bts2free
Patron with Honors
Hell, even my IMDB page kicks 'ol ElRon's ass, and mine doesn't include any Cult productions:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2637666/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2637666/
For the Rathbun "Believers"
- Thread starter Mick Wenlock
- Start date
Type4_PTS
Diamond Invictus SP
Thank-You HH for doing the research on this!
I do recall someone back in the 80's telling me of the "Treasure Island" movie as if it was some big deal.
Too bad the interviewer in that film didn't ask a follow-up question about those "great many successful movies".
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
Thank-You HH for doing the research on this!
I do recall someone back in the 80's telling me of the "Treasure Island" movie as if it was some big deal.
Too bad the interviewer in that film didn't ask a follow-up question about those "great many successful movies".
most interviews by reporters are marked more but what they do not follow up on than by what they find out.
Carmel
Crusader
In response to pm's I received before I went to Melbourne last weekend.....
This post is to clarify a couple of my "positions" relating to the Rathbun issue. Rather than respond to several pm's I've received on the pm line about all this, I'll give my answers here, back on this thread where the questions came from.
1) Most of us would agree that Scientologists have an adverse reaction to "squirrels" and to "critics", and that they tend to look up to those of 'senior' or OL status. In these last years up until earlier this year, those on the fence and newly "outs" have only had the "squirrels" and the "critics" to get the data from. It's been a hard road for most, confronting the scene, and getting the truth of it all is a gradual process. Thousands have gone through that process, and yeah, thousands haven't.
Of those who have, how many would have confronted the scene, if at the time they were looking, they had Senior RTC Execs/International OL's, saying "Hey, we know what you've gone through, we went through the same, but it's alright now, we've taken the reins back, it will be or can be all good like it was intended to be and like it should have been before DM tried to ruin it all" ? Do you really think that the newly outs are going to look much further, and listen to the "critics" or "squirrels" when so much "indicates", and when they finally have the "answers" they were looking for and the answers they want?
2) There's a difference between going in on one's reality or on a "gradient", and giving someone a false picture or a false sense of security which will only keep them enslaved, in the longer term.
3) When I was newly "out", if I had had a 'safe haven" to go to; where there were OL's or people who I had trusted; where I was being told/shown what I wanted to be told/shown as opposed to what I needed to be told or shown; where I felt secure in the 'knowledge' I now had because it all made sense given where I sat at the time; where I didn't have to face and let go of a few decades of allegiance to a lie;.......then maybe I would have stayed in that "place" and looked and/or gone no further.
4) My "objection" to Marty, is not about "Marty" for goodness sake. I don't hold any grudges with Marty for what he has or hasn't done in the past, and I don't give two hoots whether he apologises or not for his past deeds. I do care though about actions he is taking now, as those actions cut across much that is important to me.
It's not anything 'personal' to do with Marty. Nor is it anything to do with being "anti tech", 'cause I'm not! It's about the affect we can have on the CofS and an adverse affect that can or could be had on those still "in" and/or the newly "outs".
A part of "my story" was put up on Steve Hall's site (scientology-cult.com). Someone asked me months ago if she could put it there. I was happy for it to be put there and I still am happy for it to be there - The more truth that gets out, the better. I was happy and thankful for the St Pete's times articles/vids too - I've used them to help get people to see, and they've been a good aid in that regard.
It's not black and white though. While I appreciate certain aspects of activity from every group or 'camp' within the wider 'critic' community (from Freezoners through to Anons), there are other aspects which I find detrimental, and what I've outlined above describes one of them.
In regard to Scios, I've always advocated using gradients, looking at things from their perspective, and not blowing them away by being out reality. There's a vast difference between that and being deceitful though.
5) I don't consider Marty as an enemy of my enemy (not that that would would make him an ally in my books). I consider Marty to be an ally of "my enemy". To me he is pushing, forwarding, and supporting that which I have a particular disdain for. He is supporting the CofS and it's "purpose", when the whole thing was a lie and a con in the first place - It still is and will always be, despite who is at the helm. His promotion that it wasn't and isn't, is destructive IMO.
Personally, I hate this Marty issue, and I don't like seeing the conflict over it, or being in conflict with my friends over it. I am not being "reckless" in my communication on this issue. I feel strongly about it, and that's why I have communicated about it, just like I communicated to others about DM and RTC when I was still "in" and still on lines.
This post is to clarify a couple of my "positions" relating to the Rathbun issue. Rather than respond to several pm's I've received on the pm line about all this, I'll give my answers here, back on this thread where the questions came from.
1) Most of us would agree that Scientologists have an adverse reaction to "squirrels" and to "critics", and that they tend to look up to those of 'senior' or OL status. In these last years up until earlier this year, those on the fence and newly "outs" have only had the "squirrels" and the "critics" to get the data from. It's been a hard road for most, confronting the scene, and getting the truth of it all is a gradual process. Thousands have gone through that process, and yeah, thousands haven't.
