Marty is backsliding

Veda

Sponsor
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/dichotomies/#comments

"If you read the Scientology OT 2 materials there is no need for further explanation, except perhaps to help clarify technical mechanics from mythology."

This is followed by a bunch of New Age oobleck.

There is a dwindling number of "tractable" readers on Marty's blog, whose comments are permitted. Many non-cooperators are excluded.

Occasionally, Marty permits a dissenting voice, but it's harmless to his overall objective:

To salvage Hubbard's and Scientology's "image."

To accomplish this, apparently, Marty has realized that he's going to have to do several things -

Spill not a lot of beans, but a few beans. Enough to impress. And even I was impressed for a while.

Surround himself with smokey clouds of New Age verbiage and imagery. This serves as camouflage and distraction.

Ensure that his remaining followers - and pcs - don't abandon him. He does this by reaffirming his loyalty to Hubbard and Hubbard's Bridge.

Continue to assert decades old CofS PR lines, and PR lines used by for-hire CofS "religious experts."

Some time ago, I and others criticized Marty for his use of the PR handling of calling Incident 2 of OT 3 an: a) analogy b) allegory c) metaphor d) myth.

Anyone who studied Hubbard's teachings knows that, per those teachings, incidents (and engrams, and implants are a kind of engram) are recorded literally - time, place, form, and event - on time tracks... including the time tracks of Body Thetans.

"Myths" are ancient stories of collective origin.

The implants of OT 2 are not "myths" and Marty knows it.

And honest approach would be for Marty to say, "It's nonsense, and I don't deliver it anymore; or even, "I've taken some of the ideas and developed a new level, but it's no longer OT 2."

But that would be bad for business.

Me thinks that, recently, Marty has encountered someone ridiculing Hubbard&Scientology because of OT 2, so he's adopted the same handling as was done for OT 3.

This is disappointing, as I thought Marty was progressing.

IMO, what he's doing is extreme emergency PR damage control, with the idea of salvaging the ("true") Hubbard - the Hubbard before the supposed "relentless attacks from international bankers&psychiatrists. etc., drove Hubbard to extreme measures to save Scientology."

Of course, the Hubbard of the 1950s was also a mess, and his crazed 1950s FBI letters, his 1940s 'Affirmations', and his 1938 "Smash" letter to wife Polly, and other documents, show that the madness was not the result of "attacks," but the result of a life long toxic "philosophy."

So Marty has his work cut out for him if he's going to be presenting BS, specked with occasional truths (old Scientology formula), but his backsliding is sad to watch.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Wow. I had higher hopes. I have been sticking up for him and his growth.

EatCrow1.jpg


__________​


Let's review some of the past spin just for fun:

The "metaphor" angle (and similar angles) re. the "Xenu PR flap" with the "wogs," brought about by the publicizing of "Incident 2" in the media, was first used by paid $cientology shill J. Gordon Melton many years ago. This allowed Scientology to "handle" an unwanted "PR flap" situation indirectly. Nonetheless, Melton, then an employee of the Scientology cult, was doing what they wished.

Does that mean that the Scientology cult was telling its PCs that "Incident 2" was a metaphor? Obviously not.

The objective is to take the attention of "wogs" off the embarrassing topic of Xenu, etc. and place it onto areas where the Scientology PR wants the "wog's" attention to be. It's a "handling."


The material of the book 'History of Man' is not part of OT 3, but the approach to "handling" any "invalidators " can be traced back to H.O.M.:

From the 'History of Man' ["This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years"] by L. Ron Hubbard, early 1952, originally titled 'What to Audit':

"Tell people who want to invalidate all this, 'Your criticism is very just. It's only fantasy.'"


The "It's only an allegory"-angle is a similar PR "handling" - to be used on those at "lower awareness levels" - but it's an extension of Hubbard's 1952 PR "handling" of occasionally troublesome "Homo Saps."

It works like this: If it sounds really dumb or crazy, or is exposed as a lie, in front of any particular person or "public," not dumb or gullible enough to believe it, then, immediately, claim that it - whatever it was - is a metaphor, an allegory, a joke, a symbolic representation, a myth, etc., or something used as a teaching aid, etc. If this doesn't work, claim it was taken out of context, or that the complaining or ridiculing person or "public" are literal-minded, etc.

In fact, the idea of the "literalizing of L. Ron Hubbard" was re-introduced, recently, by Marty Rathbun. (And, apparently, he's still pushing this idea.)

