvisational re-creation of real events starts you down that interesting, but often confusing path to docu-drama land. Blame commercially successful ‘documentary’ film makers, like Michael Moore (“Roger and Me”) for blurring the boundaries between traditional documentary film making – which honed closely to well-established journalistic standards and professional ethics that in the past defined the genre – and what we have now: A entire continuum of more or less factually accurate and unslanted perspectives on a variety of interesting topics of historical relevance and pop culture appeal.

      Where does Theroux’s film fit on that “from fact to fantasy” continuum? Folks who’ve seen it will have to decide for themselves.

      Although I haven’t seen Theroux’s “My Scientology Movie” yet, I am familiar with his other works, and I’d say that most, if not all, of them are quite obviously not trying to pose as an honest attempt to fully encompass, comprehensively analyze and objectively depict the subject that they are focused on. Instead of a Ken Burns-style historical retrospective, told through first-hand sources and period photographs and film footage, and that utilizes respected academics and historians for interpretation and commentary, Theroux’s work is more of a single window looking in on intriguing and bizarre sub-culture worlds, such as UFO and $cn cults. Entertainment value, rather than historical accuracy and comprehensive treatment, ranks above all.

      Because his subjects are most often contemporary and controversial, he’s our Everyman who just wants to know, “What the hell could you folks be thinkin’!?” but does it in a charming and disarming manner, so as not to put his subjects off. But that very entertaining schtick ran into fundamental difficulties with $cn, where it’s almost impossible to get $cilons to talk live and unrehearsed about their true feelings, doubts, hopes, regrets…anything that vaguely resembles human interactions – and please, God help you, DON’T EVER mention X-E-N-U and the fact that none of those who were exposed to his story freewheeled on their whole tracks, then developed pneumonia and died😉

      While many valid criticisms could be made about both Gibney’s much more traditional-style documentary, and Theroux’s “My $cn Movie” (heavy emphasis on the “MY” there), they are at least attempts to illuminate and bring under well-deserved scrutiny the actions and policies of a darkly sinister and super secret organization which has not only done it’s best to conceal it’s huge pile of very dirty linen, but which has also worked assiduously to viciously target those who’ve attempted to expose it in an honest and professional manner. Indeed, the lengths and depths to which $cn has stooped in order to make telling the real story of its origins, history and current actions as difficult as possible deserves to be placed back in the foreground of any discussion, such as this one, from which it might have strayed

      The Truth will out, whether that takes years and dozens of less than perfect attempts, or decades, when we have enough history and distance from the subject to chronicle it in its entirety, from its origins in the lively, but ethically-challenged mind of its creator, to its impending implosion, when its current sadistically tyrannical leader is finally deposed and the cherch either undergoes wholesale reformation or fades into obscurity as so many other cults and religious movements have in the past.

      In taking issue with the filmmakers for leaving all of his efforts to explain the core of $cn on the cutting room floor, Marty characterized $cn as being a “widely misunderstood subject,” which may true, but perhaps not exactly in the way that he was attempting to convey. The cult has very definitely not fully disclosed all the many illegal, immoral, unethical and, quite frankly, evil actions and policies that it has engaged in over the many decades that it’s been in existence, including those that Marty himself was instrumental in directing. Whatever “misunderstanding” the public might have is largely a function of all that information being withheld, denied and lied about publicly in order to avoid criminal charges and civil liability.

      After all that has been exhumed and brought into the disinfecting light of day, we’ll see then if there’s anything left of value to honestly report on. Until then, folks who have detailed, specific knowledge of where all the bodies are buried should just “Dox or GTFO”…anything less just adds insult and further injury to the many who’ve suffered for far too long at the hands of a criminal organization who’s destroyed the lives of many and grievously injured many more.

      • Thank you for that, HF. Excellent points.

        So you would agree that Marty has every right to criticize “My Scientology Movie” under the promises which were made to him by Chinn and Theroux to get him involved, and for the finished product which did not adequately attempt to get to the truth of Scientology, as Marty expected from their representations to him.

        Is that right?

        Alanzo

        • Harpoona Frittata

          Thanks, Alanzo.

          In general, I’m solidly in the “free speech for all, unless you’re hollering ‘fire’ in a non-burning theater” camp. So, just on that basis, I’d be the last person to argue with his right to post what he likes on his own blog. After all, the rest of us are completely free to mouse on outta there😉

          I’m willing to take Marty at his word that he was repeatedly told by the film’s principals that the movie was going to go in a different direction than the one that it ultimately took. I’ll have to wait and see it before I can weigh in on how trifling it turned out.

      • Harpoona Frittata: “…and please, God help you, DON’T EVER mention X-E-N-U and the fact that none of those who were exposed to his story freewheeled on their whole tracks, then developed pneumonia and died ;)”

        You say this is a “fact”? I have suspected it was one of those “facts” that are passed from critic to critic and before long become “common knowledge.” I searched the materials, and the only relevant reference I found was the following:
        ———————————–
        “As a matter of data, the only trouble really in a III OT run is running Incident I on one thetan and an incident II on another, thinking it was the first one. A pre-OT can freewheel into R6 if you run only an Incident 2. You can stop the free wheel at once by running Incident I off the same thetan you ran the Incident 2 on that started a free wheel. . . .

        “If the volcano bit is run as per III directions but the Inc I is not run on same thetan, R6 begins to run off on automatic, the being can’t sleep for days, the body dies.” (HCOB 2 Oct 68, “OT III”)
        ————————————

        As per the above, freewheeling can be caused by something going wrong in auditing (which can then be corrected with auditing), but nothing is said about it happening simply because of being “exposed” to the story.

        If you base your comment on anything more than hearsay, please say what it is.

      • You nailed it: the title says ‘My’ Scn movie …”
        The emphasis is on ‘My’, and that says it all.

    • “Tony Ortega gets Steven Mango – …to dispute Mark Rathbun’s criticism of Louis Theroux ”

      I believe that Steven posted his ideas independently on his Facebook page, and Ortega referred back to them.

      I assume that you believe that Steven posted his ideas not on his own initiative, but at the behest of Tony Ortega.

    • From Ortega:

      “We sent a question to Marty Rathbun about his recent posts, and he accused us of “cognitive dissonance and paranoia.” He didn’t respond when we told him that Tom DeVocht found the film’s portrayal of Miscavige to be a fair one.”

      I suspect if Marty responds, Ortega would post it. I also strongly suspect Marty will not respond. That says a lot, and what it says, we can all interpret for ourselves.

      • See my response to Frodis. Your mind too evidently is owned by Ortega.

      • My interpretation is that Marty Rathbun is sick to fucking death of Tony Ortega and the biased, partisan bullshit he puts on his blog every day.

        He’s the Fox News of the Anti-Scientology World.

        That’s my interpretation.

        Alanzo

        • Mine too. Especially when Ortega only publishes 1/20 out of your answer, to that the context is completely lost.
          Ortega fabricates his own stories. Based on facts, but not on the facts he does not like, e.g. that Miscavige is not totally mad, that he has some good things going for him.

        • He isn’t even that Alanzo, you give him too much credit. He is out of work again. Apparently the only people who are interested in having him write are the disfranchised. Same people that buy National Enquirer. His forte is yellow journalism. I think Fox News has to keep the facts straight.

          Yellow journalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
          Wikipedia
          Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.

    • Hi Alonzo,
      From the way I read it, Ortega provided two witnesses. Tom DeVocht as a witness to Miscavige’s behavior in The Hole and Steve Mango, a witness to the filming.

      Marty has provided no witnesses.

      Tom DeVocht’s recollections (of Miscavige’s
      violence) are backed up by many many people, including Marty (on occasions outside of Theroux’s movie). Jefferson Hawkins for example, chimed in on the comments over at the Bunker and agreed with Tom DeVocht.

      Maybe it would help if Marty clarified things. Marty, are you simply saying that Miscavige was not violent while you were in The Hole or are you now saying that Miscavige was never violent, that you projected your own violent behavior onto David?

      As far as what happened during the filming, Steve shared his two cents, Marty gave his and Theroux filmed it.
      I guess we can wait to view the film and make our own observations and see how much we are willing to blame on editing.

      • “…are you simply saying that Miscavige was not violent while you were in The Hole or are you now saying that Miscavige was never violent, that you projected your own violent behavior onto David?”

        Chee, I think he already answered that in the blog post.

      • Chee –

        Who would be witnesses to the representations made to Marty to get him to become part of the movie, and h0w those representations were abandoned by Chinn and Theroux as they tried desperately to make “docudrama” that would sell lots of tickets?

        In all the comments I’ve read on Tony’s blog, no one disputes that those representations by Chinn and Theroux were abandoned. All the comments I’ve seen justify this fraud by saying “That’s Hollywood”.

        How is that different from a Scientologist justifying Hubbard’s lies about his war record or the number of Scientologists in the world?

        You are arguing to prop up an anti-Scientology belief system that you have adopted, and which Marty threatens with his personal experiences and observations. You desperately want to support Theroux and Chinn and any move that puts Scientology in a bad light – whether it is true or not.

        How did you get yourself to this point?

        How is this different than a Scientologist looking the other way on the Church’s lies in favor of a pro-Scientology belief?

        Aren’t you supposed to be for the truth?

        Alanzo

        • Is the anti-scientology system as bad as it is portrayed here? There are many reasons people, involved in scientology in some way, would not want a negative view of scientology to be presented. Marty’s personal experiences may be clouded by his inability to ever admit he was wrong. Others posting here might still be making money off of a branch of hubbards scam. I do not believe Marty’s is the only agenda at work here. It is very handy to simply place this post in the “Ortega crowed” category and ignore any implication that the responder placing it there might not want a closer scrutiny. How convenient the idea to disqualify the comment by naming the comment an attack and defining it as nothing more than just an attack.

        • Alonzo,
          I come from a world where if you are going to make allegations, you need to back them up with evidence.

          You ask ‘Who would be witnesses to the representations made to Marty to get him to become part of the movie….’

          I would add one word – allegedly
          That is, ‘Who would be witnesses to the representations allegedly made to Marty…..’

          Neither you nor I know what representations were made. Can Marty provide any proof, i.e. a signed contract, emails between himself and the directors, etc. that would prove that those representations were made?
          Maybe Marty believed one thing and the directors believed another. Maybe there was never a meeting of the minds. Who knows?
          The only people who can provide the proof (evidence) is the people who were parties to the agreement.

          All that is kind of beside the point.
          Marty has every right to criticize the final product. Of course his criticisms would be taken more seriously if he did not call people names like ‘ass clowns’. The criticisms would also be seen as valid if Marty had not already said (in a letter read at the London premiere) that he liked the movie.

          What is more interesting to me is the fact that Marty is now claiming that he projected his (Marty’s) own violent behavior onto the actor who portrayed Miscavige. Meaning (presumably) that Marty was the angry violent one, not Miscavige.
          (If I am mistaken with that interpretation, please enlighten me.)
          And that is where DeVocht and Mango come into play as witnesses…..DeVocht as a witness to Miscavige’s violence and Mango as a witness to the filming and the the tension between Marty and Theroux.

          You claim that Tony Ortega ‘pet hypotheses’ is that “Marty is OSA OSA OSA”. I have never seen Tony make that statement or allegation. Some of the commenters have, sure. But can you point to anything Tony has written where he definitively says Marty is working for OSA?
          About the only thing I have read over there (that was actually written by Tony) was that no one knows why Marty seems to have a sudden change of direction.

          • Chee Chalker: “What is more interesting to me is the fact that Marty is now claiming that he projected his (Marty’s) own violent behavior onto the actor who portrayed Miscavige. Meaning (presumably) that Marty was the angry violent one, not Miscavige.”

            I didn’t get it that way. By the context, I took it to mean his behavior in characterizing DM while working with them on the DM scene. To quote:

            “Even though they worked with me for a year on that scene, I was not able to submit a script for an actual past occurrence to ‘re-create’ that could pass Theroux’s standards for lurid and shocking theater.The ‘re-creation’ portrayed is an ad lib by actors who had been conditioned for months by Theroux to disdain and fear Scientology. . . . Viewing it as objectively as possible I see the final edit containing quite a bit of me projecting my own behavior on Miscavige. That my own personality would rub off on the principle actor is not surprising given the extraordinary amount of hours Theroux and Dower had him spend with me over a year-long period.”

          • While I might agree with one or two of your points, I don’t like the distancing you seem to need to do – “I come from a world…”

            It makes it look like PR positioning Alanzo (and his views) as being from an entirely apart WORLD was what your whole argument was built around.

            It kind of went downhill from there – even if you thought you were being funny it didn’t change the “let’s all distance and look at the alien from another world” insult.

      • Ortega had to provide witnesses because he did not witness either situation himself. Marty is his own witness because he was there both for DM’s actions and for the filming. Add to that, each witness to any events, witnesses from his own unique viewpoint, and what do you get?

