A letter to Tory/Magoo

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I feel obliged to answer your post regarding working together with Rinder and Rathbun and not criticizing them.

First of all I want to say that I have the utmost regard for you.

But on this matter I think you are horribly mistaken.

I am not a critic of Scientology because OSA doesn’t want me to be a critic.

I don’t say what I say because OSA doesn’t want me to say it.

I don’t live my life as a reaction against what OSA wants.

I say what I say because it comes from the heart.

What I am saying now comes from my heart.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

To me, associating that slogan with regards to working with or supporting Rinder and Rathbun is just is another way of saying “put aside what you conscience tells you is right and work with us for the greatest good.”

Been there, done that.

I am not against the Church of Scientology because in believes in engrams, Clears, and OTs.

I am not against the Church of Scientology because Miscavige is in charge.

I am against the Church of Scientology because what it does is offensive to my sense of human dignity and my sense of right and wrong.

If the Church didn’t harm people I could care less about what they believe.

If it didn’t harm people I could care less about who is in charge.

What is offensive to my sense of human dignity is the dehumanizing treatment--the intimidation, the cruelty, the disconnections, the making a mockery of families and loyalty, and the daily attempts to break people by pressuring or tricking them to compromise or surrender their personal integrity.

And the pressure is applied all in the name of working together to accomplish some objective for the greatest good.

And that pressure is applied by people. And the people at the top who made Scientology cruel by doing this were Miscavige, Rinder, and Rathbun.

It is their character and lack of conscience that determines the level of cruelty in what they do, not policy.

I recovered from Scientology when my conscience forgave me for compromising what was in my heart.

My conscience won’t forgive me a second time. Do you think yours will?

I am not going to surrender my sense of right and wrong to support, work with, or even be quiet about Rinder and Rathbun.

I think you don’t really know or understand who and what you are dealing with.

Critics and exes will rue the day they accepted Rinder and Rathbun into the fold.

Those two will undermined and sabotage any other objective that gets in the way of their own.

They will humiliate, ruin, and crush people who get in their way.

That is their Art of War, regardless of who their enemy is.

And their enemy was and will eventually again be you and other exes and critics.

To them, people are a means to their ends.

They never treat people as and end in themselves.

That is why friendship and family accounts for nothing in Scientology.

Only those who furthers their ends are of any value. To them, all people are expendable as people.

Don’t compromise when you see them doing this to people again.

I suspect that most people who accept them will look the other way again until it is too late.

And that is what allows all the abuse to continue.

That is what allowed it in the Church, and now it will happen again in the critic movement because they will be a part of it.

The ends do not justify the means.

The means are the end.

If you work with these guys you will be doing what you did when you were a part of the Church before--running interference for people who actively administered their contempt for their fellow man.

In fact, you’ll be doing it for the exact same people.

Please, I beg all critics and exes, don’t do it again.

Don't trust these guys, don't listen to these guys, and don't consider them to be your friend or on your side.

You will regret it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Magoo]

Was there *anywhere* in what I said that mentions
surrendering what you believe in? No.

As I said in an earlier thread where you posted this, and deleted it:

It never ceases to amaze me how words I say can be
twisted around to mean something 100% not what
I said.

Do you *honestly* think I am in the mind set of
"the greatest good for the number of dynamics"???

If you are, there's really nothing else left to say.

People .....read, look, listen make up your own minds.

You cannot lose then.

Don't listen to me, or he or she----LOOK.
LISTEN
LEARN

MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

Blessings TO ALL

My best,


Tory/Magoo

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Don't listen to these guys
The Anabaptist Jacques

Amen, they do not deserve the attention, until they bring something to the plate, and I'm not talking about a couple pictures of workout equipment.

Show me the crimes which can be prosecuted or crawl back into your hole and STFU.

 

[Illegal Alien]

I love what you wrote it's straight to the point

Speaking for myself when I got out of Scientology I told all. The truth of my experiences while in and what caused me to get out. Sure my experiences do no go as deep as Rinder and Rathburn.
It was part of putting everything back together and starting over.