This is just a more gentle fashion - a "lower gradient" - of saying there's something really wrong with the "antagonistic" person or "public."

From the 1955 'Manual on Dissemination of Material': "Another frame of mind we would like to see the public have and register is that people attacking Scientologist have something wrong with them."

"Why are you making fun of L. Ron Hubbard?
LRH_legacy.jpg
There must be something wrong with you!
"

It's a form of bullshitting which is used to cover an earlier bullshitting. It's actually pretty "workable," in that a fair number of people seem to fall for it, which means, incidentally, that it's likely to continue.

An example of this would be a Scientology "OT" telling a ridiculing or "nattering" "Wog" - who has just seen the South Park episode exposing OT 3 - that "it's only fantasy." This, of course, would be an example of following Hubbard's instructions on dealing with "Homo Saps" - instructions that dates back to 1952, and were included in the book, 'History of Man'.

These are old "handlings."

For example, this is what David Gaiman, then Public Relations Director for Scientology in England, told Paulette Cooper, in 1971, when asked about the billion year Sea Org contract:

From question/answer #19, in the 'Appendix' of Cooper's book:

19. (from Cooper) "DO THE SEA ORG PEOPLE SIGN A BILLION YEAR CONTRACT?"

(From Gaiman) "Never make an allegoric joke near literal minded humorless reporters."

Same old same old.

Marty, enough already.

You've trimmed what you're trying to salvage down to the "basic" Hubbard, and his "Bridge," yet, it seems that you still feel a need to lie about these topics at times.

You've told some truths lately. And that's good.

Don't backslide now. :)
 
.
.
I visualise it as Marty being backed into a corner. In front of him stands Hubbard. In order to prevent getting pushed further and further into the corner, Marty has to dismantle Hubbard, picking at him, taking bits off....to appease the onlookers...but he needs hubbard and gets jitterish when every so often he realises he is taking apart his own protection. So he starts to put Humpty Hubbard together again.

Why does he need Humpty together when he's gone all Tao and post hippie and pop psychological? Long stalling game on statute of limitations? Skeletons gett'n too LOUD jigglin' around in the closet? I don't know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brye9MAXXmE
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
I believe Martyis a true beleiver of Marty the chief cook :lol:

I believe Marty has ''evolved and integrate''
From a $cientology preacher he has become a metaphysical soup chief cook

I whish he gets what he is talking about - 'cause I don't :duh:
I don't get anything and what for it should be of use

Am I alone ? :confused2::unsure:
 

Gib

Crusader
__________​


Let's review some of the past spin just for fun:

The "metaphor" angle (and similar angles) re. the "Xenu PR flap" with the "wogs," brought about by the publicizing of "Incident 2" in the media, was first used by paid $cientology shill J. Gordon Melton many years ago. This allowed Scientology to "handle" an unwanted "PR flap" situation indirectly. Nonetheless, Melton, then an employee of the Scientology cult, was doing what they wished.

Does that mean that the Scientology cult was telling its PCs that "Incident 2" was a metaphor? Obviously not.

The objective is to take the attention of "wogs" off the embarrassing topic of Xenu, etc. and place it onto areas where the Scientology PR wants the "wog's" attention to be. It's a "handling."


The material of the book 'History of Man' is not part of OT 3, but the approach to "handling" any "invalidators " can be traced back to H.O.M.:

From the 'History of Man' ["This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years"] by L. Ron Hubbard, early 1952, originally titled 'What to Audit':

"Tell people who want to invalidate all this, 'Your criticism is very just. It's only fantasy.'"


The "It's only an allegory"-angle is a similar PR "handling" - to be used on those at "lower awareness levels" - but it's an extension of Hubbard's 1952 PR "handling" of occasionally troublesome "Homo Saps."

It works like this: If it sounds really dumb or crazy, or is exposed as a lie, in front of any particular person or "public," not dumb or gullible enough to believe it, then, immediately, claim that it - whatever it was - is a metaphor, an allegory, a joke, a symbolic representation, a myth, etc., or something used as a teaching aid, etc. If this doesn't work, claim it was taken out of context, or that the complaining or ridiculing person or "public" are literal-minded, etc.

In fact, the idea of the "literalizing of L. Ron Hubbard" was re-introduced, recently, by Marty Rathbun. (And, apparently, he's still pushing this idea.)