  25. could you please take a quick break from housekeeping and tell me what a “rimless zero” is? I would appreciate it. Thank you

    • I think it’s metaphorical: “rimless” as in no rim or boundary or limit to it – meaning that a “zero” is all there is.

    • Hingle McCringleberry

      I had never heard that before either. I suppose its fairly evident that if you have a zero, then take away the rim, you’re left with a blank spot. It works on the level of starting with nothing (as represented by the zero character) then by removing the physical mark that represents nothing, you’re metaphorically left with something less than nothing. Good one, Marty! Mind if I steal this for future use?

  26. Dear Marty , I have big problem!
    You know , that Iam a long poster , but sometimes I did not understand you …( bcs English is not my native language , I speak Bulgravian …)
    So I got app for Marty’s language couple years ago …
    Last two post’s I don’t use it!!!!
    I understand Marty’s Post’s!!!
    So that is my successful story.
    Also , hope soon there will be a call from Anthony Bourdain , for a video about food in $cientology…..
    Big hello from LRHs Bulgravia.

  27. There should be fighting about Scientology. The fighting should be to end it, to remove that most unfitting title of “religion”.

    Scientology is not a religion. Has no place in that context. It was a fairly clever moneymaking scheme created by a drug addict who had delusions of grandeur, I’ll give it that. But it is not a religion. Lets get that straight.

    There are still human abuses occurring within this organization, of which you yourself were a victim, Marty. They are being covered up in the name of “religion” to this day.

    The focus should be on that. The focus should be removing that veil that the “Church” is using to commit crimes against humanity on a daily basis.

    It’s not so much about who used to be in. Thankfully, there are many who made it out alive. Some haven’t. More won’t. That’s what I think everyone needs to be aware of.

  28. “Unresolvable conflict”???

    Now, what does LRH say about that?

    just sayin….just sayin…

    BTW – Unresolvable is NOT a word. LOL

  29. Unfortunately, the idea that an actual intellectual exploration of any subject (especially in the field of religion) will be filmed, edited and distributed to the mass public as a commercial enterprise is EXTREMELY fanciful. Chinn, Theroux and team obviously made the promises they had to to Marty to get their project off the ground.

    As Marty has noted on NUMEROUS occasions, he has been engaged in his own pursuit to TRANSCEND the absolute of the “one side against the other” or in this case, to have to declare oneself in the fixed position of being TOTALLY for or against “scientology” (as if that word means just ONE thing).

    Again, unfortunately, the people of our little third rock from the sun, usually find it almost impossible to break free from the “friend or foe” game that has been so disastrously played out over the millenia. I have never met Marty, we even live on separate continents (I’m in Asia) and I don’t even WANT to be a “fan” of someone’s viewpoints that I agree with ALL THE TIME. I enjoy diversity of viewpoint and nuance of investigation and comment.

    There is really no motivation for Tony Ortega to print Marty’s whole communication and/or take a truly interested viewpoint towards it. Ortega MAKES A LIVING with his daily blog about a subject he has no first hand experience with having lived or even studied (I would be shocked if he has actually READ Science of Survival or any LRH books or listened to lectures for the purpose of understanding the subject itself). His blog and the money he makes from it depends on the continual tension of one side against another, as well as encouraging smarmy and sophomoric comments from his peanut gallery. Welcome to the Twitter/Facebook Universe of the 21st century.

  30. Marty, no matter what your personal beliefs are, your public behavior reveals an erratic and incongruent behavior pattern. As for your readers: screw us, we are adult enough to deal with your snark and the condescension you spew towards anyone to is not on Team Marty.
    Behind the scenes is where the distruction lies. Your public behavior has placed your family in a desparate situation. How is a young boy able to learn about negotiating life from an angry raging father? Where is his safe place? And Monique, when is it her turn to get back a husband that cherishes her instead of one who spends time and effort fighting invisible enemies?
    Just check out of the madness and man up and get on the same page with your family. You have given a majority of your life dealing with Scientology. Now it is the time to give youself and your family a new and healthier vision as a goal to achieving more contentment.
    I am no expert, but with 34 years of marriage behind me, we would not have had such a stable and happy family life if we neglected our marriage and focused on other people’s opinions. Just get started, before you lose anything more. Best wishes.

    • Go back to Mike’s blog where he’ll stroke your sorry ass projections.

    • @Ann Keep your problems with Mark WITH HIM and quit trying to create collateral damage just because you have failed in “moving” him. To try and use his wife and child to try and hurt *him* like that is just plain mean.

    • @Ann:
      Good lord.
      Who do you think your are?!

    • Once Upon a Time

      Mike Rinder’s or Karen’s trolls are in the house.

    • Ann, You are dubbing in a soap opera here. Practically two seasons. Most of it hallucinatory. Then gaslighting. Your social intercourse is far from healthy and stable. Why should he focus on your opinions? When they erupt from hallucinatory conditions. You almost sound hysterical. You are scaring yourself with mental image pictures of events that aren’t even occurring. Try to pull yourself together.

  31. Wow. These comments are so crazy. I totally respect Marty Rathbun and all he has written on his blog and in his books.

    There seems to be a tendency to rally against anyone who is not “Death to Scientology”. I was in for 30 years and have no such agenda. It is just not for me anymore. I still see valid points though.

    I will not speak to Marty’s intentions as they are his. I personally believe him to be ab honorable and ethical person.

  32. Also, has anyone considered in all of this that Marty just wants to live his life.

  33. To the lovely and incomparable Madam:

  34. I think very few people here actually saw the film. I saw it ages ago, in a big hall, yes, here in tiny Israel! (Tel Aviv rocks!!)
    And I wrote to you Marty, my good impression of it. Please note this being RELATIVE TO MY EXPECTATIONS. And I see now how disappointed
    you are, which I can understand and be surprised about at the same time. Reminds me when I play some music, and I think I did real horrible, and some people come and say: ” that was incredibly beautiful!” One of the greatest pianist on the planet right now, a friend, gives a concert, to 3000 audience. Gets standing ovation and 5 encores, and then, back stage, when I complement him with tears in my eyes, he bends over and says to me: Hemi, that was AWFUL Playing. Go figure. Well he has got his expectations so high and SO PRECISE that not meeting them he feels bad about it.
    Same here may be. I don’t ever expect one film about Scientology to ever cover the subject truly and deeply. Not even 10 films and not even close. It is complex and vast.
    But truly, I think that so far it is the best that I have seen, actually trying to bring out and show at least something of what it entails and does.
    Of course one can find many holes in it, and misunderstandings, it is just a movie, not a scientific study. But I saw there an attempt, at least, for the 1st time by external movie makers, (Non scientologists or ex) to show and talk positively on the path, the Tech and some of the practices of that subject. Most importantly it did what “Going Clear” pretended to enlighten, but failed miserably, that is the BIG QUESTIUON: What is there in these teachings, scriptures, path, which made so many INTELLIGENT and able people embrace it for so many years, even as it eventually deteriorated into a heartless destructive cult. WHAT IS THERE ANYWAY? “Going Clear” asked that, Lawrence Wright, said he really wanted to know the answer, and he is sincere in that, but – he never did find it, or bothered too much. But Louis Theroux did venture way more to answer that.
    He talked about his positive experience in auditing, and claims he tried it not as a trick, but truly wanting to benefit, if applicable. And the same with the TRs which he showed.
    What other external documentary ever got that far?? So I thought, having little expectations, that you Marty did manage to achieve a great deal there.
    I watched it with other people, and they did feel the same, that at least parts of the film were revealing and more. And if comparing to “Going Clear” which was still an important movie which told many true tales, it was still mostly and exclusively “us v. them” creation, and “My Scientology movie” was more “us wish to know”.
    There is another documentary coming up on Scientology, by Reza Aslan/CNN. That one I think will be another big step forward in trying to understand Scientology by external sources. I say this from humble participation in it, having met the people and deeply impressed with their approach and attitude. As Marty explains, it doesn’t guarantee anything… but I have hopes.
    And Marty, I am truly sympathizing with your disappointment. But still, let me add that your mark and influence in that film is still there to be noticed!! And for that, well done!!
    Hemi

    • (reposting this here, in the correct place)

      Hemi, your post contributed nicely to the discussion, particularly this part:

      “WHAT IS THERE ANYWAY? ‘Going Clear’ asked that, Lawrence Wright, said he really wanted to know the answer, and he is sincere in that, but – he never did find it, or bothered too much. But Louis Theroux did venture way more to answer that. He talked about his positive experience in auditing, and claims he tried it not as a trick, but truly wanting to benefit, if applicable. And the same with the TRs which he showed. What other external documentary ever got that far?? So I thought, having little expectations, that you Marty did manage to achieve a great deal there.”

    • WHAT IS THERE ANYWAY? “Going Clear” asked that, Lawrence Wright, said he really wanted to know the answer, and he is sincere in that, but – he never did find it, or bothered too much. But Louis Theroux did venture way more to answer that. He talked about his positive experience in auditing, and claims he tried it not as a trick, but truly wanting to benefit, if applicable. And the same with the TRs which he showed. What other external documentary ever got that far??

      A Beginner’s Guide to L. Ron Hubbard (2006) UK

  35. I recall seeing photos of Theroux and his crew on Karen de la Carriere Facebook timeline, but when I saw the film Karen was no featured in it. Those photos clearly showed that Karen was being filmed by Theroux. I have been wondering, after reading Marty’s article, if Theroux found out that Karen is playing both sides i.e. attacking LRH and Scn while profiting from “auditing” people, that wouldn’t make her very credible, would it?
    These are the photos.





    • Neither Karen or Marty have ever run a practice auditing people. I think they have offered to help people who went to them for help, for whatever reasons.

      I have never seen Karen, Mike or Marty, in attack mode on Hubbard, or the subject of Scientology. I have seen them TRANSLATE and explain a cult that has bubbled up under David Miscavige. Comment on events and the lives they have had and the experiences they have been through. This does not = attack on anyone or anything. It = better understanding. It only offends people who will not profit from better understanding.

      Theroux, is just making career choices. Establishing a brand.

      From what I understand, his forte’ is making others appear ridiculous. No matter how he casts them. The final product is comedy.

      We are, many of us including myself, ridiculous. And the sooner I faced it, the better peace I found Theroux himself, is ridiculous as well. And he flaunts it.

      I suspect if he excluded Karen from his film, it was because she was so kind and accommodating, in the final edit, he chose to spare her from his ridicule. And his ridiculous film. It was from a point of human care, rather than one of disrespect.

      I suspect Marty, who is not ridiculous, rejected that item, or the idea of contributing to it, when Theroux tried to enforce it on him.

      Theroux’s forte is being ridiculous, and bringing the ridiculous to the table.

      Since Ortega agrees that anything Scientological = ridiclous, I fail to see his lack of humor with the Theroux review. He asserts continuously that Marty and his wife, are nothing but ridiculous. Then he gets very serious and patriotic about a ridiculous film.

      It seems to me that Tony Ortega is the one playing sides. He is right on par with Theroux in making everything Scientologist look ridiculous. But he is right in the middle of theater, taking only himself seriously, and he does not acknowledge how ridiculous that is.

      He has never stepped foot in a Church of Scientology, and is passing himself as a “Scientology expert” for a valid identity. He is the most ridiculous figure in this arena. The fact that he has built his own cyber cult and dramatizes everything he protests about, is wholly ridiculous.

      Mocking up a new cult, to complain about an old one, is the height of high comedy. Had Theroux documented this part of the theater, he could have rendered a social study masterpiece. He was either too lazy to bring it all the way around the bend, or short on resources. Ridiculous always = mediocrity. And Theroux flaunts that as well.

      • Your final paragraph is what I worked on for three years – they had enough material for five films. They repeatedly represented that is what they were working on. That they then spent a year in the editing room to join the anti Cult (the safe route) is a demonstration of abject hypocrisy and cowardice. I know for a fact it was not laziness nor lack of resources that got in the way. When I pointed it out – and cited prolifically to the evidence of that – to the BBC, they dropped the project like a hot coal and ate the loss in a heartbeat. That same hypocrisy and cowardice is demonstrated every day by Ortega and those he is tight with (and gets paid by). He and his krew are above everything else cowards.

        • I heard that Karen De La Carriere financed Tony Ortega’s book tour.

          Is that true?

          Alanzo

          • .Did you really take that bait?

            • I’ve seen a different side of Karen than you have, Oracle, obviously.

              It’s kind of the like two sides of Scientology: The caring, smiling auditor who is there to bring you through your emotional turmoils and lead you to spiritual freedom, and the scheming 1.1 OSA agent, there to destroy you utterly, and without sorrow.

              Why would this be so embarrassing if it was known that Karen funded Tony Ortega’s book tour?