To the degree that Rinder and Rathburn do not just get out there and put it all on the line and talk to the media or law enforcement, I am very skeptical.
It is possible they are working on something but only time will tell.
Until then to me they are EX Scios who are not telling all for some "other" or "hidden" reason and I reserve my judgment.

 

[Atalantan]

I feel obliged to answer your post regarding working together with Rinder and Rathbun and not criticizing them.

First of all I want to say that I have the utmost regard for you.

But on this matter I think you are horribly mistaken.

I am not a critic of Scientology because OSA doesn’t want me to be a critic.

I don’t say what I say because OSA doesn’t want me to say it.

I don’t live my life as a reaction against what OSA wants.

I say what I say because it comes from the heart.

What I am saying now comes from my heart.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

To me, associating that slogan with regards to working with or supporting Rinder and Rathbun is just is another way of saying “put aside what you conscience tells you is right and work with us for the greatest good.”

Been there, done that.

I am not against the Church of Scientology because in believes in engrams, Clears, and OTs.

I am not against the Church of Scientology because Miscavige is in charge.

I am against the Church of Scientology because what it does is offensive to my sense of human dignity and my sense of right and wrong.

If the Church didn’t harm people I could care less about what they believe.

If it didn’t harm people I could care less about who is in charge.

What is offensive to my sense of human dignity is the dehumanizing treatment--the intimidation, the cruelty, the disconnections, the making a mockery of families and loyalty, and the daily attempts to break people by pressuring or tricking them to compromise or surrender their personal integrity.

And the pressure is applied all in the name of working together to accomplish some objective for the greatest good.

And that pressure is applied by people. And the people at the top who made Scientology cruel by doing this were Miscavige, Rinder, and Rathbun.

It is their character and lack of conscience that determines the level of cruelty in what they do, not policy.

I recovered from Scientology when my conscience forgave me for compromising what was in my heart.

My conscience won’t forgive me a second time. Do you think yours will?

I am not going to surrender my sense of right and wrong to support, work with, or even be quiet about Rinder and Rathbun.

I think you don’t really know or understand who and what you are dealing with.

Critics and exes will rue the day they accepted Rinder and Rathbun into the fold.

Those two will undermined and sabotage any other objective that gets in the way of their own.

They will humiliate, ruin, and crush people who get in their way.

That is their Art of War, regardless of who their enemy is.

And their enemy was and will eventually again be you and other exes and critics.

To them, people are a means to their ends.

They never treat people as and end in themselves.

That is why friendship and family accounts for nothing in Scientology.

Only those who furthers their ends are of any value. To them, all people are expendable as people.

Don’t compromise when you see them doing this to people again.

I suspect that most people who accept them will look the other way again until it is too late.

And that is what allows all the abuse to continue.

That is what allowed it in the Church, and now it will happen again in the critic movement because they will be a part of it.

The ends do not justify the means.

The means are the end.

If you work with these guys you will be doing what you did when you were a part of the Church before--running interference for people who actively administered their contempt for their fellow man.

In fact, you’ll be doing it for the exact same people.

Please, I beg all critics and exes, don’t do it again.

Don't trust these guys, don't listen to these guys, and don't consider them to be your friend or on your side.

You will regret it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

This is a righteous post, and you may be right. Certainly your integrity to yourself is not to be alloyed, and you have a right to taking your stand and speaking out.

At the same time, I wonder how are you different? You were in, and changed your mind. Or had a change of heart. So what makes you think the same cannot happen with some of them? That their conscience cannot emerge just as yours did?

 

[lurkanon]

Excellent post, ABJ.

In addition, when they first came out as public figures, they were extended the hand of friendship by several people - Anonymous, Freezoners, and Critics. Marty rebuffed several people, including Paul Salerno, Pierre Ethier, Robin Scott. They said their Fair Game of David Mayo was justified, while DM's (Miscavige) Fair Game of them is not. They have not played open cards, and if it is due to strategic reasons (such as participation in official investigations), they have not said that. Mike hinted at it. I give the benefit of the doubt to him because of that, for a while.