This is just a more gentle fashion - a "lower gradient" - of saying there's something really wrong with the "antagonistic" person or "public."

From the 1955 'Manual on Dissemination of Material': "Another frame of mind we would like to see the public have and register is that people attacking Scientologist have something wrong with them."

"Why are you making fun of L. Ron Hubbard?
LRH_legacy.jpg
There must be something wrong with you!
"
It's a form of bullshitting which is used to cover an earlier bullshitting. It's actually pretty "workable," in that a fair number of people seem to fall for it, which means, incidentally, that it's likely to continue.

An example of this would be a Scientology "OT" telling a ridiculing or "nattering" "Wog" - who has just seen the South Park episode exposing OT 3 - that "it's only fantasy." This, of course, would be an example of following Hubbard's instructions on dealing with "Homo Saps" - instructions that dates back to 1952, and were included in the book, 'History of Man'.

These are old "handlings."

For example, this is what David Gaiman, then Public Relations Director for Scientology in England, told Paulette Cooper, in 1971, when asked about the billion year Sea Org contract:

From question/answer #19, in the 'Appendix' of Cooper's book:

19. (from Cooper) "DO THE SEA ORG PEOPLE SIGN A BILLION YEAR CONTRACT?"

(From Gaiman) "Never make an allegoric joke near literal minded humorless reporters."

Same old same old.

Marty, enough already.

You've trimmed what you're trying to salvage down to the "basic" Hubbard, and his "Bridge," yet, it seems that you still feel a need to lie about these topics at times.

You've told some truths lately. And that's good.

Don't backslide now. :)


:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
 

Gib

Crusader
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/dichotomies/#comments

"If you read the Scientology OT 2 materials there is no need for further explanation, except perhaps to help clarify technical mechanics from mythology."

This is followed by a bunch of New Age oobleck.

There is a dwindling number of "tractable" readers on Marty's blog, whose comments are permitted. Many non-cooperators are excluded.

Occasionally, Marty permits a dissenting voice, but it's harmless to his overall objective:

To salvage Hubbard's and Scientology's "image."

To accomplish this, apparently, Marty has realized that he's going to have to do several things -

Spill not a lot of beans, but a few beans. Enough to impress. And even I was impressed for a while.

Surround himself with smokey clouds of New Age verbiage and imagery. This serves as camouflage and distraction.

Ensure that his remaining followers - and pcs - don't abandon him. He does this by reaffirming his loyalty to Hubbard and Hubbard's Bridge.

Continue to assert decades old CofS PR lines, and PR lines used by for-hire CofS "religious experts."

Some time ago, I and others criticized Marty for his use of the PR handling of calling Incident 2 of OT 3 an: a) analogy b) allegory c) metaphor d) myth.

Anyone who studied Hubbard's teachings knows that, per those teachings, incidents (and engrams, and implants are a kind of engram) are recorded literally - time, place, form, and event - on time tracks... including the time tracks of Body Thetans.

"Myths" are ancient stories of collective origin.

The implants of OT 2 are not "myths" and Marty knows it.

And honest approach would be for Marty to say, "It's nonsense, and I don't deliver it anymore; or even, "I've taken some of the ideas and developed a new level, but it's no longer OT 2."

But that would be bad for business.

Me thinks that, recently, Marty has encountered someone ridiculing Hubbard&Scientology because of OT 2, so he's adopted the same handling as was done for OT 3.

This is disappointing, as I thought Marty was progressing.

IMO, what he's doing is extreme emergency PR damage control, with the idea of salvaging the ("true") Hubbard - the Hubbard before the supposed "relentless attacks from international bankers&psychiatrists. etc., drove Hubbard to extreme measures to save Scientology."

Of course, the Hubbard of the 1950s was also a mess, and his crazed 1950s FBI letters, his 1940s 'Affirmations', and his 1938 "Smash" letter to wife Polly, and other documents, show that the madness was not the result of "attacks," but the result of a life long toxic "philosophy."

So Marty has his work cut out for him if he's going to be presenting BS, specked with occasional truths (old Scientology formula), but his backsliding is sad to watch.


:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
 
I believe Martyis a true beleiver of Marty the chief cook :lol:

I believe Marty has ''evolved and integrate''
From a $cientology preacher he has become a metaphysical soup chief cook

I whish he gets what he is talking about - 'cause I don't :duh:
I don't get anything and what for it should be of use

Am I alone ? :confused2::unsure:

No, you ain't alone honey.
 