              Is it because Karen would be seen as two-faced?

              Alanzo

              • Why would she be two faced contributing to Tony Ortega? Aside from a very brief mention of Paulette Cooper last January, Tony has not shone his light on her for over a year on his blog. he discarded her over a year ago. That is how old his book tour is, ancient news. From what I understand reading the “Rodeo Times”, (email list laughter), everyone comped Ortega on his book tour. He had many people working for him. Doesn’t make any of them two faced, just people given something to contribute to.

                You are angry at Karen for another reason. She fair gamed you on ESMB when you stood up for Monique and spoke out about the fair gaming. She indicated you were wobbly, to discount your meaning in standing up against the bullying. That was a wrong indication and a wrong item. You are not wobbly, never have been It was injustice and you got smacked down for doing the right thing. It is what is. You can let it go as someone not understanding you, and your meaning.

                Your purpose was to do the right thing. Invalidation and a wrong item got put on you. It happens. But that does not mean she had bad motives. I think she was running damage control. Trying to keep things from blowing up. It was disrespectful but maybe she was thinking of the big picture. I don’t want to list or dub in. I’d rather you could just let me, let you know, that is how I saw it. I do understand how you were offended. And I hope you can let it go. I know you can be a very forgiving person. And I know you have been misunderstood, even by me.

                I know you have taken a lot of hits by objecting to the bullying. And you are fair gamed now as a usual on ESMB. I know how trying it is. I’m a favorite target too. And I know how the wrong indications and constant invalidation can wear on a person. Those people don’t truly love anyone passing by. If it wasn’t you, it would be someone else. It is mainly a group of bitter old or aging women who still want to feel vital. You are a man, you are handsome and smart. You are competent and well spoken. You can keep it going until you are in your 90’s. It must stifle them.

          • When I met Tony O in London, and I can’t remember exactly how it came up, he told me that donations to his blog
            helped the book tour. No mention of Karen. Also his book has had
            a second printing so he’s presumably earned money from royalties.

        • Thanks for the broader understanding. It never occurred to me that Theroux would goal, for the most applause and safest route.

          He would have fears, as an investor, after all. Those are real fears when your motivation is career and finance.

          Gibney has done several marvelous, and beautiful documentaries since “going clear”.

          But when you have to follow Ken Burns to be “the best”, I guess it is easier to carve other paths. I was going to be a singer until I heard Dusty Springfield sing “Preacherman”. Over and out. Boom.

          Speaking of career motivation, Tony Ortega has added to his resume, that he worked on the documentary, “Going Clear”. I guess because he had a small piece in it. Laughter! He is very audience, and “big name” motivated.

          “Audiences love Scientology stories,” Ortega says. “It will always have an audience. I’m a reporter with a front-row seat to an amazing story, and I don’t want to quit.”

          “I thought, ‘The world is going crazy for Scientology right now,’” Ortega remembers. “ The big Scientology story of the last 20 years is that, in the mid-2000s, this whole slate of top Scientology executives all defected within a few years of each other.”

          “I loved living in Phoenix,” he says. “It was a different time then. I worked with some big names, some amazing reporters. I was so fortunate to go there when I did.”

          http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arts/tony-ortega-to-discuss-scientology-and-the-changing-face-of-media-at-asu-in-downtown-phoenix-7632697

          It’s just his career. He got a lot of mileage out of you. That’s what he does. Not sure he is even anti Scientology. Any more than he is anti anything that would give him cause to amuse an audience. He is after the audience. Hobnobbing with big names. Social climbing.. And since being in this theater, he has had a ticket to ride.

          At the end of the day, he is just hungry, career climbing, social climbing and looking for approval. Like 9 out of 10 businessmen in any given street. Looking for a bone. Really, this is very ordinary. Like everything that is very ordinary, like any ordinary day, he will come to pass.

      • Once Upon a Time

        Oracle, that is not true about Karen. I had to repair some of her botched “pcs” not too long ago. I will not say the names of her “pcs” out of respect for them, but look deeper and you will see that she “audits” people for money and not because she has a good heart.

        • Since you will not identify yourself or any of the “botched” PC’s, this bit of propaganda is impossible to verify. Why am I not surprised ?

          Michael A. Hobson
          Independent Scientologist

        • There are a lot of instigators that profit off of conflict. Build their own tribes. Sponge off our labor, trust, lives and hope.

          Karen may turn against Marty, but Marty will never turn against Karen.

          Marty does not go after women. He will never take this bait. And either will I.

          Everyone is flawed to some degree. Everyone has made mistakes. Karen has helped a lot of people. I’ve paid more for auditing correction in my home than I have paid for actual auditing. I don’t make an issue of it because I understand the people come here, for the very purpose of creating conflict. Becoming a problem, not a solution. And with intention to generate ill will and set people up for losses. I don’t take the bait. That is not Karen’s history.

          I have known Karen for almost 25 years. I don’t need to look deeper.

          If you are “auditing from the heart”, certainly you have a big heart, and are capable of being tolerant.

          I know that people that have spent a lot of time in the Church of Scientology feel that tolerance and mercy is not a good thing. That is wrong. That is just plain wrong thinking. It has not worked for the Church of Scientology. It has not worked for Scientologists. It has never worked for any group called mankind.

          And I will tell you this right now. Karen De would never, ever, ever, take money from someone to audit, that she did not care about. Ever.

          • By the way, Tony has set a precedence at being ruthless with his blog, when it comes to going after women and children. And single women.

            He is not a leader among his peers as a journalist and a blogger. He is only a leader of the disenfranchised who are revenge motivated.

            For those of you that watched Tony Ortega use his blog to ruthlessly fair game Monique Rathbun, Stacey Francis, the Duggan children, Nancy Cartwright, Suri Cruise, Elizabeth Moss, Amanda Palmer, Kirstie Alley, Cathriona White, Mary Sue Hubbard (and her dog), Denise Miscavige, Whitney Covington, and too many more to recount for the purpose of this post, just because Tony Ortega is comfortable with this, does not mean it is O.K. to humiliate and bully women and fair game them in this way. It is cowardly and it is bullying and it is a covert form of domestic terrorism.

            If you want to be a little girl, wallow in the cat fights.

            Jesus Christ, even I don’t go after women unless have they firmly wedged a heel up my ass.

            Pull yourselves together. You were human beings before you were Scientologists. You were Americans before you were Scientologists. You were part of polite civilization before you were Scientologists.

            Treat women as you would want someone to treat your mother, your sister, your daughter or your wife.

            The Scientology culture is a hard culture for a woman to survive in. They get absolutely zero discount points for bearing the burden of the race. And the burden has always been on their backs, not the backs of Scientologists or anti Scientologists.

            Nobody gets a life unless they pass through a woman’s thighs. They hold the key to life. Not Golden Area Studios. Not Tony Ortega. Not L. Ron Hubbard and certainly not David Miscavige. Who gets off on ordering women to assault women.

            Please, draw a line in the sand. Mock up some decorum.

            • The Church of Scientology, the only Church on the planet where absolutely nothing is sacred. ESMB, nothing is sacred there. Little kids aren’t even off limits.

              There are already comments on ESMB, about Marty attacking Karen. LIARS. Liars. Liars. Pathological liars.

              There are ancient civilizations, documented, from thousands of years before Christ, that had more evolved and caring social intercourse than the people on that message board. They have every right to be hopeless.

            • Hi Oracle,
              “The Scientology culture is a hard culture for a woman to survive in. They get absolutely zero discount points for bearing the burden of the race. And the burden has always been on their backs, not the backs of Scientologists or anti Scientologists.”

              I have been burning the midnight oil for months reading Hubbard’s sources and I have reached the same conclusion. Hubbard did not appreciate the power of women. For example, he drew a lot of data from Madame Blavatsky and did not give her credit. He called Karen Horney “Karen Horny”. If you carefully notice in his works, although Hubbard was Occult, he never gives credit to the power of women in the Occult. He makes a few feeble references to Joan of Arc and others, but he did not solve the issue of the theological source of male/female. Hubbard calls Jesus a pedophile. Actually, Hubbard chopped off the eighth dymanic and only really looked at seven. Thus he was chopping off God and women. Having chopped off the eighth, the religion would always sink as it had no connection to the essence of the creation of the race through the fertility of women. Thus Scientology would always be barren and would always mistreat women. Hubbard probably made some statements to correct the inequality of women but these could never work in the established culture of Scientology Yes, you are correct.
              MM,
              GMW

          • @Oracle

            “I have known Karen for almost 25 years. I don’t need to look deeper.”

            Ordinarily, length of time knowing someone does usually count for something.

            However, this can become no longer a valid yardstick for people who have had involvement in intelligence and go to great lengths to keep the full story of said involvement, under wraps.

            Take a person we’ll call “Terri”.

            I knew Terri for twenty years, but when it came time to challenge certain entrenched organizations, Terri had another life which she had kept hidden that whole time but became visible when she was tasked to act in an intelligence capacity against me and others.

            Take a person we’ll call “Sam”.

            I knew Sam for more than a decade. Sam was unwilling to face some extremely poor decisions he had made (that he had been strongly warned against making). When the damage of these poor decisions became manifest, as it always does, he began trying to project the “fault” of the resulting damage onto others. When met with understandable resistance to these attempts, Sam, out of vengeance and spite, willingly joined the ranks of an ongoing intelligence operation seeking reinforcement of his desire to blame someone other than himself for the results of his poor decisions.

            In the face of intense ongoing intelligence operations, relying on past experience *alone* as a gauge of someone can become not only imprudent, but downright dangerous.

            Something to consider.

            Virginia

            • I may not be able to support some people in their efforts and endeavors, but at the same time, I will not harm them because I can not support them. I will never go into an enemy condition against some people. In some cases, such as Tony Ortega, it is a personal dis honor not to go into an enemy condition. That would mean I am willing someday, to become the effect of him. I’m not. I’ve had to stoop low before, but never that low.

              Friendship is a not a feeling, it is a duty to subscribe to. That means if someone that is your friend does right or wrong, this does not shift you into an enemy condition. Your condition is not dependent on their actions.

              This is why the ethics and justice codes in the Church were totally fucked. People were required to float into lower conditions against their fellow man. All the while being told being in lower conditions, was not a good thing. Convening a comm ev, is an enemy condition action. Why would someone in a lower condition be in charge of ethics or justice? You can not trust people parked in enemy or treason conditions. Not even doubt. And there has been some treason on Marty’s lines. But he does not have a history of treason. And this sudden shift came after Tony Ortega issued a treason declare on him, for Monique dropping her law suit.

              It was a wrong item. A wrong indication. Marty is not in treason. If he choked Ray Jeffries and left him by the side of the road, that would only be normal. Considering who and what Ray Jeffries is.

              Ray Jeffries is the one in treason. He was not forthcoming at all to anyone about what went down. And he was in treason before that. In fact, that is why Monique could not trust him any more. But this is not my story to tell.

              The recent shift into treason and enemy conditions towards Marty, comes largely from the Ortega declares. People got very re stimulated, and they got wrong items and wrong indications. Why would I burden them with more force and set them up for more losses? Because I am no better than Ray Jeffries and Tony Ortega? It is not even possible for Marty to be in treason with anyone about the law suit. Monique filed the law suit, and she did not have any PARTNERS. Whoever imagined they were some kind of partner, was tripping. Fuck off already. She handled her way because she did not have a PARTNER. Have no idea why Ortega though he was a PARTNER. Dub in case, obviously.

              Marty is not propitiating to anyone because he is NOT IN TREASON. And people think he should be groveling and propitiating. Who is propitiating? Tony Ortega. “oh my beautiful loyal tipsters, couldn’t live with out you.. blah blah blah. He has been groveling and propitiating for weeks.

              . I can notice things she does that I would not support. And just not go there. I have known Marty to be an honorable person of good will. If he were prone to treason and enemy conditions, he would have buried Ray Jeffries’ career. He had every opportunity to do that. He has tolerated more treason and enemy conditions than anyone in this theater, and he still floats at normal or above. That is exactly why, he is in favor with the Gods.

              I too, have had to cope with people in lower conditions, and I did not let them bring me south with them. I owe it to too many other people, to coast in normal or above. Mainly, I owe it to myself, and to a higher power.

              A lot of people are over restimulated right now with wrong items and wrong indications and wrong whos and wrong whys. And they pass it on and re stimulate one another.

              You can hate an act, and not hate the being. When you do not hate the being, you do not travel south into lower conditions. People parked in lower conditions, are out of favor with the Gods. Your dog doesn’t even turn enemy on you. Dogs can stay in normal or above. Why shouldn’t people? Most people do.