Of those who have, how many would have confronted the scene, if at the time they were looking, they had Senior RTC Execs/International OL's, saying "Hey, we know what you've gone through, we went through the same, but it's alright now, we've taken the reins back, it will be or can be all good like it was intended to be and like it should have been before DM tried to ruin it all" ? Do you really think that the newly outs are going to look much further, and listen to the "critics" or "squirrels" when so much "indicates", and when they finally have the "answers" they were looking for and the answers they want?
2) There's a difference between going in on one's reality or on a "gradient", and giving someone a false picture or a false sense of security which will only keep them enslaved, in the longer term.
3) When I was newly "out", if I had had a 'safe haven" to go to; where there were OL's or people who I had trusted; where I was being told/shown what I wanted to be told/shown as opposed to what I needed to be told or shown; where I felt secure in the 'knowledge' I now had because it all made sense given where I sat at the time; where I didn't have to face and let go of a few decades of allegiance to a lie;.......then maybe I would have stayed in that "place" and looked and/or gone no further.
4) My "objection" to Marty, is not about "Marty" for goodness sake. I don't hold any grudges with Marty for what he has or hasn't done in the past, and I don't give two hoots whether he apologises or not for his past deeds. I do care though about actions he is taking now, as those actions cut across much that is important to me.
It's not anything 'personal' to do with Marty. Nor is it anything to do with being "anti tech", 'cause I'm not! It's about the affect we can have on the CofS and an adverse affect that can or could be had on those still "in" and/or the newly "outs".
A part of "my story" was put up on Steve Hall's site (scientology-cult.com). Someone asked me months ago if she could put it there. I was happy for it to be put there and I still am happy for it to be there - The more truth that gets out, the better. I was happy and thankful for the St Pete's times articles/vids too - I've used them to help get people to see, and they've been a good aid in that regard.
It's not black and white though. While I appreciate certain aspects of activity from every group or 'camp' within the wider 'critic' community (from Freezoners through to Anons), there are other aspects which I find detrimental, and what I've outlined above describes one of them.
In regard to Scios, I've always advocated using gradients, looking at things from their perspective, and not blowing them away by being out reality. There's a vast difference between that and being deceitful though.
5) I don't consider Marty as an enemy of my enemy (not that that would would make him an ally in my books). I consider Marty to be an ally of "my enemy". To me he is pushing, forwarding, and supporting that which I have a particular disdain for. He is supporting the CofS and it's "purpose", when the whole thing was a lie and a con in the first place - It still is and will always be, despite who is at the helm. His promotion that it wasn't and isn't, is destructive IMO.
Personally, I hate this Marty issue, and I don't like seeing the conflict over it, or being in conflict with my friends over it. I am not being "reckless" in my communication on this issue. I feel strongly about it, and that's why I have communicated about it, just like I communicated to others about DM and RTC when I was still "in" and still on lines.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
So, Carmel. Let me make sure I understand your position.
You are basically saying that Marty's presence will stop people coming out of the Church from going far enough in their investigation of Scientology to see all the lies that surround it, and they will remain Scientologists, and not confront the whole truth of Scientology as a result.
Is that correct?
You are basically saying that Marty's presence will stop people coming out of the Church from going far enough in their investigation of Scientology to see all the lies that surround it, and they will remain Scientologists, and not confront the whole truth of Scientology as a result.
Is that correct?
Carmel
Crusader
Hmm, is this a trick question, I wonder?
No, I am saying that someone like Marty, doing what he is doing, preaching what he is preaching, could/would be seen as an OL for some, and one to "latch onto". In this scenario, where I believe the wool is being pulled over their eyes, I think it would/could prevent them "from going far enough in their investigation of Scientology to see all the lies that surround it, and they will remain Scientologists, and not confront the whole truth of Scientology as a result."
It's not about whether the tech is right, wrong, or otherwise. It's about Scientologists seeing the package for what it is, and about an innately criminal organization hiding under the cloak of a religion - While it is "permitted" to do so, the crimes/harm will still persist.
No, I am saying that someone like Marty, doing what he is doing, preaching what he is preaching, could/would be seen as an OL for some, and one to "latch onto". In this scenario, where I believe the wool is being pulled over their eyes, I think it would/could prevent them "from going far enough in their investigation of Scientology to see all the lies that surround it, and they will remain Scientologists, and not confront the whole truth of Scientology as a result."
It's not about whether the tech is right, wrong, or otherwise. It's about Scientologists seeing the package for what it is, and about an innately criminal organization hiding under the cloak of a religion - While it is "permitted" to do so, the crimes/harm will still persist.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Folks,
It is very difficult for me to write this as I have been in the hospital and am very ill. I haven’t been able to read much of this, or any other thread. And this may be the last thing I write for a long time to come. So here goes:
Proverb:
Fool Alonzo once; shame on you.