Gib

Crusader
__________​


Let's review some of the past spin just for fun:

The "metaphor" angle (and similar angles) re. the "Xenu PR flap" with the "wogs," brought about by the publicizing of "Incident 2" in the media, was first used by paid $cientology shill J. Gordon Melton many years ago. This allowed Scientology to "handle" an unwanted "PR flap" situation indirectly. Nonetheless, Melton, then an employee of the Scientology cult, was doing what they wished.

Does that mean that the Scientology cult was telling its PCs that "Incident 2" was a metaphor? Obviously not.

The objective is to take the attention of "wogs" off the embarrassing topic of Xenu, etc. and place it onto areas where the Scientology PR wants the "wog's" attention to be. It's a "handling."


The material of the book 'History of Man' is not part of OT 3, but the approach to "handling" any "invalidators " can be traced back to H.O.M.:

From the 'History of Man' ["This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years"] by L. Ron Hubbard, early 1952, originally titled 'What to Audit':

"Tell people who want to invalidate all this, 'Your criticism is very just. It's only fantasy.'"


The "It's only an allegory"-angle is a similar PR "handling" - to be used on those at "lower awareness levels" - but it's an extension of Hubbard's 1952 PR "handling" of occasionally troublesome "Homo Saps."

It works like this: If it sounds really dumb or crazy, or is exposed as a lie, in front of any particular person or "public," not dumb or gullible enough to believe it, then, immediately, claim that it - whatever it was - is a metaphor, an allegory, a joke, a symbolic representation, a myth, etc., or something used as a teaching aid, etc. If this doesn't work, claim it was taken out of context, or that the complaining or ridiculing person or "public" are literal-minded, etc.

In fact, the idea of the "literalizing of L. Ron Hubbard" was re-introduced, recently, by Marty Rathbun. (And, apparently, he's still pushing this idea.)

This is just a more gentle fashion - a "lower gradient" - of saying there's something really wrong with the "antagonistic" person or "public."

From the 1955 'Manual on Dissemination of Material': "Another frame of mind we would like to see the public have and register is that people attacking Scientologist have something wrong with them."

"Why are you making fun of L. Ron Hubbard?
LRH_legacy.jpg
There must be something wrong with you!
"

It's a form of bullshitting which is used to cover an earlier bullshitting. It's actually pretty "workable," in that a fair number of people seem to fall for it, which means, incidentally, that it's likely to continue.

An example of this would be a Scientology "OT" telling a ridiculing or "nattering" "Wog" - who has just seen the South Park episode exposing OT 3 - that "it's only fantasy." This, of course, would be an example of following Hubbard's instructions on dealing with "Homo Saps" - instructions that dates back to 1952, and were included in the book, 'History of Man'.

These are old "handlings."

For example, this is what David Gaiman, then Public Relations Director for Scientology in England, told Paulette Cooper, in 1971, when asked about the billion year Sea Org contract:

From question/answer #19, in the 'Appendix' of Cooper's book:

19. (from Cooper) "DO THE SEA ORG PEOPLE SIGN A BILLION YEAR CONTRACT?"

(From Gaiman) "Never make an allegoric joke near literal minded humorless reporters."

Same old same old.

Marty, enough already.

You've trimmed what you're trying to salvage down to the "basic" Hubbard, and his "Bridge," yet, it seems that you still feel a need to lie about these topics at times.

You've told some truths lately. And that's good.

Don't backslide now. :)



:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
No, you ain't alone honey.

Thank's sweetheart :biggrin:

you are comforting me :wink2:

Edit:

Seems that we are not alone honey

Tony DePhillips | June 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Reply

By the way Marty your answer number one comes across like a make wrong. My guess is most ex’s who studied the Academy levels (I did) wouldn’t understand your response that I querried. Also there are a lot of people who follow your blog that never studied any of the things you mentioned.

Putting things out in layman terms is only beneficial to you and your purpose would be my guess.

Answers don’t need to be time consuming or elaborate to be understandable.

Thanks for doing what you have done to enable others to deliver more easily outside of the RCS.

martyrathbun09 | June 2, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Reply

Reminds me of something my father used to say to me, ‘you’d bitch if they hung you with a new rope.’


Tony DePhillips | June 2, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Reply

Maybe so.
All I know is that I used to follow where you were heading or at least where I thought you were heading.
Now you kind of come across as some sort of a Guru. That knows all and sees all. Kind of hard to relate to.