              Whatever is going on, Tony Ortega is the Maytag man, the merchant of chaos. The bad news bearer. The town crier. The one profiting off of the chaos. And Ray Jeffries profits off the conflict. The rest of us are set up for losses because of it. I refuse to be set up for losses by Tony Ortega. Or Ray Jeffries. Mainly I will not degrade myself by slipping into treason and enemy characters and conditions. Marty does not have a history of doing this either. One must travel to doubt, to re evaluate, when things stop adding up. That is actually normal. If that makes sense.

              I believe Karen and Mike have loved Marty very well. And have also trusted him as they know he can be trusted. His cards have always been on the table. And they always will be. And if Marty wins in any arena, they will be glad for him. And that is the closest to the truth anyone is going to get in this current arena.

              Everything else is public hysteria and over restimulation from wrong items and wrong indications. False data and false reports. People parked in lower conditions for so long it is the new normal for them to be in treason.

              With all of the false reports and lies being manufactured on Tony Ortega’s blog and ESMB, even doing a third party investigation would be impossible. Over 250 threads on ESMB dedicated to fair gaming Marty. How do you start with, “Has someone said Marty is bad?” If you only read ESMB today, that is ALL that was said. That group has fair gamed everyone warm with a heart beat into the ground. They are WORSE than the C of S. They dispose of people loudly and with out sorrow with any invitation. They have no true friends to lose.

              The thing is to remain civilized. You are who you are, not who other people say you are.

              Tony Ortega wears people like accessories and disposes of them when they go out of fashion.

              The deliberate and orchestrated efforts to chop up Marty’s comm lines, draw lines in the sand, make people choose sides or turn one another, is kindergarten social intercourse. It is not by accident. I assume Miscavige would sleep better knowing Marty’s wife will have less resources for support, should she come back in with a new legal team.

              Don’t do crimes because of the times. My first innate recognition. It would be a sunny day in a bad neighborhood. Everyone really would be happy at the moment. The smells of good food cooking, some music playing. Lovers on the stoops. Then in an instant, all hell would break lose someplace. Next thing, half the block would be cordoned off. Your neighbor would be on the way to Bellevue Hospital and someone else on the back of the police car. Those people in the neighborhood had an automatic instinct to freeze at those times. And let the dust settle. When everyone is running towards the village square, run in the opposite direction. That is survival.

              This dust will settle. Marty will not be unmocked. And either will Karen and Mike. And either will their friendship.

              Give it a minute. There is going to be a major change and a major shift in a minute. This is not the main event. Just restless shuffling. Hold onto to your cards. There is no threat. There isn’t even any danger. This is a calm before a storm.

              • I know it is Oracle, I’m part of what’s coming.

                In my post to you, I only wanted to offer self-protection from the price of not looking at what there is to see. I hate to see that happen to people.

                I don’t think Karen is a bad person, she may be acting as *my* enemy but I am not hers.

                She is doing what she thinks is right towards me, but from a stuck narrative that was provided to her, and that she maybe even helped further create.

                This, I do not admire, but I am not her enemy in return.

                It’s actually hard to bring me into true”battle” (you know what I mean) because I only reserve it for the real problem-children around here and that’s definitely not Karen.

                This? That I do here or other forums or at our blog? That’s not battle, it’s more like preparation and assistance.

                Sending love to you Oracle, for being so kind and listening –

                Virginia

              • Harpoona Frittata

                “Don’t do crimes because of the times.”

                Love that line!

                “Give it a minute. There is going to be a major change and a major shift in a minute. This is not the main event. Just restless shuffling. Hold onto to your cards. There is no threat. There isn’t even any danger. This is a calm before a storm.”

                Accurate and specific forecasts of the future truly are the basis upon which we should accord folks oracular authority, Oracle. So, can you please be a little more specific here in giving us yours? Specifically, what major change(s) do you foresee in our near future and in what direction will we be shifted?

                If this is the calm before the storm, then I’m definitely going on vaca for a bit until the BIG blow passes😉

                I was doing my best to follow your scientological analysis and overview of current events and the way that you framed the reverberating reactions of the folks who’ve been attempting to closely follow and understand it from their own perspectives. I exited the cult in the late 70’s and abandoned the scientological world view, and with it, the specialized technical jargon that implements it and shapes the thought of those who believe it best frames reality. Since then, that $cn world view and the lens through which I saw and interpreted the actions and words of others (and myself) has fallen away almost completely. It’s been a long time and I’ve learned a number of other, alternative ways of organizing my thoughts and beliefs since then.

                As a result, hearing your analysis of the situation, based on the $cn conditions that you perceive the folks involved in it to be in, along with the other $cn jargon that you’ve used to frame and convey your understanding, is like hearing a foreign language that I was once fluent in using, but which through long lack of use is no longer fully intelligible to me, while still remaining familiar.

                Perhaps because I never once saw the conditions applied in any kind of useful or compassionate way, my reaction now to seeing their use by anyone as a valid context and effective organizing conceptual frame is one of instant aversion and protest. To me, they’re just another of the many tools of mind control that Elron created which, while having some degree of truth and utility to them, are far from the only or best way to conceptually frame reality.

                I’m wondering if you’re able to organize and present what you just wrote in a way that doesn’t require one to buy into the $cn world view and conceptual framework to begin with? It certainly would be helpful for me because I’m very happy to have lost my fluency with $cn language and have no intention of ever getting it back.

                When I quit drinking the Kool-Aid, I washed out the cup, tossed the mixing container and just never looked back. I truly believe it’s the wisest move that anyone could make, but sadly, if one has not come to that same realization by oneself, then the argument for it requires one to accept the possibility that Elron did not have the only possible valid last word on every subject that he weighed in on.

          • Oracle, You said that Karen doesn’t attack LRH, are you being serious? Would you like me to find her anti-LRH postings and give them to you? As long as she continues to attack LRH & Scn and getting paid under the table for messing up people’s cases, she is not a good person. There are a lot of good indies out there who are doing a good job and she is not one of them. I have known Karen de la Carriere from way back then. I don’t know Jeff Augustine that well, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he is a conspiracy nut.

            • I’m sorry but you do sound like a member of RTC. “Messing up people’s cases” is also a generality, and I doubt she has ever taken money for the purpose of messing anyone up. You say she gets paid to mess up people’s cases? Why would she need to take pay under any table? You accuse her of deliberately being paid secretly with the express purpose of harming others. I do not believe it. If you are so “in tech” why don’t you notice you are parked in an enemy condition, and work your way up to normal? You think you look sexy parked in a lower condition? Trying to put others into a lower condition with you? Who the fuck would want someone parked that far south in a lower condition to audit them? You?

              • “You accuse her of deliberately being paid secretly with the express purpose of harming others.”

                Well…that has been done you know. It’s not completely outside the real of possibility that Karen could very well be supervising things in such a way as to direct their cases in perhaps the manner in which someone outside of it wants it to be.

                So…what if she is? Even if, she would be responsible for her part of it – the ask, so to speak – but most definitely when it comes to auditing? It takes two to tango.

                I knew when others where trying to direct my “case” for political purposes out here among the “freezoners” and whoevers. It didn’t work because I didn’t ignore what I saw.

                For Karen to be “harming” people, and again, I’m not saying that she is, she could NOT do it without the other person’s consent *and* their ignoring what is right in front of their damn face.

                Hell, it was that way IN the church, why wouldn’t we expect to find it out here too?

                So…

                Caveat Emptor.

                People need to stop being lazy about exhibiting the courage to be responsible in the “court of their own conscience”.

                Same goes for black ops. They can’t work on someone unless they ALLOW it to. My children did, that’s their responsibility and betrayal of us and themselves.

                This doesn’t remove the responsibility for the one trying to and/or continuing to run black ops – obviously.

                Virginia

              • I never made it a secret that I like LRH and his tech and that’s where I stand, does that make me RTC? Does it mean that every indie or Freezone out there is RTC? Karen de la Carriere is not immune to criticism and you can tell her that I can and I will, if you force me to, post the names of all the people she is “auditing”. Ask her if she is prepared for that.

                Please come up with something more original than calling me RTC. It’s an old propaganda trick designed to stigmatize undesirables, but your friend Karen knows that because that’s how she dismisses her own undesirables, though she prefers to label them OSA.

                • If you like LRH and his tech, can you see yourself parked in an enemy condition? What is your take on being parked in a lower condition?

                  Your threats to post names, are threats. That is enemy action. I do not believe in attacking my fellow man, because he is in the pursuit of happiness. If people are interested in Scientology, as a pursuit of happiness, I do not care to run a can’t have on them. I myself am interested in the pursuit of happiness. I myself have made bad choices in who to trust with Scientology tech. I have also made good choices. This is, the wild wild west out here. People who are not doing anything worth while for others, are usually homeless or at best, piggy backing on other people’s dynamics.

                  If you are helping people, and devoted to that, I do not want to be in an enemy condition towards you either. You are not my enemy. I do not care to inherit enemies because of others to others cycles. True ethical choices include keeping hope alive in your fellow man. Hope for a better day. Good will towards each other is the only insurance of a better day.

                  Group justice = gang justice. If Scientology is so useful, and I think it can be in the hands of a thinking and intelligent person, a person might notice all “justice” activity revolves around someone’s out ruds.

                  I’m sure Hubbard was out ruds when he wrote a lot of his “justice” policies. In fact, I’m sure he was parked in lower conditions. Enemy at best. This is his creation of OSA and the guardians office. Their out ruds are motivators.

                  Are your ruds in on Karen? Because it sounds to me, like your ruds are out.

                  Being you are so tech savvy, and enthralled with the tech, why don’t you try putting your ruds in on her, and then return to the conversation? Clean up your ARCX’s.

                  Unless you mean to charge that she currently a danger upon society that needs to be reigned in?

                • “I don’t know Jeff Augustine that well, ..”

                  He’s just a very funny guy. A brilliant satirist. Light heartedness and flippancy do not = stupid. He isn’t dangerous. He can make anything look funny. I think the things he says are meant to be funny. But some people don’t have a sense of humor. Laughter is medicinal. He put some real healing power into this theater out here. You can’t be that funny and be unintelligent.

                  It is really not his basic nature to be on the front lines of a witch hunt. He is not a soldier, he is an intellect. Very witty and artistic. I think he is good for Karen. And I think he has been an asset to the people at large out here, in pointing out the ridiculous.

                  Some strange enchantment has been in the wind. Some people have gone out of character for a moment. It is the enchantment of doubt. Certainty has been rocked. False certainty is being put in it’s place.

                  Hurricane Tony conjured up and passing through. We’re just running against the wind.

                • No, it doesn’t make you RTC, but it might make you *like* (similar) RTC, which I think was Oracle’s point.

              • For years, Karen de la Carriere bragged that she was personally trained as an auditor and C/S by LRH.

                This is to set the record straight, she lied.

                She was never trained by LRH as class IX, X or XII auditor or as a C/S.

                That she bragged that she was a student and auditor aboard the Flagship Apollo in 1974 and 1975 when LRH was aboard does not make her the statuette that she portrays herself to be. He did not train her. This is known by the 50 or so auditors, intern auditors and C/Ses who were there too. LRH C/Sed many Flag auditors other than her. In fact, he only C/Sed one of her sessions in 1974 and it was an Objectives session.

                She had no esteem with other Flag auditor or C/S. They put up with her. She had a problem, megalomania. She acted as if she was royalty.

                That she got a taped TRs pass in 1975 does not mean she was trained by LRH. He gave passes to many other auditors, C/Ses and outer org students. LRH passed quite a few auditors’ TRs over the years and none of them proclaimed that they were “trained” by LRH.

                She was stripped of any classification even before she left the church, and that’s a known fact.

                She’s known to shower people with money or gifts to buy their friendship or trap them with a sweet sympathetic consoling black widow charm.

                • Thank you for your review. Taking someone or thing and turning it into nothing, is a magical skill that has impressed many people. Making things vanish. You suck out the value. Some people get into working it with a plate of food, and really over do it. “Look! I made the food vanish!”
                  “I made nothing from something”. Unfortunately they don’t. You just don’t see it because it is packed in their belly.

                  Karen’s value isn’t in her certs. Definitely not to be found in other people’s enemy conditions towards her. Not in L. Ron Hubbard’s approval or instruction or standards. I could not care less about her status on the Apollo, or status granted by those homeless or parent-less people on the Apollo. All the standards you are using to make nothing of her, are within your attitudes, not mine.I could not care less about her status or certification in the Sea Org or Church by “tech or admin royalty”.

                  The next time you, yourself, have been reduced to absolutely nothing, your values will shift. And you will need to straighten out some math. Because you will remain in that state, of “NOTHING” until you pass through some woman’s thighs and are granted life.

                  Then, you will understand true royalty.

                  “A right of jurisdiction granted to an individual or corporation, by a sovereign”.

