What's new

Marty trying to appear honest

I believe Marty is providing a gradient approach for those to leave the church. I see nothing wrong with this. As those that view the internet first time probably see it as OMG, I knew it.

I don't disagree with what you say otherwise.

I think it is not good to make little of Marty, I am not supporting him by saying this, I am just saying his web blog is providing a service, as people first agree with him, then maybe they will look here for other viewpoints on the subject.

I have absolutely no objection to providing a gradient for others. What I object to is the deliberate persistence in perpetuating lies. Providing a gradient approach to exiting the church does not require lies or lying. Admittedly that's become an old habit of Rathbun's after many years of professional vocation, but its a habit he needs to lose.

As to making too little of Rathbun, I don't see that as a problem. Potentially the greater problem lies in making too much of him and his actions, as Rathbun himself routinely does.

The truth is Rathbun's blog is simply one more site on the web fraught with disinformation about hubbard & the church. It is a Co$ Lite Site. Exactly how lite remains to be seen.

Since only after a long process of personal investigation that any individual with a Co$ history comes to terms with that organization, in the long run Rathbun's contributions aren't likely to prove all that important except to a very few unthinking loyalists.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:

Lone Star

Crusader
Marty's blog does indeed provide a service. It's a living textbook case on how deeply imbedded the Hubbardian programming truly is, and how difficult it can be to overcome. It's also a study in narcissism along with delusions of grandeur.
 

Gib

Crusader
Marty's blog does indeed provide a service. It's a living textbook case on how deeply imbedded the Hubbardian programming truly is, and how difficult it can be to overcome. It's also a study in narcissism along with delusions of grandeur.

"delusions of grandeur"

Good statement.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Marty's blog does indeed provide a service. It's a living textbook case on how deeply imbedded the Hubbardian programming truly is, and how difficult it can be to overcome. It's also a study in narcissism along with delusions of grandeur.


Good post.


In 62 years, there have only been 5 top "Leaders" of Scientology, both COS and Indie.

SECTOR SALVAGERS GALLERY
1. L. Ron Hubbard (Commodore)
2. Mary Sue Hubbard (Guardian)
3. Captain Bill Robertson (Deputy Commodore)
4. David Miscavich (Chairman of the Board)
5. Marty Rathbun (Indie leader)​

What are their common characteristics that qualified them to successfully lead Scientologists?

1. Highest ranking officials of a paramilitary religious cult.
2. Thug behavior to get what they wanted.
3. Crimes for which they were/could be prosecuted.
4. Willingness to lie, deceive & defraud.
5. Delusions of grandeur.
Marty (and his nemesis Miscavige) are highly qualified. Both are blissfully unaware that they are on the same "End Routing Form" as their predecessors.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Marty's blog does indeed provide a service. It's a living textbook case on how deeply imbedded the Hubbardian programming truly is, and how difficult it can be to overcome. It's also a study in narcissism along with delusions of grandeur.

Brilliant. hadn't thought of that: Marty's blog as a public demonstration of a deeply personal decompression process highlighting the shifting thoughts which result from it as cognitive thinking seeps back into a Scientology-processed mnd and character. Fascinating. Your idea adds a new perspective for me which dissolves some of my tinfoil - but not all of it ; )

Thanks very much for that.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
SECTOR SALVAGERS GALLERY
1. L. Ron Hubbard ([STRIKE]Commodore[/STRIKE] Admiral)
2. Mary Sue Hubbard (Guardian)
3. Captain Bill Robertson (Deputy Commodore)
4. David Miscavich (Chairman of the Board)
5. Marty Rathbun (Indie leader)​
. . . <snip LOLS> . . .

185Gb.gif
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on



Whoa, forgot that Ron gave himself the rank of Admiral. How mental is that? LOLOLOL

Marty is the only one lacking a rank.

He was the Inspector General. But, surely he deserves greater now that he has un-besmirched the good meme of L. Ron Hubbard.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Scn_Symbol_Components_1.jpg


A fair amount of early Scientology derives from the works of Aleister Crowley. One of Hubbard's "borrowings" was Crowley's, "Love is the Law. Love under Will."

Crowley has described "Love" in terms of "gravitation, chemical affinity, electrical potential."

"There is then little indeed in common between Love and such tepid passions as regard, affection, and kindness..."

leadcrowley.jpg


WILL is senior to LOVE, and LOVE is seen as "affinity."

Add this to Hubbard's 1938 "SURVIVE!' as the central pillar of his "philosophy," and one can see why Scientology has gone the way it has.

Oh, and one more ingredient: sneakiness. Despite the chest thumping of, "I can make Napoleon look like a punk," Hubbard, 1938, and "I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday school teacher," Hubbard, 1969, Scientology's primary tactic is deception and deviousness.

The sneakiness goes back to 1938 too, when Hubbard wrote of his secret "real goal."

I don't know if Bligh was known for sneakiness or not....but I do think he is associated with brutality in the minds of many people.

Captain Bligh is not known for sneakiness. The point is that Scientology's on-display chest thumping, its well known "Always attack" dictum, etc., serve to distract from the other aspect of Scientology, which is deviousness and covert attack and manipulation.