:biggrin:

I see the ''ennemy'' ghost train coming back soon
:unsure:
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
Thank's sweetheart :biggrin:

you are comforting me :wink2:

Edit:

Seems that we are not alone honey

Tony DePhillips | June 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Reply

By the way Marty your answer number one comes across like a make wrong. My guess is most ex’s who studied the Academy levels (I did) wouldn’t understand your response that I querried. Also there are a lot of people who follow your blog that never studied any of the things you mentioned.

Putting things out in layman terms is only beneficial to you and your purpose would be my guess.

Answers don’t need to be time consuming or elaborate to be understandable.

Thanks for doing what you have done to enable others to deliver more easily outside of the RCS.

martyrathbun09 | June 2, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Reply

Reminds me of something my father used to say to me, ‘you’d bitch if they hung you with a new rope.’


Tony DePhillips | June 2, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Reply

Maybe so.
All I know is that I used to follow where you were heading or at least where I thought you were heading.
Now you kind of come across as some sort of a Guru. That knows all and sees all. Kind of hard to relate to.

:biggrin:

I see the ''ennemy'' ghost train coming back soon
:unsure:

Keep in mind that this is one of the posts that Marty allowed, much as a call-in talk-radio host has a call screener accept or reject phone calls.

Apparently, Marty doesn't mind being depicted as as "maverick," or even a "guru," by a "conservative" or "traditionalist" Independent Scientologist.

What concerns me is not so much that Marty's a wordy "guru," but that, after all this time, when he considers it important, he's still lying and spinning on behalf of Hubbard and the "Bridge."

That's not a good sign, despite his occasionally throwing a few crumbs of truth to us homo saps.
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
I believe Martyis a true beleiver of Marty the chief cook :lol:

I believe Marty has ''evolved and integrate''
From a $cientology preacher he has become a metaphysical soup chief cook

I whish he gets what he is talking about - 'cause I don't :duh:
I don't get anything and what for it should be of use

Am I alone ? :confused2::unsure:

Marty's complete lack of formal education is one of the reasons no one understands a damn thing he says. Meaning, Marty wants to write about metaphysical and philosophical topics. Thousands of years ago the ancients understood that agreed upon language and definitive meaning was pretty much 90% ofcommunicating those ideas and all philosophers since have worked at developing a language that can be broadly understood when communicating about very complex & abstract topics. Hell, there are entire books written on the meaning of the word "being."

If you ever take college level philosophy courses this is the meat of the undergraduate curriculum - learning the agreed upon language needed to truly communicate and discuss these ideas. Marty doesn't want to waste his time with silly wog stuff like accurate and concise language to transmit and debate his ideas. Instead he makes a jumbled mess of whatever he is trying to convey, it comes out as a bunch silly woo-woo new ages BS and then tries to look down his nose when people ask WTF because they havent learned the secret language that only Marty understands and what is meant by the words he tries to use.

It's not you, it's Marty. His followers and readers reactions demonstrate the problem is all with Marty, not everyone else. I also think if he actually learned how to properly write/communicate his ideas we would just find they are unoriginal and cliched - so does have a motivation outside of laziness and wog disdain from ever learning effective language skills for his scientology inspired with a helping of new agey tao inspired BS.
 
Last edited:

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Edit: In response to Veda's last post

Yes
I understand what you mean.

But, when talking about cults (CO$)
we talk about mind and people control
People who are dangerous are the Gurus

L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 7 November 1962.
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM.
 
Last edited:

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Yes
I understand what you mean.

But, when talking about cults (CO$)
we talk about mind and people control
People who are dangerous are the Gurus

L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 7 November 1962.
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM.

Discussing philosophy and cults are two different animals. Cults are simply about manipulation and control. At times Marty, much like Lenny in Mice and Men, does seem to want to try out the philosophy thing but he doesn't realize his entire background and education (via LRH) has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with running a manipulative, controlling cult.

It's like trying to tell someone how to fix a car but using the vocabulary of a sous chief to do it.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Discussing philosophy and cults are two different animals. Cults are simply about manipulation and control. At times Marty, much like Lenny in Mice and Men, does seem to want to try out the philosophy thing but he doesn't realize his entire background and education (via LRH) has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with running a manipulative, controlling cult.

It's like trying to tell someone how to fix a car but using the vocabulary of a sous chief to do it.