Marty courts "high profile" people and "opinion leaders" to be his dupes and push his agenda. They brought this on themselves - especially Marty, as he has actively pushed away people who extended the hand of friendship to him. He has pissed off a significant number of people. He is very effectively dividing and conquering the critics by filtering them into two camps: "Pro-Marty and Anti-Marty". Hmmmm.

And the hubris is a bit much. Really.

They still subscribe to the Scientology fallacy of the "Ubermensch", and thus in their world, they are still part of an upper class elite, and they view others in terms of who is of use to them, and those who are not. Those who are not are excluded, ignored, rebuffed. They regard themselves as major players in a closed bubble system, and they need to continue that illusion now that they are out of the physical bubble, but not the mental bubble.

This is not normal behaviour for people who leave. It is not usual that people who leave selectively categorise critics, exes and freezoners in terms of who is in, and who is out of their circle.

With all due respect to Tory, who has been embraced as she is of use as an "opinion leader", she is being naive, and is being used as a Dupe.

Until Mike and Marty come clean about everything they know, they should be treated with caution.

 

[Magoo]

lurkanon,

I have lived for YEARS with people's skepticism of myself.
The DAY I said to Yaude (who, in 2000, they had flown in, as my auditor to 'fix everything')---"You could pay me 1 Million
Dollars and I still won't pick up those cans".

Not even 24 hours later, were posts sliming me. So I know slime---and frankly, I am not some blind cheerleader that they're using, nor am I any "Opinion Leader" they're using to dupe. That's offensive to me, but you go believe
whatever you want.

Some people will twist whatever they have to in order to make their point "right". I think most of us like being right, but I've also learned from Andreas it's great to allow
another to make you wrong. You learn when you can listen and hear.

I'm merely using communication.
Your needs for others to do more than you ever have,
is interesting. Why don't YOU go on TV and dish out
all this knowledge you have?

I know, I know---they, they, they. Start with you,
and come tell us something you have done to help
expose the abuses of the "church" of $cientology.
And spare me putting more people down. It really
gets OLD.

My best to all

Tory/Magoo

 

[thetanic]

Tory: I hear you. I also think this bears repeating:

Some people will twist whatever they have to in order to make their point "right". I think most of us like being right, but I've also learned from Andreas it's great to allow
another to make you wrong. You learn when you can listen and hear.

 

[Magoo]

Thanks, Thetanic!

shhhhhhhhhh-----hear it?

woooooooooooosh.

Think water....look globally.....love universally.



T

 

[jenni with an eye]

People .....read, look, listen make up your own minds.

You cannot lose then.

Don't listen to me, or he or she----LOOK.
LISTEN
LEARN

MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

Blessings TO ALL

My best,


Tory/Magoo

I agree
Decisions based on actual information is always a good thing

 

[lurkanon]

lurkanon,

I have lived for YEARS with people's skepticism of myself.
The DAY I said to Yaude (who, in 2000, they had flown in, as my auditor to 'fix everything')---"You could pay me 1 Million
Dollars and I still won't pick up those cans".

Not even 24 hours later, were posts sliming me. So I know slime---and frankly, I am not some blind cheerleader that they're using, nor am I any "Opinion Leader" they're using to dupe. That's offensive to me, but you go believe
whatever you want.

Some people will twist whatever they have to in order to make their point "right". I think most of us like being right, but I've also learned from Andreas it's great to allow
another to make you wrong. You learn when you can listen and hear.

I'm merely using communication.
Your needs for others to do more than you ever have,
is interesting. Why don't YOU go on TV and dish out
all this knowledge you have?

I know, I know---they, they, they. Start with you,
and come tell us something you have done to help
expose the abuses of the "church" of $cientology.
And spare me putting more people down. It really
gets OLD.

My best to all

Tory/Magoo

Tory, you're missing the point. MARTY rebuffed several hands of friendship. Paul Salerno, Robin Scott, Pierre Ethier. He ignored plaintive requests by the brother of Uwe Stuckenbrock (Uwe was very ill in the RPF and died there) to find out what had happened to his brother. Marty didn't reply and say I don't know, he ignored. A lot of people were hurt by him, the decent thing to do when approached is apologise. He ignored. Takes Pook's example, where she disclosed all, and apologised to the people she had hurt. That was clean, straightforward, decent.