                  • L. Ron Hubbard will never be more valuable, than the lowest fertile woman on this Earth. This is a nature universe. It is about humanity, as a whole. Humanity is a rudiment. Those who explore Scientology, without humanity, get no benefit, as it explored over out ruds.

                    Your ruds are not out with Karen.

                    Your ruds are out with humanity.

                    The hate and ill will directed at Marty right now, their ruds aren’t out with him. Their ruds are out with humanity. That isn’t on Marty. That isn’t on Karen. This is not good for all mankind, not just people in the Scientology arena.

                    • Who do you think, puts these people here to buy L. Ron Hubbard’s books?

                    • You just keep thinking, ” Xenu” too, and watch how fast you “come back”.

                      You be M.I.A. just like Hubbard.

                    • ” Xenu bypasses women determining birth and directing life.” Not even on a cold day in hell. He even had to negate that power, and source it to some man from Timbuktu. Hysterical!

                    • And how “well trained” is a tech terminal, who thinks if you do NOT have out ruds on someone named Xenu, there is something WRONG with YOU?

                  • You missed the point entirely. No one is criticizing Karen for being a woman, that’s your attempt to misdirect the readers on an irrelevant and off topic issue. I said that Karen was not trained by LRH and provided the data. Karen should stop perpetrating that lie, and that’s my point. Stop being dramatic and pedantic every time something critical is being posted. If you have something that contradicts what I said then post it and I will be happy to debate it with you.

                    Once Upon a Time made a very good point. If Karen is attacking LRH and Scientology (meaning the tech itself) how can she audit people and receive payments in exchange? I would like Karen to come here and answer that question instead of sending others to do her bidding.

                    These are the promo links about Karen in case you missed them:
                    http://www.scientology-cult.com/karen-de-la-carriere-jentzschs-resignation-from-the-church.html

                    http://internationalfreezone.net/Karen-de-la-Carriere.shtml

                    • “No one is criticizing Karen for being a woman, that’s your attempt to misdirect the readers on an irrelevant and off topic issue.”

                      Laughter!

                    • Old timer, you indicate that Karen is sending others here to her bidding. Who did she send to do her bidding?

                    • You have this on the table, that she is sending others here to do her bidding. Can I have the name of someone she sent here to do her bidding?

                    • By the way, are your ruds in on Karen?

                • Its on the record that Karen is one of only 7 class XII C/Ss. I personally
                  know and met 2 class 12’s who know her. They consider she is the real deal.

                  The only people who diss her are those in CO$. This is the organisation
                  who prevented her attending her son’s funeral.

                • Doesn’t Pierre Ethier list her as a Class XII? Are we hair-splitting here or what…

                  “She was stripped of any classification even before she left the church, and that’s a known fact. …”

                  FACTS not in evidence sir. Least to me.

      • Harpoona Frittata

        “Mocking up a new cult, to complain about an old one, is the height of high comedy. Had Theroux documented this part of the theater, he could have rendered a social study masterpiece.”

        I’ve been a hold-out against adopting the preferred terminology of academics in describing groups like $cn as “high-demand groups,” as opposed to labeling them as “cults”. But after reading your post, and that of several others here who have used the word “cult” to describe the so-called anti-$cn community, I’m definitely starting to appreciate the advantage of doing so.

        First, at a general level of analysis, almost anything that you’d care to name that has to do with the characteristics of individuals and groups of individuals is much more accurately described as existing on a continuum, of almost infinitely fine gradation, rather than as fitting into some neat, discrete category or another. So, adopting language that directly conveys that continuous shading from one extreme end of that continuum to the other enables one to think much more fluidly about things from the get go. Doing so alleviates the need to judge “cult or not cult” and changes the focus to one that’s much less rigid and far more panoramic.

        Second, by focusing on the demand level that the group puts on the individual, and the means by which that demand is exerted, you escape the unenviable task of trying to explain, for example, why the RC Church is not a cult, but $cn is. Unless we can all come to a decision about where the threshold is to be crossed, based on the cumulative and interactive effect of many different factors that cults have been identified by traditionally, then it’s always going to be “you’re a cult, but we’re not”. In other words, a relativistic endeavor destined to end in yelling or worse.

        Third, by focusing on the level of demand that the group places on its members in order for them to be granted or to retain membership in that group we can very quickly see why referring to the so-called ASC movement as a cult, in comparison to $cn, is a blatant false equivalence and to make that hyperbolic claim just seems plain silly or a purposeful obfuscation.

        To begin with, unlike $cn, there is no official group to join, dues to pay or rules to follow within that very loose and broadly structured category of folks who others might choose to label as being a part of the ASC. Indeed, it is so broad and ill-defined that it can encompass both individuals who still believe in the efficacy of Elron’s Tech, but denounce the cherch’s current leadership, and those of us who’ve come to reject the entire enchilada. The point here is that there really isn’t any kind of official anti-$cn group to begin; it’s much more of an externally defined construct that the folks who use haven’t even seen fit to describe with enough specificity for someone like me to know if qualify as being part of what you’re referring to.

        Further, even if you were to narrow the construct so that it did make sense (say, by defining it as those you see as sucking Ortega dick), then those folks may indeed be annoying, regrettable, ill-conceived, unproductive, or whatever or pejorative label that you fancy, but it’s still a very low-demand group, with no membership requirements, no dues to pay, no coercive threat of family disconnection, no forced abortions…I could go on here for awhile, but I hope you get my point.

        So, that’s a long way around to saying that your use of the term “cult” to describe this broad, vague and ill-defined group that you folks have named the “anti-$cn community is both ill-posed and, even if you were to tighten it up, it would still be a clear false equivalence.

        When viewed on the continuum of low-to-high demand, $cn makes a large number of very strictly enforced demands. On the other hand, although I’m fairly sure you folks would class me as belonging to the ASC, I pretty much free to roam the open fields of thought and debate as I see fit, with nary an unkind word coming my way.

        After all, here I am, right in the jaws of the “anti-anti-$cn community, facing off with you, one of its most ardent, umm, what DO you folks call yourself again?

        • A person, like you.

          • Harpoona Frittata

            Always a good start! That’s kinda my more general point too.

            • A good “start”? To what?

              It’s not a start, it’s a given.

              • Harpoona Frittata

                A “good start” to providing the beginning of an answer to my question. I was reinforcing, in a more oblique and wry way, the point that I’m made more explicitly and in detail in the preceding text.

                Except for actual membership cult groups, such as $cn – which you have to join yourself and conform to its rules and mores in order to remain a member – there is no real anti-$cn cult, as Marty and others here would have it, because there are no membership dues, rules, etc. to make it a real membership group that’s defined from the inside.

                So, all of us out here who are no longer a member of the cherch are just humans whose beliefs more or less overlap with others; there’s no defining boundary to being in or being out, which is decidedly NOT the case with $cn.

                • I think Marty and others are trying to convey the idea of a psychodynamic which is personal and internal to each person, which can perhaps be summed up as “You can take the person out of the cult, but that doesn’t necessarily take the cult out of the person.” The tendencies to act cultishly are within some people, maybe most people, almost like a hard-wiring. This seems to account for various kinds of partisanship that is so evident in politics and religion, for example.

      • “He has never stepped foot in a Church of Scientology, and is passing himself as a “Scientology expert” for a valid identity.”

        I really can’t be bothered to get involved in the wider argument/discussion about all of this, but this one point bugs me every time I see someone make it about TO (perhaps because I am a journalist, though nothing to do with Scientology).

        Are you genuinely suggesting that a person cannot be an expert in a field they have never personally ‘experienced’? Because that’s utterly ridiculous.

        So all Egyptologists are frauds because they didn’t live in Ancient Egypt? All psychiatrists are incapable of diagnosing patients unless they themselves have a mental illness?

        If people dislike TO and/or wish to broadcast that fact: fine, but do it for reasons that are justifiable, not just ‘Well he was never a Scientologist so how dare he comment! How dare he make a career out of writing about it!’

        …He is a journalist. His job is to research and report facts. Now, if you disagree with the idea that he IS indeed reporting facts or not, then fine – THAT is a justifiable (in your opinion, at least) reason to dislike him or his work (if you have evidence).

        He has been reporting and researching Scientology for a very, very long time. By this point, generally, most people would call him an expert. But even if you don’t consider him an expert, his credentials as a journalist reporting on and researching Scientology are NOT diminished by the fact that he is a ‘never-in’.

        If/when you are attempting to highlight your dislike for Tony Ortega, that particular argument is incredibly feeble.

        • Your characterizations of Ortega are incredibly feeble, at best.

        • “So all Egyptologists are frauds because they didn’t live in Ancient Egypt?”

          Egyptologists study their subject, Ortega doesn’t. He reports gossip and that’s why he is not an expert.

          “If/when you are attempting to highlight your dislike for Tony Ortega, that particular argument is incredibly feeble.”

          Before asserting Marty’s dislike for Ortega, read Ortega’s vomit about Marty, he didn’t express his love for Marty either.

  36. Pingback: Scientology Blog Wars Part 2, There Can Be Only One! - Scientology Bollocks

  37. Hemi, your post contributed nicely to the discussion, particularly this part:

    “WHAT IS THERE ANYWAY? ‘Going Clear’ asked that, Lawrence Wright, said he really wanted to know the answer, and he is sincere in that, but – he never did find it, or bothered too much. But Louis Theroux did venture way more to answer that. He talked about his positive experience in auditing, and claims he tried it not as a trick, but truly wanting to benefit, if applicable. And the same with the TRs which he showed. What other external documentary ever got that far?? So I thought, having little expectations, that you Marty did manage to achieve a great deal there.”

  38. “Louis Theroux’s Scientology movie isn’t one of his best
    Spectacled, unsexy, a bit pedantic, Louis Theroux incarnates the stereotype of the Englishman Abroad, like a modern version of the kind of character who used to turn up in novels by Evelyn Waugh.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/louis-theroux-my-scientology-movie-review-20160907-grak7t.html

  39. I want to give Tony Ortega kudos for telling the Bunkerites this morning to knock off the speculations regarding the health of Marty’s and Mosey’s marriage. I thought that was a very responsible and classy thing to do. Will it ultimately stop them? Probably not. He apparently even removed one of the worst offending posts. So good for you Tony O.

    The immaturity and low class behavior of many exes and critics continues to abound. Sure, Marty has been offering up some controversial posts lately. And he is a controversial figure given who he is. Background and all of that. But why do so many people who are in their 50s, 60s, and even 70s act like teen aged gossipy girls when discussing him? Why all the speculations as to his mental health? Can’t they just discuss the merits of what he says without all the extra nonsense? It’s okay to disagree. Hell, disagree with passion even. But no, they have to psychoanalyze and come up with these fantastical ideas as to “what’s wrong with Marty”.

    And again, lately on both ESMB and The Bunker the speculations are abounding as to whether Marty and Mosey are on the path to divorce. Some have even said that Mosey and their child could be in danger!! I just saw on ESMB that someone said that Marty seems like he may be in the middle or latter stages of alcoholism!! Really? That can be ascertained and diagnosed based on internet postings? Get a life you people with apparently too much time on your hands! I’m betting that the very ones making these outrageous, judgmental claims have very dysfunctional lives themselves. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least. And….and….they call those who post here “loonies”…”creeps”….and sometimes worse. What a bunch of self righteous assholes. Again, probably have messed lives away from their damn keyboards. Would freak out if they even had a fraction of the spotlight that Marty has had.

    Oh, and now it’s being speculated that Marty has been secretly flying to London to secretly audit Tom Cruise!! LOL!!! OMG!!! It’s really too much! The creativeness of these speculations knows no limits. Maybe they should write scripts for movies or something. Or audition for TMZ.

    Come on you middle aged and elderly losers….go do something productive. If you can’t think of anything you can always go fuck yourselves. Surf porn or something. My god the mental diarrhea that comes out and spills all over their keyboards. It just never ceases.

    Jiminy H. Crickets these effing people.

    • A cursory study in modern psychology will show that ‘projection’ of one’s own intentions and ideas onto others is widely understood to be a fundamental problem of the neurotic mind.

      • Roger From Switzerland Thought

        “‘projection’ of one’s own intentions and ideas onto others is widely understood to be a fundamental problem of the neurotic mind.”
        This is a very interesting subject and worth some discussions.
        This concept doesn’t exist in this form in Scientology and may be one of the main Problem there.

        • Hi Roger. It actually does in two respects I am aware of. It is discussed in a limited sense in the ‘Criminal Mind’; assigning it only to the criminally inclined. In the early lectures – like PDC, Hubbard goes into it more deeply and philosophically, reflecting the Toltec seer realization that reality is only projections that each of us make.

          • There’s also this from 8-8008:

            “One who blames others continually can be discovered to effect [bring about] most of the things for which he is blaming other people.”

            • And that’s where things go south. It’s a tricky statement, as is often usual with Hubbard when he’s busy re-mixing psychiatric tenets.

