Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went mute

[degraded being]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

...

Sometimes I wonder if the complexity of life is not as complex as it appears. For example, I followed Marty when he started his blog and all the personal evolutionary steps he went through to his current incarnation as a rabid anti-scientology SP, who now desecrates the holy name of Hubbard and (OH NO!) is suing Scientology for many millions of dollars.

Okay, pardon my train of thought, but I find this fascinating.

So, was Marty a cult victim who eventually came to his senses and blew. After that, did Marty "decompress" and realize Scientology was slavery and then he inadvertently found himself being fair gamed, after which he was "forced" to sue the cult? And if he now wins, he stands to realize riches beyond anything he has ever known in his life?

--OR--

Was Marty part of the sociopathic cult who fanatically did the fair gaming...until he was targeted. After which he found a way to fair game the cult and make big money off it?


Bear with me if this sounds rambling and incoherent. LOL. It gets simpler....

In other words, the SEED OF SCIENTOLOGY that Hubbard planted back in 1950 eventually grew into a full scale, sociopathic multi-billion dollar slave labor hoax that defrauded people who believed his scientific claims. That's what grew, so that is what must have been in the seed.

Likewise....

Was Marty a willing participant in the sociopathy of the cult, after which he found a way to (potentially) score millions of dollars from the same cult?

Is that what was in the SEED OF MARTY from the beginning, since that is what grew?

Or is it just all random and incomprehensibly chaotic, how life works.

I tend to think (today at least) that WHATEVER GREW is what was genetically programmed into the SEED THAT WAS PLANTED. Stated more simply: What grew is what was in the seed.

A pear tree does not just randomly pop in the the spot where I planted tomato seeds.

Maybe I would feel differently if Marty didn't alway portray himself as an unerring authority and beyond reproach--even though his positions have been constantly shifting.

Is it possibly as simple as the idea that Marty is a user, the same as Hubbard? He used Scientology and Scientologists and his power to afford himself a VIP lifestyle. And he is now using Scientology (suing them for multi-millions) because that's what he does? Use others for his own benefit.

It is just a curious phenomena.

All that said, I do hope the Rathbun's win a monster award and have fun with the money. I don't mind bilked Scientologists who donated those millions watching, helplessly, as the money is given to SPs. Kind of a cool karmic event, isn't it?

Marty doesn't talk about himself.
I don't suppose he has to talk about himself, but when someone wants to be authoritative all about scientology, and be an expert, and "lead people out" etc, and he was one of the top leg-breakers, body-hiders, he should talk about himself.
He just talks about scientology.
Putting HIMSELF!! IN THE PICTURE!!! would make it a more trustworthy picture IMO.
I don't mean himself as a "post" but himself as a person.

I have a strong gut feeling to that - I think that trying to be some sort of leader, given his PERSONAL history and the personal history of his audiences, and even the onlookers, then there is some point he is missing HUGELY.

Not talking about himself means that as a person he is in a sort of no-man's-land.
I think there are probably people who have no trouble with that and others for whom it is quite important. No man's land looks similar to someone who did not SHARE the same experiences as others.

Unless I am wrong and he is, or has been, talking about himself.

 

[Thrak]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

...

Sometimes I wonder if the complexity of life is not as complex as it appears. For example, I followed Marty when he started his blog and all the personal evolutionary steps he went through to his current incarnation as a rabid anti-scientology SP, who now desecrates the holy name of Hubbard and (OH NO!) is suing Scientology for many millions of dollars.

Okay, pardon my train of thought, but I find this fascinating.

So, was Marty a cult victim who eventually came to his senses and blew. After that, did Marty "decompress" and realize Scientology was slavery and then he inadvertently found himself being fair gamed, after which he was "forced" to sue the cult? And if he now wins, he stands to realize riches beyond anything he has ever known in his life?

--OR--

Was Marty part of the sociopathic cult who fanatically did the fair gaming...until he was targeted. After which he found a way to fair game the cult and make big money off it?


Bear with me if this sounds rambling and incoherent. LOL. It gets simpler....

In other words, the SEED OF SCIENTOLOGY that Hubbard planted back in 1950 eventually grew into a full scale, sociopathic multi-billion dollar slave labor hoax that defrauded people who believed his scientific claims. That's what grew, so that is what must have been in the seed.

Likewise....

Was Marty a willing participant in the sociopathy of the cult, after which he found a way to (potentially) score millions of dollars from the same cult?

Is that what was in the SEED OF MARTY from the beginning, since that is what grew?

Or is it just all random and incomprehensibly chaotic, how life works.

I tend to think (today at least) that WHATEVER GREW is what was genetically programmed into the SEED THAT WAS PLANTED. Stated more simply: What grew is what was in the seed.

A pear tree does not just randomly pop in the the spot where I planted tomato seeds.

Maybe I would feel differently if Marty didn't alway portray himself as an unerring authority and beyond reproach--even though his positions have been constantly shifting.

Is it possibly as simple as the idea that Marty is a user, the same as Hubbard? He used Scientology and Scientologists and his power to afford himself a VIP lifestyle. And he is now using Scientology (suing them for multi-millions) because that's what he does? Use others for his own benefit.