Do YOU really agree with Marty that Fair Game was justified on David Mayo?

MARTY is the cause of the divisions.

Instead of using old scieno bait and switch/distract tactics, perhaps you could use your access to Mr Rathburn to ask him about those issues and see what response you'll get.

If you can get him to address honestly the points above, you'll be doing everyone a favour, including him, because those are the points that are pissing many people off.

 

[GoNuclear]

If politics makes for strange bedfellows ...

Was there *anywhere* in what I said that mentions
surrendering what you believe in? No.

As I said in an earlier thread where you posted this, and deleted it:

It never ceases to amaze me how words I say can be
twisted around to mean something 100% not what
I said.

Do you *honestly* think I am in the mind set of
"the greatest good for the number of dynamics"???

If you are, there's really nothing else left to say.

People .....read, look, listen make up your own minds.

You cannot lose then.

Don't listen to me, or he or she----LOOK.
LISTEN
LEARN

MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

Blessings TO ALL

My best,


Tory/Magoo

If politics makes for strange bedfellows, what about military alliances? Military alliances are analogous to political alliances regarding strange bedfellows. It has been said that trade is warfare by another means. Surely the same could be said about diplomacy and politics. What of all this talk of warfare? Mentioning that ancient Chinese military guru who wrote "The Art of War" and using warfare analogies ... bottom line, it could be said that anons, the ex's, and now the independents are fighting to expose the Cof$ and use truth and humor as a way of bringing it down or at least down to a Christian Science Reading Room level. The central question to ask is this ... what is the commonality of interests here?

We all want to see an end to Cof$ abuses. We all want certain people to be brought to justice. We all want to expose all of this to sunlight. There may be a few other points as well, but, there is a divergence of interests between the independents, i.e., the M&M'ers, the Rathboners, call them what you will ... and the ex's/anon alliance. The M&M'ers seek to keep at least the SUBJECT of Scientology alive, and would either take over Cof$ whole or pick up the remnants in the event of total collapse. They also still hold the HubTurd in high esteem with HubTurd spew reigning supreme, and blame things on the current rendition of dear leader. They might not like criticism of the HubTurd but they have to live with it. X's and anons do not trust the
M&M'ers but must acknowledge that M&M have both landed some large artillery strikes on Cof$. The anons/ex's gain nothing from attacking M&M, same is true for the reverse, any strife there only helps Cof$.

But things will be different once COB version Cof$ is sufficiently beaten down. In the event that M&M take over Cof$, they will be the next anon/ex target if the objective is to put it out of business.

Pete

 

[thetanic]

Tory, you're missing the point. MARTY rebuffed several hands of friendship. Paul Salerno, Robin Scott, Pierre Ethier. He ignored plaintive requests by the brother of Uwe Stuckenbrock (Uwe was very ill in the RPF and died there) to find out what had happened to his brother. Marty didn't reply and say I don't know, he ignored.

First of all, no one has any obligation to be anyone's friend. No one has any obligation to communicate with anyone.

I saw Robin Scott's communication -- well, read it in comments here and judge for yourself.

 

[Veda]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask this question (several questions, really) - Did Marty ever respond to Gerry Armstrong's letters to him? And has Marty had anything to say about what Hubbard did to Paulette Cooper? (probably the most well known of the many Scientology covert "dirty tricks" operations), or about the extensive Hubbard tech/instructions, having to do with covert manipulation and covert attack, used on Paulette and many others?

Just today, I was reviewing some of Robert Vaughn Young's after-Scientology comments, writings, and testimony, and what a difference in quality and integrity from what Marty presents.

Of course, Marty still needs to write some truthful affidavits, and he will also need to continue with his self-deprogramming, which, in his case, will probably take many years. (And perhaps he should study Robert Vaughn Young as an example of how someone - also once high on the Scientology cult totem pole - can behave with integrity.)