              “Can” does not mean “does” or “will”.

              Assigning proper cause does not equal “blame” either.

              And no…this is not an invitation for a philosophical debate Marildi. I said what I wanted to. The end.

              Virginia

              • “And no…this is not an invitation for a philosophical debate Marildi. I said what I wanted to. The end.”

                No problem, Virginia. I don’t even disagree with what you said about the words “can” and “blame.” He also used the word “most” in that sentence – and I believe all these words were used advisedly.

                However, I’m not at all sure that particular observation of Hubbard’s, back in the early ’50s existed as a psychiatric tenet at the time. But I do know that, decades later, a number of modern spiritual teachers are teaching the same principle.

                Actually, I’ve noticed a number of other observations Hubbard made as well that in recent decades are being put forward by others. Off the top of my head, one example is the idea that emotions have frequencies.

                You also wrote: “Assigning proper cause does not equal ‘blame’ either.”

                Right you are. Actually, Hubbard says the same, in that same book.

                Okay, now we’ve both said what we wanted to.🙂

                • Very good. Anything else you think I am not aware of concerning Hubbard?

                  • Add – just in case I may have missed something (in my research work of Hubbard) that you feel is pertinent to this topic. I don’t think I have, but I’m always open to looking.

                    • Here’s one for you, Virginia, since you mentioned the Babylonia Talmud.

                      “Throughout the history of man in various cultures, the Babylonians, the Hindoos, the ancient Greeks, for example, much has been learned and formulated about thought. Put some of these things together in a new way, and you have Dianetics.” (NOTL)

                      That’s a succinct answer to those who accuse Hubbard of “stealing” all his ideas and not recognizing other thinkers before him – not to mention (which they don’t) that he put them together in a whole new – and practical – way.

                    • I am familiar with the references and concepts that you provided, thank you for the reminder.

                  • Well, I don’t know if you are auditor trained, but from my (moderate) training I know that it was Hubbard who developed precise practical applications of the principle (alliteration not intended🙂 ).

                    For example, if a pc is criticizing others, s/he is asked: “Have you ever done anything like that?” or “Do you have a similar overt of your own?”

                    Furthermore, an auditor wouldn’t pursue such a topic unless it had read on the meter. And even though people minimize the use of the meter in auditing as not having been Hubbard’s own invention, he is the one who – here again – put it to practical use.

                    • Excellent, thank you for the reminder.

                      I believe Mike has already explained the common practical uses of this as a debate/attack tactic towards scientology “enemies”.

                    • Can you be a little clearer about what you mean?

                    • No, I don’t think so since it isn’t unclear to me. You’ll have to be more specific as to what is unclear to you.

                    • Ah. On second though, perhaps my error was in assuming that you are well familiar with the practice of accusing those with valid criticism points of scientology, Hubbard, etc. as having overts and withholds, criminal mind “accuses others” etc.

                      Are you *not* familiar with this debate/attack tactic by scientologists?

                      That would certainly explain your need for further clarification.

                    • In the previous comment, you had written: “I believe Mike has already explained the common practical uses of this as a debate/attack tactic towards scientology ‘enemies’ ” – and I wasn’t sure what “this” referred to, as my comment pointed out several things.

                      But yes, I’m familiar with that tactic, although by the same token I believe it isn’t always just a “tactic” or invalid – and the criticisms aren’t always valid.

                      What is indeed valid, according to my experience on various flows, is the principle itself and Hubbard’s systematic method of freeing the individual from related effects. Is your experience similar?

                    • Glad you’re clear now.

                    • Marildi, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that in our exchanges here you are either attempting to “handle” or expose me in some way – perhaps a little of both.

                      Clearly you are a scientologist, I am not. Never have been even when I was – long story.

                      What my views are regarding it (or any other system) I thought I expressed rather clearly here in this comment.

                      It is not possible to “handle” me in regards being supportive of scientology technology, as such, but if you share my views expressed in that comment perhaps that could be the common ground.

                    • Virginia: “It is not possible to ‘handle’ me in regards being supportive of scientology technology, as such, but if you share my views expressed in that comment perhaps that could be the common ground.”

                      I’m not trying to handle you (or anybody else) to be supportive towards the tech. I realized quite a while back that scientology isn’t for everybody – especially someone like you who doesn’t need that sort of structured system in order to benefit in whatever way(s) you wish to. The post of yours that you linked to says it well.

                      If you look back over some of my own posts, you’ll see that in general, not just with you, I object to comments I consider to be misinformation about Hubbard or scientology. It’s really just an interest in truth on my part, because I do think that scientology has much to offer (for some people). At the same time, I’m willing to discuss whatever the point is and to change my mind about it if warranted (although, to put it mildly, getting a true discussion going isn’t easy!😉 ).

                      Bottom line for you is this – I do think we have common ground, and I’m glad we’ve started to get to know each other.🙂

                    • This is really interesting Marildi.

                      “I’m not trying to handle you (or anybody else) to be supportive towards the tech. I realized quite a while back that scientology isn’t for everybody – especially someone like you who doesn’t need that sort of structured system in order to benefit in whatever way(s) you wish to.”

                      I hadn’t thought of it in quite that way, and it’s corollary that there may very well be some individuals that could benefit by starting out in a more structured system until they “quit yer lying”, as we like to say, and fly like the magnificent creatures they have always been.

                      Thanks for that perspective and for being a person that is willing to listen.

                    • “I hadn’t thought of it in quite that way, and it’s corollary that there may very well be some individuals that could benefit by starting out in a more structured system until they ‘quit yer lying,’ as we like to say, and fly like the magnificent creatures they have always been.”

                      Well said, Virginia. And I definitely agree that some people need/want more structure than others. I’d also agree with the idea that a person can at any time “outgrow,” or simply feel they no longer need, scientology – and/or feel that a different path, or no path, is now the right thing for them (and it likely would be).

                      “Thanks for that perspective and for being a person that is willing to listen.”

                      Ditto to you.🙂

          • People shouldn’t confuse reality with existence. There’s “real” and then there’s real. The two can be very far apart on occasion.

          • Roger From Switzerland Thought

            Yes, as usual a little bit of everything.
            But this freudian concept is very helpful and in fact not from LRH but FREUD, quite precise. I read more about it and I’m fascinated.
            A solution is to reflect over one’s own behaviour and see if the projections are a Problem of oneself, and this works like a charm.
            Should be teached at any School.

            And in Scientology there is no room for selfreflection, except if you pay in auditng, but then in very narrow boundaries or under the command of the evals of an EO. Any self critisicm is forbidden in Scientology, except in those cases.

            Many Scientologists that left are still abiding to those principles and aren’t able to look at themselves and their Output. The bunker Shows this mentality.

            • I don’t think *all* of them are projecting, I think there’s a relative few that tend to stir everybody up. Perhaps that’s where the self criticism might come in real handy over there right about now, on the topic of jumping on band wagons.

          • You might be interested in this reference regarding the concept of projection Mark. I found it as part of my research for an article I’m working on for our Reading Library
            (as we call it). It is apparently from *way* back in time.

            Babylonian Talmud. pp. Baba Metsiya 59b; Kiddushin 70a.

            “And he who [continually] declares [others] unfit is [himself] unfit and never speaks in praise [of people]. And Samuel said: All who defame others, with their own blemish they stigmatize [these others].”

            I think it’s interesting just how far back some ideas go, and that a primarily religious tenet later showed up in psychology (as have many others). The same is completely true with psychiatry, interestingly enough, which not many people know. That’s the article that I’m working on.

    • Lone Star, a lot of those gossipy interactions were well described in a branch of psychology called Transactional Analysis. There is a game/pastime called “Ain’t It Awful” described. Many people are playing that. http://www.coach4lifechange.com/2010/04/aint-it-awful/

    • Here’s the exact projection from Victoria on ESMB:

      “I haven’t said this before, but while I’m projecting I’ll mention that Marty has all the signs of mid to late stage alcoholism.”

      http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?42581-Rathbun-Attempts-To-Defend-David-Miscavige&p=1113542&viewfull=1#post1113542

      You can’t make this stuff up. Victoria is literally projecting her own middle to late stage alcoholism onto Marty Rathbun. And no one else speaks up about this, or even notices it.

      It is really sad to see how things have devolved in the Ex-Scientology community. Such unimaginative, cliquish, and stupid commenting from people who have nothing better to do now than tear down other Ex-Scientologists, while pretending to run a message board for Ex-Scientologists.

      Stick a fork in it, man. It is over.

      Alanzo

    • Ems dahling! You’re having a difficult time understanding me lately? I guess that Victoria didn’t tell you…..I am in the later stages of meth addiction! I don’t understand me either! (Damn…another tooth just fell out and bounced off the keyboard).

      Oh, and ITYIWT….Yes a truce would be lovely. Let’s all cry for absolution. Now who can grant us this absolution?

      Oh I know!!! Papa Emeritus and the Nameless Ghouls! Lets us pray….or prey….

      • Damn LS, who knew you were so fricking funny? Thanks for the morning giggle.

        And may I say that it’s been great getting to know you a little bit better? Especially without having to always play the “pistols at dawn” game at ESMB.

        Ha.

        Although I do remember we had at least *one* moment of ceasefire when you got a laugh out of when I said something like “Well, smack my ass and call me Susie.”

        Virginia

      • Hi Lonestar – Since you earlier turned me on to Ghost music, I often use it as meditation music. It’s very mellow. If you use it that way it might help you kick your meth addiction!

        P.S. By word clearing the terms in Ghost music I kind of got a reverse education in Christianity. Fallen angels and that sort of stuff.🙂

        • That’s interesting. Maybe I should take a listen.

        • Can you hear the rumble?

          • Lone Star – Here’s a rumble from Ghost which you already know:

            Since dawn of time
            The fate of man is that of lice
            Equal as parasites
            And moving without eyes

            Crestfallen kings and queens
            Comforting in their faith
            Unbeknownst to them
            Is the presence of the wraith

            Hail Satan! – Year Zero!
            . . . . .

            From “Year Zero” by Ghost

            I may be wrong but from the Ghost music it seems that the coming of Satan or Lucifer is seen as a time of awakening or enlivening. Also the destruction of religion and political kingdoms which has been used throughout time to extract wealth from beleivers and subjects.

  40. A Brief PS To The Above re: “Fair Game”

    In May, when Mark described Ortega’s coverage of the end of the lawsuit as “Fair Gaming” himself and his family, honestly I thought it was hyperbolic. For me, Scientology-style “Fair Game” means atrocities like trying to get Paulette Cooper framed for terrorism or talked into suicide, drowning judges’ dogs, etc etc, rather than just mean insinuations about someone on a blog.

    However, I was just thinking that in the wider sense of the term, Mark was on the button. Fair Game can be boiled down to the following proposition: “A bad guy is exempt from civilised rules of behaviour”. A decent human being should be, for example, free from nasty gossip and speculation just for the hell of it. But if someone is identified by the group as having become a Bad Guy (“SP”, Suppressive Person or Scientology Promoter), you get to let all your worst impulses fly over them.

    In wartime, this takes the form of “atrocity stories” – making up wild accusations about your enemy’s total depravity, to cohere the public behind the war effort (what Orwell satirised as “Two Minutes’ Hate”). And the secret to atrocity stories is: no matter how bad the truth is, you can ALWAYS make it EVEN WORSE.

    Now unlike Ortega’s blog, on which I don’t read the comments for my mental health, I do read the comments on Mike Rinder’s blog, as they are often goofy but generally good natured. Now yesterday I saw some fool declaring that Mark had obviously got “a nice chunk of change” from Miscavige for “defending” him.

    Of course, Mark’s reviews have NOT defended DM. They have made two assertions which have driven the Bunker into a rage: 1) DM has never spoken directly to a PI; 2) the depiction of DM in Theroux’s movie was not factual. Neither of these can be seen as “defending” him. They just suggest that particular propositions are false or unproven. But the secret of atrocity propaganda is that the group is REQUIRED to believe THE VERY WORST. To suggest that the enemy has NOT done every evil attributed to them is treason.

    Now, the same commentator (I think) in another part of the same thread was breathlessly retailing atrocity stories about North Korea. Now, North Korea is a totalitarian shithole which would have made Joe Stalin think DAMN those guys are over the top. But – as above – South Korean intelligence always takes stuff and embellishes it. Like the ridiculous story this guy was retailing, that some minister was taken out and blown up with mortar rounds for shouting in a movie.

    A few years ago, a real example of the regime’s brutality undisputably happened for the world to see. Jang Song Thaek, Kim Jong Un’s uncle, was denounced as a traitor at a live-televised meeting, dragged out by security and shot later that day. This happened, North Korea is not ashamed to admit it, it shows what a nightmare that country is. But that wasn’t enough for the South Korean spooks. They had to add “… and then they fed his body to 80 hungry wild dogs!!!!” Just to make the story sizzle a bit.