This (and your preceding post) is a wonderfully concise insight into why Marty drivels so much. I think you are spot on - his only "education" (like DMs) has been in the milieu of cult control.

The idea of going back to school, achieving a real education seems to have totally slipped past him.

You are totally correct - studying and living in Scientology teaches a person nothing about philosophy, ethics, justice or any of the related classical education items - instead it teaches a simplistic course in control and manipulation both in giving and receiving. It does teach that, if not well, then thoroughly.

You have made me look at Marty in a different light Bunny - thank you.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Discussing philosophy and cults are two different animals. Cults are simply about manipulation and control. At times Marty, much like Lenny in Mice and Men, does seem to want to try out the philosophy thing but he doesn't realize his entire background and education (via LRH) has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with running a manipulative, controlling cult.

It's like trying to tell someone how to fix a car but using the vocabulary of a sous chief to do it.

Oups - sorry
My post was in response to Veda's post about lying

But I find your last post very much true.
By the way -I've studied for 20 years (with teachers and masters)

Tao and
Zen buddhism

So, I should have at least a bit of an idea of what he is talking about - but I really don't
He is mixing $cientology mindfuck with simplicity of Tao - (true Tao is empty - true Buddhism is empty - these are only ways of living true to ourselves - there is nothing to teach nothing to understand)
His schmlueafhda doesn't make sense

Imagine yourself practicing meditation in the morning - you find you are at peace - the little voice is quiet - and you know you are not your ego - you feel free and you realize you are greatfull for living a good life without great sufferings

Then , the afternoon, you take a lie detector , and you ask your mind to search fo your demons stucked to you and you talk to them - as they are apparently making you ill and a bad person....

Yes...As some says..$cientology is really close to Buddhism :duh:
I never found yet the philosophical similarity

One lead you locked into a room fighting with entities and the other one allow you to better know what you are and therefore a better understanding of life
Marty's
He uses ancient master teachings to give an appearance of Ancient mystical Great Truth to $camology. (because it can stand any locical mind)

Practicing $cientology, from the first beginning - is very dammaging for the soul - your are yelled at - isolated from people you cherish - some are beatten up - some are locked and emprisonned - some are humiliated, some are tortured with an e-meter.
When practicing meditation, the worst you would encounter, would be a japaneese Zen teacher who wake-you up and correct your sitting alignment.


How can you mix enlightening practices with teaching of becoming psychotic (getting rid of body thetans) and slaves
to attempt to make it look like New Truth about life ????
LRH dit it - he does it
Marty appears confused to me -a $scamology product.
:faceslap:

Anyone should remember how LRH spend his last years and last days
A paranoid human being hiding at fear and desperately trying to destroy all his demons and entities stuck to him.
Poor man - he probably grew up with few demons and ended his life with thousands..:unsure:

But But But...wait a minute...$scientology is a prooven working technology to free human beings....
 

Boson Wog Stark

Patron Meritorious
Marty's complete lack of formal education is one of the reasons no one understands a damn thing he says. Meaning, Marty wants to write about metaphysical and philosophical topics. Thousands of years ago the ancients understood that agreed upon language and definitive meaning was pretty much 90% of communicating those ideas and all philosophers since have worked at developing a language that can be broadly understood when communicating about very complex & abstract topics. Hell, there are entire books written on the meaning of the word "being."

If you ever take college level philosophy courses this is the meat of the undergraduate curriculum - learning the agreed upon language needed to truly communicate and discuss these ideas.

I agree. This is not only difficult for Marty but it is difficult for anyone to discuss Scientology, in relation to other ideas because it is booby-trapped with so much of Hubbard's language and the silly mishmash of often contradictory BS.

Some of the books that I've read that Marty has mentioned on his blog, when he talks about what they mean to him or how they fit in with Hubbard's wisdom, I don't know WTF he means. He has to stretch things so much, and he doesn't express himself well at all when it comes to these complex spiritual/philosophical ideas. About the only thing I could agree on, was something one of his followers kept writing in the comment section -- he has a nice smile (Marty not Hubbard!)

The special language and mishmash is what makes Scientology secret and special. Not only was there a taboo placed on discussing Hubbard's ideas openly, if you did try to discuss it openly it didn't make sense to anyone. Stuff about sperm being influenced by hearing certain words is so preposterous it defies explanation or discussion. You may as well try to convince people you're getting special messages from your cat.