Time will tell.

 

[Magoo]

.
Do YOU really agree with Marty that Fair Game was justified on David Mayo?

I never, ever said anything of the sort--so please
stop putting words in my mouth.

I am not some PR for MR. I have made a few posts over there, and will continue to as I do believe communication helps more, when it's honest. Your telling me to tell Marty
is ridiculous. You go ask him your own questions. I don't know him any more than you do, nor do I owe anyone that job. You want it---you do it. I'm doing what I can, my way.

BTs2Free---when are ya comin' back to LA?

Best,

T

 

[Panda Termint]

<snip...> I'm doing what I can, my way.

Yes and please keep doing it too, Tory, it works.

 

[Magoo]

Thanks SO much, Panda! I can't tell you how much that means to me.

Sometimes I think we can get so strong on "the truth",
we forget there are people we're speaking to, and those
people have feelings.

I greatly appreciate your kind words.


Tory/Magoo

 

[Free to shine]

Thanks SO much, Panda! I can't tell you how much that means to me.

Sometimes I think we can get so strong on "the truth",
we forget there are people we're speaking to, and those
people have feelings.

I greatly appreciate your kind words.


Tory/Magoo

Yes sometimes 'feelings' get lost on a computer screen. You are great and an inspiration and I second what Panda says.

 

[lurkanon]

Quote lurkanon:

"Do YOU really agree with Marty that Fair Game was justified on David Mayo?"

Tory:
I never, ever said anything of the sort--so please
stop putting words in my mouth."


Umm, I was only asking you a question, not putting words into your mouth. I'll take that as a no, you don't agree with Marty that Fair Game on David Mayo was justified.

I am not some PR for MR. I have made a few posts over there, and will continue to as I do believe communication helps more, when it's honest. Your telling me to tell Marty
is ridiculous. You go ask him your own questions. I don't know him any more than you do, nor do I owe anyone that job. You want it---you do it. I'm doing what I can, my way.

Best,

T

Actually, you posted here defending MR and MR. People responded, some positively, some not positively. It is called dialogue and critical debate. This is not a blog where replies can be controlled and eliminated, it is an open forum. Since you were unwilling to respond to the points raised whereby many have tried to ask Marty questions, and been ignored, I thought it would be helpful if you could ask him some of those questions, since he seems to respond to you. You could have been a peace broker, of sorts, but if you don't want the job, that's fine.

I am not trying with him again, I have in the past, made several attempts, which were ignored, so I am one of the many who are not part of the UberMensche club. Bottom line is that he does not respond to people he knows see through him, so it is a waste of time.

Enjoy your interactions with him, and happy trails.

 

[degraded being]

Quote lurkanon:

"Do YOU really agree with Marty that Fair Game was justified on David Mayo?"

Tory:
I never, ever said anything of the sort--so please
stop putting words in my mouth."


Umm, I was only asking you a question, not putting words into your mouth. I'll take that as a no, you don't agree with Marty that Fair Game on David Mayo was justified.




Actually, you posted here defending MR and MR. People responded, some positively, some not positively. It is called dialogue and critical debate. This is not a blog where replies can be controlled and eliminated, it is an open forum. Since you were unwilling to respond to the points raised whereby many have tried to ask Marty questions, and been ignored, I thought it would be helpful if you could ask him some of those questions, since he seems to respond to you. You could have been a peace broker, of sorts, but if you don't want the job, that's fine.

I am not trying with him again, I have in the past, made several attempts, which were ignored, so I am one of the many who are not part of the UberMensche club. Bottom line is that he does not respond to people he knows see through him, so it is a waste of time.

Enjoy your interactions with him, and happy trails.

I do not disagree with you and I do not disagree with Tory either. Just a point though on the question you asked her:
"Do YOU really agree with Marty that Fair Game was justified on David Mayo?"

The way the question is worded does presuppose that she agrees with Marty on that point. You used the word "really" ....if you had not use that word it would be a simple question. You may have intended it to be a simple question, but as written, it does, as i have said presuppose that she already agrees and only needs to qualify whether she *really* agrees.