    What is more sizzling for someone who’s hungry for anti-Scientology morsels than the idea that COB RTC told a PI to let his dad die? Whether it actually happened can’t be disputed by anyone who wants to be part of the group held together by hating the Church of Scientology. David Miscavige is fair game – by not behaving towards DM in the way that the Bunker wanted him to (easy for them to say because it wasn’t their asses on the ground), Mark became fair game. All that remains to be said was that if Mark is correct that certain Bunkerites fundraised to hire PIs to go after him to try to get his child taken away from them, what IS the difference between those individuals and the lowliest OSA goon anyway?

    • “David Miscavige is fair game – by not behaving towards DM in the way that the Bunker wanted him to (easy for them to say because it wasn’t their asses on the ground),”

      Deloras, I think you meant to say “Marty Rathbun [not David Miscavige] is fair game – by not behaving towards DM in the way that the Bunker wanted him to…”

  41. Pingback: Louis Theroux's Scientology Documentary Accused Of 'Deception' - Yahoo Movies UK - Web Magazine

  42. I inadvertently posted my reply in the ‘day-old bakery aisle’. I asked Marty to move it over to the correct blog when I realized my mistake, but I assume he’s up to his ears, so I’ll try just pasting it, along with Mark and Virginia’s responses. Hope this saves you some time, Marty (other than deleting the original posting to the wrong blog). It should make more sense located here. Be well, Marty.

    excult.jan | September 6, 2016 at 8:22 pm | Reply

    Marty,

    I respond here as a former cultist “used” by Louis Theroux, so I know of what I speak. I have personally been on the receiving end of his interviewing style and camera crew for Michael Moore’s “TV Nation” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZ_ze5qyuo before I exited.

    Watching the leader and my (former) fellow cultists get excited about the anticipated publicity they believed would result just added to my cognitive dissonance, which was getting pretty loud by that time. For someone not engaged in the groupthink that clearly continues to interest Louis, it would have been impossible to not anticipate the extreme embarrassment of being included in a national program where everyone else in the other cults was so obviously a flaming wackjob. But nobody admitted that out loud. At the time, I only let myself think it for about ¼ second. It is still excruciating, so much so that this is the first I’ve ever mentioned it, even anonymously. So I get it. I get how embarrassing it must be now for you to look back on your role as his movie is about to hit US airwaves.

    I also watched the leader and my (former) fellow cultists slam Louis for not getting it ‘right’ and for making fun of us rather than getting the importance of the ‘true’ message out there and not following the leader’s script. Numerous diatribes tearing down Big Bad Louis resulted. They circulated in order to fan the group’s indignation which barely camouflaged our secret personal humiliation.

    That said, it’s NOT “Marty’s Scientology Movie”, it’s Louis’ movie. He is a genius at drawing out people with odd beliefs. It was Louis’ movie from the get go, not a vehicle for your personal agenda. For you to expect otherwise is beyond naïve. Lots of folks are speculating on your motive for writing this now. From where I sit, having also been a subject of Louis Theroux, I believe you must secretly feel utterly chagrined as you are about to be seen by a wide audience with no scientology investment.

    While “TV Nation” was simply humorous entertainment for most viewers, it likely raised healthy questions for others. Confronting the reason for my secret embarrassment was one of the final straws that broke me free from any agenda or mission involving the leader’s teachings. Louis gets some credit for being both entertaining and enlightening, even though his wasn’t the script I supported at the time. In other words, Louis Theroux was a catalyst for a huge fu*king growth opportunity for me. I hope being one of Louis’ subjects becomes “just another FGO” for you, too, one day.

    Mark C. Rathbun | September 6, 2016 at 8:43 pm | Reply

    Thanks. Interesting. I have no issue with Louis Theroux. I knew who he was coming in. As noted I had no agenda – and the record shows it – to carry Scientology’s brief.The issue for me is summed up in the first paragraph of the review.
    mcclaughry | September 7, 2016 at 7:50 am | Reply

    Mark –

    What happened to Chinn….that’s the part I was interested in because there were obviously “pressures” brought to bear to make him conform. “Pressures” sourcing from individuals. Individuals that had intentions perhaps a *bit* more far-reaching than a simple dollars-to-glory ratio.

    For other readers – this part of Mark’s “Louis Theroux’s Scientology Movie post, the first paragraph, is what I’m talking about.

    “During my involvement in the movie’s creation I witnessed Chinn being sucked into the staged-news, infotainment vortex that seems to have consumed the erstwhile Fourth Estate.”

    Virginia

  43. WTF over (laughing) How did my original comment disappear and then end up as part of a posting by excult-jan?

    I have wordpress and I can’t even conceive how *that* happened.

    No worries, I’m guessing things must be *real* interesting over where you are Mark.

  44. Hi Marty .
    I have a question !?
    Do you use The Oracle ,just to mention “Tony Ortega” name , 200 times in comments , or you really think her comments are helpful?
    Thank You ,
    Big hello from LRHs Bulgravia.

    • Why don’t you share with us, your reasons and purposes for needing to unmock me? You are like a little demon running behind me stabbing and stabbing at my back. Do share with us what prompted this need.

    • Hi koki! Great comment! Marty probably not allowed to reply – free speech thing. Big hello back to you in LRHs Bulgravia!

    • Koki, the Oracle and I might have our differences over Karen de la Carriere, but if you wasted your time counting how many times she mentioned Ortega then I suggest you go back to the bunker and count how many times Marty’s name is mentioned in a single thread. If you are so sensitive about your buddy Ortega being mentioned in here then keep reading the bunker and ESMB as they are more appropriate for people like you.

  45. So..hi everybody.

    I’d like to talk about this very interesting discussion between Oracle and Mark.

    Oracle wrote – (bolding is mine)

    Mocking up a new cult, to complain about an old one, is the height of high comedy. Had Theroux documented this part of the theater, he could have rendered a social study masterpiece. He was either too lazy to bring it all the way around the bend, or short on resources. Ridiculous always = mediocrity. And Theroux flaunts that as well.

    Mark responded –

    Mark C. Rathbun | September 7, 2016 at 4:41 pm | Reply

    Your final paragraph is what I worked on for three years – they had enough material for five films. They repeatedly represented that is what they were working on.

    Did everybody actually GET what Mark just said there?

    I know I did.

    Bravo, Mark, bravo.

    Perhaps some might even now better understand why Mike and I did what we did when we came out initially (in 2000), which was quite similar on a number of levels.

    They are both a sort of DO YOU SEE WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE OR NOT…

    No? (One yes) Ok then. Moving on…and we did.

    Virginia

  46. When I realized that being against was becoming it’s own thing I started leaving the “fight”. I have no interest in going over the same stuff for the next ten or twenty years. Really, it’s pointless except for the entertainment value, or if you get paid for it.

    • “it’s pointless except for the entertainment value, or if you get paid for it.”

      I think you are missing a few options there.

      I don’t think Mark comes under either point. Neither do I, and probably several other people posting here.

      You think this is a FIGHT? It’s not.

  47. Reading these comments that are comments about comments mostly from other blogs is seriously mind bogging and saddening.

    Mark spent 27 years in the Sea Org. He left. He was rumored as dead.

    He rose from the dead🙂 – and settled in Texas. And met a woman.

    He started writing a blog. He was praised and lauded by many former members who still followed the tech/admin of LRH. He was praised and lauded by many who didn’t follow the tech/admin of LRH.

    He married the woman he met in when he arrived in Texas.

    They have a son.

    He was featured in a movie with other former members. He was then part of another movie.

    He’s written a review of a former member’s book. He has not commented on other former member’s books or very little.

    And NOW (according to comments) he is
    1) suffering from end stage alcoholism
    2) getting a divorce
    3) living off a huge payoff from OSA or Miscavige or ?
    4) obviously mentally ill
    5) wife is mentally ill because she fired her attorneys when they were WINNING?

    And so it goes.

    My comment:

    Monique is a strong, courageous, intelligent woman who got involved with someone who “warned” her about his scientology past. She stayed with him through the insanity of the squirrel busters etc. She adores her husband and her son. And her family

    To think that she is a trophy wife or a wife who just does what she’s told or
    a wife who runs the household and wears the pants or a wife who doesn’t know who she is.

    Or anything that doesn’t recognize that Monique IS a strong, intelligent woman in a partnership WITH her husband for the benefit of each other, their child and their family …

    Is a MISOGYNIST.

    EVEN IF you are voting for Hillary or NOT voting for Hillary.

    Windhorse

    • The above is not to say that Mark and Monique might not have goals that go beyond their families. It is to say that at their core, as far as I can tell, family forms the basis of their lives.

      From there – remaining honest and true to themselves they might or might not expand their goals. It’s up to them obviously.

      It’s been my personal experience with them that they are gracious. Well mannered. Do not gossip. Share common interests (sports is one I can think of — watching and doing).

      And never ever say one potentially snarky comment to each other. NOT ONE.

      They are not motivated by money nor do they feel one should be penniless.

      This seems to sum it up🙂

      “This above all: to thine own self be true,
      And it must follow, as the night the day,
      Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

      Windhorse

  48. Just have to add: if Mark HAD gotten a huge payoff, why is he still here, and not sunning himself on some tropical island like Debbie Cook did after her huge payoff?

  49. Windhorse , you can always be counted on to calm things down.
    Always a pleasure to read you.

  50. Little “Bunnyskull” , Lurking in the shadows, stabbing stabbing stabbing like a frustrated serial killer. Posing as an “all knowing”. Knows how to invent and forward false reports, and re-stimulate people into sadism.

    If we didn’t have this kind of evil in the game, there would be no real theater. I too, know how to lurk in the shadows so no responsibility can be assigned to me. I would wake every morning and devote a minimum of 30 minutes a day to validating that evil, until it grows so big it consumes it’s host. But then I would inherit the remainder. I’ll leave it to the co hosts on ESMB to work that spell on one another.

      • This is what they are really doing. They sit around and validate one another’s evil until it grows and grows and finally consumes them. While they think they are fucking everyone else up, they are actually running black magic on one another. And doing each other in.

        Such insanity and ill formed mathematics and wrong values happen, when people are parked well below confusion.

        Poof!

    • Bunny must really hate themselves. Maybe one day she/he will realize there’s nothing there to hate.

      • That would mean a failed purpose.

        This one:

        1st September 2016, 01:11 PM #25
        oneonewasaracecar

        Re: Rathbun Attempts To Defend David Miscavige

        Will Mosey take me to David Miscavige’s bondage room?

        Has already been consumed by his own evil. His “wants handled” is bondage and torture. Some people are so repelling though, even on such a violent motivator flow, they can’t pull it in from from a human. People are too repelled by the black magic surrounding them. They have to do themselves in. All over again.

        It is the anti self, they have to appeal to and rely on to incapacitate themselves. This is where you run across some strange human conditions. I’m sure the medical community will have a field day with him.

  51. Mark,

    Before I take off to work on some other things, I wanted to take a moment and thank you for your hospitality here. Including when your responses weren’t visible to others (regarding comments and such) I wanted you to know I really appreciated that as well.

    Virginia

  52. “At the end of the day, My Scientology Movie brings nothing intelligent to public discussion on Scientology”.

    Am I missing something here? Why does this even matter? It’s a film – entertainment I guess. What intelligent discussion is the public supposed to be having about Scientology? Given that just about everybody I know – including those still in the Church – have been damaged in some way, or at least have had their lives LESS enriched / fulfilled by involvement in Scientology, if it prevents some people getting sucked in that has to be a good thing in my book. It may be an hour and half well spent for some. I haven’t seen it yet but I probably will. I don’t generally comment on blogs these days – life’s too short – but I do hope you’re all fine and dandy Marty.

  53. Come on Marty. We have your uniform all dry cleaned and waiting for you

    • Once Upon a Time

      Hello Jeff Augustine I was wondering when you were going to show up. Everyone knows that your specialty is to impersonate OSA and RTC. My question to you is this: are you so afraid of Marty that you had to reduce yourself to impersonate those entities in order to voice your opinions?

      AJ

      • Geeze Christ he has his own blog. He hasn’t posted here , probably in years. If you have issue with them take it over to them. I do not see where Marty is in conflict with either of them. And you are really pushing this.

        Ortega stalked and fair gamed Marty and his wife for almost five months before Marty even got worked up enough to respond. Why would anyone need to be afraid of Marty because they posted a comment on another blog?

        Marty put up with the Squirrel Busters on his front lawn for 180 days. He put up with being handcuffed and driven away in a police car. He put up with gang ambushes from Germany through Hollywood, to L.A.X..

        He put up with people trying to drive him off the Freeway in L.A. with out losing his cool. he did not loose his cool.