Fool Alonzo twice; then you must be Marty Rathbun.
Marty Rathburn is Scientology’s version of Hermann Goering. I just saw him on Nightline and the way he talked and acted he reminded me of Goering and Ribbentrop on trial at Nuremberg. I don’t think anyone who was a victim of the Nazis needed to hear and join with Goering in order to understand that Hitler was bad. Why should anyone trust Goering?
I know it is a cliché to compare Miscavige and Scientology to Hitler and the Nazis, but I do it here for clarity of emphasis, not to compare degrees of evil.
If Miscavige had left Scientology and then complained about Rathbun who was now the head, would you consider Miscavige a friend?
A pox on both their houses. Miscavige and Rathbun are opposite sides of the same coin. And it is a bad penny.
Just expose Scientology for what it is; you don’t have to set up another cult of personality to do that.
In fact, when you support Rathbun you’re just helping to further the insidious aims of those people (like Miscavige or Rathbun) who wish to control and manipulate others. Rathbun has an impressive record of doing so.
Scientology is an effective tool for these kinds of people; they still use the methods of Scientology to control and manipulate people, just like Rathbun is now doing.
The destructive and evil element is Scientology. It is a tool for all would-be dictators. Don’t think by backing one dictator over another you will stop their destructive behavior.
Don’t take you eye off the ball and don’t get misdirected by siding with one punk over the other. Rathbun had his heel on the throats of many good people and he crushed them, and he did this for over twenty-five years.
For those supporters of Rathbun, I just want to show this scene from a film where the defense lawyer (Maximillian Schell) for a Nazi judge (Burt Lancaster) distorts the truth to defend the perverse justice of the Nazis. The defendant who earlier had suffered injustice at the hands of the Nazis is Judy Garland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HP1oiEhgaE
So to the supporters of Rathbun I ask: Are we going to do this again?
Adieu,
The Anabaptist Jacques
Iknowtoomuch
Gold Meritorious Patron
Unfortunately I have to completely agree with you. Not unfortunate because I agree but because Marty really could have done something here. He's not going to have the same effect I was hoping for. Or at least maybe not to the degreee he could have.
FrankBooth
Patron with Honors
But even taking this all from Hubbard's word at face value and assuming it to all be true, how does the math add up to the 13(?) million (or whatever the number he cited in the video) dollars as a result of such work?
Just as Mark said, Hollywood was pumping out rubbish left and right at the time as the "Youtube" of it's day, and therefore would have been also paying pittance for sub-par serials and shorts. So even if the resume can be substantiated, which it can't, the monetary windfall from such ventures would have been next to nil, and hardly close to the 8 figure range that Hubbard claims came as a result of said "accomplishments".
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
One of Hubbard's "Successful Actions" was making things up. He wrote fiction and people paid him. He wrote more fiction (Dianetics/Scn) and people paid him much more.
Greater the lies, greater the income.
So that's how he solved many parts of his life, he just lied.
His claim about the "many successful movies" is a ridiculous and (now) easily disproved lie. Back in the late 60's when he said it, it wasn't so easy to search movie credits.
But the answer is very simple. Hubbard is a consummate and incorrible liar.
The last 40 years of his life he also created a system of abuse for those who did not believe his lies. And worse, he
committed an vast number of felonies against those who dared to reveal his lies.
He was a very twisted individual.
FrankBooth
Patron with Honors
Indeed. My question was by and large rhetorical, but I do appreciate the finer detail.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
You try being a cult leader to over 8 million Scientologists!
It is hard to love Man.
Just try it!
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I was a cult leader to over 8 million Scientologists who literally followed me everywhere. But, as Hubbard experienced, they all likewise betrayed me and blew.
If you don't believe me look at my Solo Nots folder.
Last edited:
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
Dear Taj,
First and most importantly, I do hope you are OK and will be well again soon.
Your post (and Carmels) have made me sit up and take notice, both are very insightful and sane.
I have been a 'supporter' of Marty Rathbun's since he very first posted here ... I think I have been naive and I am having a serious rethink.
Get well Taj.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Wow! Thank you for your very thought provoking post. I have a feeling that your right on the button there. Smilla.
Terril park
Sponsor
If you consider that Marty is trying to get people out of COS he is
doing the right thing.
On freezone forums, all members are in fact officially "SPs", you cannot say
anything bad about Hubbard without causing an uproar. Most policy is in fact supported, and the general view is that its DM who is the only bad guy.
What I just said would apply even very much more to most in COS. It
may well apply to Marty.
If getting people out of COS is deemed a good thing, he is going about it the right way. He's even got some TV programs going, which I've yet to see.
Veda
Sponsor
That's pathetic.
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
So the alignment is, then, Freezone and the CofS against the critics.
Good to know where we all stand.