After Hubbard concocted his Attack Tech, he concocted his PR Tech to shroud his Attack Tech. PR Tech is mainly a "defensive" subject, for example a big cross atop a Scientology "Church" is a "defensive" and devious PR action, as is the identity of "Church."

This is why it's prudent to be cautious with Marty and his utterances.

Is Marty playing to his envisioned "raw meat" and "wog" public?, or is he actually changing ever so slightly? Or both?
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Everything he has ever had to say about David Mayo and his litigation with the church as one very obvious and immensely clear example.

His is a deliberately dishonest account and obviously intended to promote the view that hubbard was himself the victim of unwarranted attacks from the earlier independent movement ... :melodramatic: ... when exactly the opposite is true. :ohmy:

Rathbun is very 'big' on attempts at discrediting the earlier independents, those who had the integrity to resist the Sea Org internal destruction of the community of scientologists, an integrity which he himself lacks. He has much to lose by the open and widespread acknowledgement that hubbard, miscavige, & even his lowly little servile self actively conspired to destroy the lives, families, and well being of thousands of scientologists.

Everything Rathbun has done so far has been to create the idea that HE is the real founder of the 'true independent movement' when the fact remains he was and remains a principle antagonist to those who had the personal integrity to disagree and resist the unethical management directives from hubbard & his associates, i.e. The Real Independents.

His reflects a fundamental dishonesty designed primarily to serve to promote his own personal interests. [That itself should remind you of someone whom Rathbun claims to admire.:p ]

Moreover, you've been told this before and by others besides myself. Check with those freezone buddies of yours who actually knew & worked with David and other early independents. Many active freezoners, including those on your board, know Rathbun as the professional liar he is and regard those of you who believe his tales to be credulous fools.

Karen De La Carriere even called Rathbun out on his blog concerning his comments about Mayo. Her remarks resulted in shutting him up on the topic at that moment. Too much of his audience at the time were seen not to be applauding his story, so he stopped his active pushing of those lies for the moment but not his attempts to revise history.

Rathbun has been and remains a professional liar & thug. Deal with it. Don't just cozy up to people because they tell you what you want to hear. It may be 'nice' that he encourages people to leave the church now, but he still lies about hubbard, the church, the history of scientology, and the tech.

I know playing stupid comes naturally, but there should be limits; even for you. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

When I met Marty the first topic we discussed was David Mayo. I'd disagreed with some statements he'd made in the early days of his blog.
So I got Marty's viewpoint and its from a unique position. He was the principal architect of the legal CO$ battle with Mayo. He felt from the documents he had and that Mayo produced or quoted that Mayo was not as truthful as he could have been. A very respected FZ terminal who would be in the know told me this was probably the case, and pointed out that after 10 years of legal attacks by CO$ Mayo was probably getting desparate and
did what was needed to defend himself. Marty also didn't want to continue with the case as he saw that it would be lost. But you know who pushed it forward. So Mayo Marty were term/opterm. So I don't seen Marty as being deliberately dishonest here. He is expressing his personal viepoint genuinely held. One I disagree with. I suspect his viewpoint may have changed somewhat, but he hasn't commented on the area in recent times.

Not sure what you refer to here:-

"... obviously intended to promote the view that hubbard was himself the victim of unwarranted attacks from the earlier independent movement"

Rathbun would certainly discredit CBR. As would many in the FZ. Another point of disagreement we have.

You said:-

"Everything Rathbun has done so far has been to create the idea that HE is the real founder of the'true independent movement"

Yes he has majored on that and I believe the two times I was banned from his blog is related in that I'd call him on his statements that the FZ are "squirrels". In fact he told me that I was "squirrel" because I was supportive of CBR. He dosn't like CBR.

You said:-

" He has much to lose by the open and widespread acknowledgement that hubbard, miscavige, & even his lowly little servile self actively conspired to destroy the lives, families, and well being of thousands of scientologists. "

I told him our philosophy allows for redemption. I see him as following such a path. In his first post on this board he said he was happy to meet anyone who had issues with him, and to give auditing if needed or wanted.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Whoa, forgot that Ron gave himself the rank of Admiral. How mental is that? LOLOLOL

That issue got cancelled, its provenance unclear. My guess is that Pat Broeker wrote it, that fact eventually squeezed out of Broeker by DM.

My opinion is that it is far too lucid to have been written as-is by Hubbard after his stroke.

Paul
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
That issue got cancelled, its provenance unclear. My guess is that Pat Broeker wrote it, that fact eventually squeezed out of Broeker by DM.

My opinion is that it is far too lucid to have been written as-is by Hubbard after his stroke.

Paul

Hmm, let me think here, old bat shit crazy wrote his last will on the DAY before he croaked.....yet this admiral thing he wasn't lucid enough to sign?

How fucking odd.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
That issue got cancelled, its provenance unclear. My guess is that Pat Broeker wrote it, that fact eventually squeezed out of Broeker by DM.

My opinion is that it is far too lucid to have been written as-is by Hubbard after his stroke.

Paul

You might well be right, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hubbard had verbally said as much before he became totally incapable.
 
Top