        He has put up with the housewives , former guardian, finance police, and OSA volunteers and spies, of ESMB for years with out losing his cool.

        This BLACK PROPAGANDA campaign painting him as angry, volatile, war like and short tempered is sponsored by the Church Of Scientology and forwarded by anti Scientologists and sadists! It’s the people on the anti forums that are parked in hate, short tempered, over restimulated , war like and abusive!!

        YOU ARE THE THREAT to PEACE and HARMONY. NOT MARTY! You are the ones going volatile, hostile and assaultive over every little sentance he writes or piece of paper his files. IT’S YOU.

        There are wars happening. He did not start them. He is not getting sucked into it. He owes it to his family and friends to say SOMETHING after the fucking witch hunt you ignorant , lazy, dirty, uneducated, shiftless, burned out cult members, hippies, homeless, sneaky, treasonous, trash mouthed, poor white trash, Hubbard / Miscavige / Ortega cling ons went on and left your party trash all over his front yard!

        Your product is nothing but ill will and noise and fair gaming. Wrong indications, wrong whos, wrong whys, wrong items, LIES LIES LIES, false reports and other hallucinatory sewage that seeps from your numb lifeless hearts and minds.

        You are a SHAME and discredit to your parents, your family, your friends, your neighborhoods, your country, and the human race. Fucking up other people’s minds and life has become a full time hobby in your pathetic old age.

        Please turn your ill will on the person closest to you. Your “best friend”. Your spouse. Your own parents. Your lover. So someone in front of you can have a long hard look at what they co exist with. And take some responsibility for your sorry asses.

  54. The brain pissing is being stepped up between Marty and Tony if one reads today’s post at the Bunker.

    • Ha ha, if that second story about the continued “dead agenting” of Mark is accurate, then how can anyone believe the “Marty has been sucked back in” story? As for the review of the movie, it’s just pathetic. “The audience thought Marty was an arrogant fool. Marty is clearly still emotionally attached to Scientology”. As for the first, that’s how reality TV works – selective editing to turn someone into a bad guy. As for the second, that’s the kind of taunting that seems to be a mirror of OSA tactics – use someone’s ongoing hurt as a weapon to needle them.

  55. Words for the wise. Do not read The Bunker for you may lose your eternity

    • Lol…

    • That might be a button if someone here had fear of loss. But I Don’t think anyone over here has been racking up the losses. Some waste. Not much loss.

      I’m thinking it’s because most of the people curious here, want to make the most of freedom and pleasure. Not the least they can, of their fellow man.That can recoil pretty violently once you step out of favor with the Gods.

  56. “I found the film “My Scientology Movie” to be saddening. It evidences the degeneration of a once considerable talent, award-winning producer Simon Chinn. During my involvement in the movie’s creation I witnessed Chinn being sucked into the staged-news, infotainment vortex that seems to have consumed the erstwhile Fourth Estate. I will share a back story to the project to illustrate the concern.”

    Please move to http://www.s-hertogenbosch In my country, I will visit. I promisse.

  57. My thoughts about Marty and Monique and the little one:

  58. Well, well, well….poke me in the ass and call me Suzy! Ethercat has re-opened the Marty thread for public consumption on ESMB…with this caveat….

    “I will ask that you contribute to this thread in a constructive way. No pure bashing for bashing’s sake, no unfounded speculation about Marty’s mental state, financial or marital status, Mosey or their child. By “unfounded”, I mean “that which has no factual basis on which it can be supported.” If you can support something speculative that you want to say, please do so.”

    Well that’s just so goshdarned sweet! I’m getting teary eyed.

  59. Pingback: Tony Ortega’s Cowardly Invention of News | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  60. Una paloma blanca beyatches! Don’t let anyone take your freedom away…

    Lol….

  61. So much discord. So much mistrust. So much make wrong. So much projection. So much division. So much hearsay.

    So much attack of the attacker.

    Is this still the effect of a philosophy that needed an enemy to shadow box?

    I left in 82. That’s 34 years ago. These blogs have helped me to see, 34 years hence, that my young mind was imprinted by Ron’s need to engage in personal war with others. To blame others for my experience.

    No doubt that truth is important and clarity as well. Being deceived is worth revealing no doubt.

    Yet……

    It’s just my opinion, but the remnants of that war is still alive in those minds who have not neutralized some of that imprinting.

    34 years, and there are still subtle impressions and learned behavior that finds its way to the trash bin.

    And one if them is the emotional need to engage in person to person make wrong and inharmony.

    The Masters of the east have helped me overcome Ron’s wrong knowledge on dealing with inharmonious and ignorant people.

    “Your enemy is your greatest teacher”
    The Most Precious Lord Buddha

    “Master”, says the disciple to the Lord Buddha, “how is it that when that man was insulting you, hating you, making false accusations about you, you were so calm and happy”?

    Lord Buddha said, “my beloved disciple, please take this apple”. The disciple received it. The Master then said,” please give me the apple.”

    The disciple then stretched his hand out to give Lord Buddha the apple. But Lord Buddha did not take it.

    Then Lord Buddha said, “if I do not accept this apple, to whom does this apple belong”?

  62. Marildi –

    In the comments section of a couple posts back here (Mark’s posts) you took the time to respond to someone’s being complimentary of our work at our blog by saying something on the order of – good research, bad conclusions.

    While I am not certain if you were referring to my research or Mike’s or both, would you mind laying out for me numbered specifics (including direct quotes and the name of article/post/chapter at our blog) that you personally have reached the conclusion are “bad conclusions”?

    I would like to see if your points have merit, but I can not do that from such a generalized statement.

    Our work is ongoing and continually being “fleshed out” more and more, so if we have something that is one hundred percent provably wrong, I would, of course, want to make sure that is corrected.

    Virginia

  63. “In the comments section of a couple posts back here (Mark’s posts) you took the time to respond to someone’s being complimentary of our work at our blog by saying something on the order of – good research, bad conclusions.”

    Glad you asked about this, Virginia. I wasn’t referring to either yours or your husband’s research, as I know virtually nothing about it. In looking over that exchange just now, I see that it was Lone Star who was being complimentary where he wrote “Whether you come to agree with their conclusions or not, you won’t be able to deny that they’ve done their homework with voluminous documentation.” https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/the-danger-of-a-single-story/#comment-341128

    I didn’t reply to Lone Star’s comment, but a poster named Just the facts did so and challenged one of your conclusions. My reply was to Just the facts, and I was referring to critics in general where I wrote that “Research may be good, but conclusions made are usually based on preconceived ideas.”

    Not having read your website, I obviously wouldn’t know anything about your “usual” conclusions. And your comment above, indicating open- and fair-mindedness, was refreshing.

    • Marilidi – Thank you *so* much for clarifying that for me.

      The particular fact that really was a fact that Just the Facts challenged (is it me, or did that sound like something out of Monty Python…lol) anyway…that fact came directly from an official navy website.

      ‘Course he/she didn’t bother mentioning *that* fact, or the fact that I had even corrected (in the set of posts that Just the Facts was referring to) my own misunderstanding of some other facts I had been analyzing.

      I’m tired of typing the word fact now. (ha)

      I would definitely agree with you that your statement IS applicable to critics in general, only I would include the Church, Freedom magazine for example, in that as well. Their criticism of psychiatry is often so deplorably wrong and incorrectly sourced that it is as if they are TRYING to be discreditable.

      Anyway – thanks again. Some day, if you have the time (for these are not quick reads) I’d like your take on my husband’s chapters dealing with Hubbard’s Lifelong Intelligence Career. (bearing in mind these are still “draft” status and not finalized)

      Virginia

      • Virginia: “Thank you *so* much for clarifying that for me.”

        You get the credit for asking me to clarify. I’ve noticed that when I do that (ask for clarification), I often find that there was something I mistook or overlooked, or the other person inadvertently left out – and that particular something can make all the difference! So I wish this were done more often.

        “I would definitely agree with you that your statement IS applicable to critics in general, only I would include the Church, Freedom magazine for example, in that as well. Their criticism of psychiatry is often so deplorably wrong and incorrectly sourced that it is as if they are TRYING to be discreditable.”

        No disagreement with any of that. What’s so ironic and ludicrous is that the critics of the church do the same thing they criticize the church for – and vice versa.

        “Some day, if you have the time (for these are not quick reads) I’d like your take on my husband’s chapters dealing with Hubbard’s Lifelong Intelligence Career.”

        I looked it over – wow, “not quick reads” is an understatement! Lone Star’s compliments of your husband’s research appear to have been spot on. If I do have a chance and the inspiration to get into it, I’ll let you know.

        Meanwhile, “Just the facts, ma’am, nothing but the facts.” (Kidding you about all your “facts.” You’ll get it if you’ve watched Sgt. Friday in the old TV reruns of “Dragnet.”😉 )

      • Hi Virginia – I just started browsing Mike’s “Scientology Roots” book. Mike presents an amazing overview of religion in general, going into detail on any number of aspects and specific beliefs.

        I remember back around 1980 in order to become a scn “Minister” I had to read a book about comparative religions and then go “attest”. If Mike’s book was around way back then and I had read it, I would have blown scn a whole lot sooner!

        • P.S. – Maybe a subtitle: “A Study of Comparative Religion(s)” or “A Study of Comparative Religion and Philosophy”

          I’m guessing you and Mike would need to choose a Library of Congress classification, however that works. I suppose scn would be in Religion or Philosophy.

          I’ve read that the continual best selling number one and number two topical non fiction books are, number one, cook books, and number two, diet books. How about a revised book title, “How to Get Cooked in Scientology”.

        • Richard – I passed what you said on to Mike and he laughed at the end, and said to tell you he’s glad you’re finding it informative.🙂

  64. If Karen is not a practicing Scientologist, then why is she currently listed on every god damn Independent Scientology site as an active auditor? Doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out. She’s a double dipper. Dipping in the anti-Scientology arena, and dipping in the cans.

    I was publicly commenting on a forum about 6 months ago. How you really can’t be a critic of Scientology if you still practice auditing. Also, I feel it’s wrong to profit from auditing if it’s a ‘religious practice’ You should audit people for the sheer joy of helping them. I never mentioned Karen’s name once. Next thing I know, her & Jeffrey Augustine unfriended me on FB. Poor Jeffrey I’m sure was ordered by his master to unfriend me.

    Karen also ordered about 5 of her Indie Scientology clientele buddies to unfriend me too. What’s is funny is, 4 of them PM’ed me to tell me what Karen was doing. They refused to unfriend me. The 1 person who unfriended me was Ronn Stacey. That’s because he still gets auditing from Karen. Oops! Did I just say that? Anyways, as her clientele put it, “Karen is ordering us to disconnect from you. But we’re tired of her bossing us around. So we are not unfriending you. Because you’re a cool chic Marisa, and we like you.”

    She ordered an admin to ban me from the group SP’s R Us. For daring to question her publicly. The lady is shady. She’s a paranoid control freak. And yes, she still audits people.

    What’s funny is, us 2nd generation Scio kids aren’t impressed or afraid of her. Which really drives her crazy. Because she’s constantly trying to dig her paws into projects that we have. Certain film projects etc. She’s currently being told to “Butt out woman!” Lol

    It’s like the once popular high school cheerleader who treated everyone like shit. Now that cheerleader isn’t so popular & cute anymore. Karma. It’s a beautiful thing🙂

    • Karen is auditing people only for the money, period. She proclaimed in several videos and media interviews that Scn and LRH are bad. However, she makes the indies and freezone think that she is a believer in the tech that’s how she gets customers.

      I am familiar with Karen’s tactics. When she doesn’t like someone she emails and PMs her buddies and tells them a bunch of lies so people dislike that person. I have several friends who told Karen to get lost when they were approached by her to unfriend me. She is a very nice person on the surface because she doesn’t want to lose her “good image” but behind the scenes she manipulates people. Oh, she will not hesitate to make you feel guilty especially if she has given you money, gifts or any favor.

      AJ
      aka Once Upon a Time

  65. “Review: Louis Theroux’s Scientology movie isn’t one of his best
    The Sydney Morning Herald-Sep 6, 2016”

    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/louis-theroux-my-scientology-movie-review-20160907-grak7t.html

    “But when you compare My Scientology Movie to other documentaries like Going Clear, it comes up a bit short. Despite the effort it puts into providing precious information about Scientology, there is very little information that comes as new, or even revolutionary that we haven’t heard previously from other sources”.

    http://iris.theaureview.com/film-review-my-scientology-movie-m15-usa-2015/

    Wow Marty! Your less than five star review was not the stunning, bizarre front page head line news some thought it be!

  66. Pingback: Scientology Blog Wars Part 3... They Just Can't Help Themselves - Scientology Bollocks

  67. Pingback: BLACKMAIL | Moving On Up a Little Higher

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