In that way, most people trying to sell it just kept saying that it was something you had to do for yourself to understand. Never mind that thousands of ex-members did do it for themselves and found out it was a trap designed primarily to get their money, or labor (to get money out of others).

To me, in order to be credible as an indie clam to outsiders, you have to admit that while you did/do benefit from certain aspects of Scientology, you realize that it may not work for others at all, and that it doesn't hold "all the answers" -- drop absurd notions of planetary clearing, or being vastly superior to wogs, or that you have to lie to people and find their ruin in order to recruit them into this baloney, "before it is too late." In other words, drop a lot of the basis for Scientology and Hubbard's basic ideas. You also should recognize that while Hubbard could be clever, he lied too much and was nuttier than a fruitcake. He was a math dunce, and had a poor understanding of science. His writing is tedious to read, with a lot of bloat saying nothing.

Dabble with the parts of it you enjoy and discard the other 95% for the trap it is, or better yet, explore other things and leave it in the past as best you can. Unless, you're like a lot of people here, find it fascinating, therapeutic to discuss, or just want to warn others. Or, for ex-members, share your experiences, feelings and ideas openly, which you couldn't do in the cult.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Stuff about sperm being influenced by hearing certain words is so preposterous it defies explanation or discussion.

Wow! does it makes you umconfortable to know all these guys in your testicles hear what you say ??? :unsure:

Oh Oh...this one just heard a lie :biggrin:

4425413188_a2557114bc.jpg


To whom does it belong please ????
 
Marty's complete lack of formal education is one of the reasons no one understands a damn thing he says. Meaning, Marty wants to write about metaphysical and philosophical topics. Thousands of years ago the ancients understood that agreed upon language and definitive meaning was pretty much 90% ofcommunicating those ideas and all philosophers since have worked at developing a language that can be broadly understood when communicating about very complex & abstract topics. Hell, there are entire books written on the meaning of the word "being."

If you ever take college level philosophy courses this is the meat of the undergraduate curriculum - learning the agreed upon language needed to truly communicate and discuss these ideas. Marty doesn't want to waste his time with silly wog stuff like accurate and concise language to transmit and debate his ideas. Instead he makes a jumbled mess of whatever he is trying to convey, it comes out as a bunch silly woo-woo new ages BS and then tries to look down his nose when people ask WTF because they havent learned the secret language that only Marty understands and what is meant by the words he tries to use.

It's not you, it's Marty. His followers and readers reactions demonstrate the problem is all with Marty, not everyone else. I also think if he actually learned how to properly write/communicate his ideas we would just find they are unoriginal and cliched - so does have a motivation outside of laziness and wog disdain from ever learning effective language skills for his scientology inspired with a helping of new agey tao inspired BS.

'Big Beings' such as Marty Rathbun tend to be difficult to understand by mere wogs, Oswald Bates does a pretty good job breaking down Marty's brand of philosophy

[video=youtube;9ROOi5xagxg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ROOi5xagxg[/video]
 

Veda

Sponsor
This is the gist of the opening post of this thread:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/dichotomies/#comments

"If you read the Scientology OT 2 materials there is no need for further explanation, except perhaps to help clarify technical mechanics from mythology."

-snip-

Some time ago, I and others criticized Marty for his use of the PR handling of calling Incident 2 of OT 3 an: a) analogy b) allegory c) metaphor d) myth.

Anyone who studied Hubbard's teachings knows that, per those teachings, incidents (and engrams, and implants are a kind of engram) are recorded literally - time, place, form, and event - on time tracks... including the time tracks of Body Thetans.

"Myths" are ancient stories of collective origin.

The implants of OT 2 are not "myths" and Marty knows it.

And honest approach would be for Marty to say, "It's nonsense, and I don't deliver it anymore; or even, "I've taken some of the ideas and developed a new level, but it's no longer OT 2."

-snip-

In the last few days there have been further developments seeming to go in a positive direction over at MartyWorld.

The purpose of my posts on Marty is not to crush Marty but to help him (although he may not appreciate it), and only do I "kick his butt" out of necessity.

The purpose of this thread in not to crush Marty.
 

Gib

Crusader
Edit: In response to Veda's last post

Yes
I understand what you mean.

But, when talking about cults (CO$)
we talk about mind and people control
People who are dangerous are the Gurus

L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 7 November 1962.
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM.

lets see, it says Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, HCO PL.

it doesn't say Scientology Communications Office Policy Letter. :hysterical:

Smash my name into history.
 
Top