It is just a curious phenomena.

All that said, I do hope the Rathbun's win a monster award and have fun with the money. I don't mind bilked Scientologists who donated those millions watching, helplessly, as the money is given to SPs. Kind of a cool karmic event, isn't it?

I have a friend who works for scientologists. She is supposed to be a scientologist and follows their "ethics handlings" etc. but I had a candid conversation recently and the "doubt" was more like certainty that it's all a bunch of shit, and she proudly professed that she never drank the koolaid. But yet she lies every day to save her skin and because she works for a high profile person even implies that working for a blood sucking, life wrecking, child abusing, cult is cool. After seeing her and seeing how she conducts her life it occurred to me I'm just not "ethical" enough to hang around scientologists, and that she had drank a lot more of the koolaid then she ever realized.

It almost seems to just walk away is the only ethical thing you can do. To sue them just means taking the money from some poor sap. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

If Marty is after the money then he is truly a scilon because all scientology really is is a league of thieves who don't care about where the money comes from.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

If Marty is after the money then he is truly a scilon because all scientology really is is a league of thieves who don't care about where the money comes from.

Marty is not the plaintiff or a party to the lawsuit. Monique is the only plaintiff. Any damages awarded will be only because of the injury done to her due to the alleged harassment. Any damages awarded will only compensate only her, and only to the extent she, not Marty, suffered injury.

Do people really have a problem with Monique suing for the injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of the harassment done to her?

 

[Little David]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

.......Is it possibly as simple as the idea that Marty is a user, the same as Hubbard?.......

Yes, Marty is still trying to figure out how to get rich being a user like LRH. He gave up trying to make money off of LRH's con directly. Now he needs to give up trying to make money as a writer writing about LRH's con. LRH's writing was amusing due to his insanity. Marty's writing is a pathetic attempt to sound important like LRH did but lacks his amusing insanity.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

Now he needs to give up trying to make money as a writer writing about LRH's con.

I disagree.

Reading the comments on Marty's blog, to things appear to be clear. First, he does no harm. Secondly, what he writes, and the resulting discussion, does some people some good. What he writes and the resulting discussion help some people out of the trap.

If you don't like what he writes, you might want to consider not reading it.

 

[Leland]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

Marty is not the plaintiff or a party to the lawsuit. Monique is the only plaintiff. Any damages awarded will be only because of the injury done to her due to the alleged harassment. Any damages awarded will only compensate only her, and only to the extent she, not Marty, suffered injury.

Do people really have a problem with Monique suing for the injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of the harassment done to her?

Well....if Texas is a 50 50 state.....as far as marriages go....then it doesn't really matter if Marty is a plaintiff or not.....

 

[Student of Trinity]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

What grew is what was in the seed.

A pear tree does not just randomly pop in the the spot where I planted tomato seeds.

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?

Jesus wasn't saying that all you have to look at is a person's origin, to know how they'll turn out. He was saying the opposite, that you can infer the inside truth about some kinds of people, from what they produce. Also, he was talking specifically about people who claim to be 'prophets'; he wasn't saying that anyone who's had some bad luck must be bad inside. 'Fruits' are not just anything that happens to a tree, or around a tree, either. They're the things that really grow naturally from the tree. So this principle of Jesus needs to be applied with some insight and sense. It does, however, imply that, if you see some bad fruit, you might well ask whether it just came from a bad-fruit tree. Conversely, if you happen to find some good fruit, you should consider that the tree might have had something to do with it, even if the tree does not strike your fancy in itself.

Jesus had another parable about seeds that I try to keep in mind along with the above: the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30). Wheat (valuable grain) and tares (pernicious weeds) look similar as young plants, and (at least in Jesus's story) they often grow together so closely that their roots are entangled, making it impossible to pull up the weed without destroying the grain. If you don't want to waste any grain, your best option is to leave wheat and tares to grow together, until the harvest. Then you can thresh out the wheat. For what it's worth, my own interpretation of this story is that there are wheat and tares in all of us. God is patient with the tares, for the sake of the wheat.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

...I know that Marty feels a professional obligation to not reveal certain information that he knows by reason of being Cruise's auditor...

I always have a chuckle when I read the word 'professional' and (scientology) 'auditor' in the same sentence.

Why is it funny to call auditors professional ....

... because professionals get paid money.

Also, the idea of a profession has connotations of meaningful qualifications and respectability.

It's just laughs all round.

 

[Infinite]

An oldie but a goodie . . .

''

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

A question out of "unknowingness"... what were they saying originally? Was it related? But ... he can't speak about body thetans, because they're OTIII stuff, right?

 

[WildKat]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

...
Is it possibly as simple as the idea that Marty is a user, the same as Hubbard? He used Scientology and Scientologists and his power to afford himself a VIP lifestyle. And he is now using Scientology (suing them for multi-millions) because that's what he does? Use others for his own benefit.

It's just a basic component of human nature: People will USE any religion, whether it's Christianity, or Islam or Scientology, to JUSTIFY whatever is in their nature to do. People use God to justify whatever they want to do. A mad man runs around killing people, he says he's just doing God's work, killing evil people, "helping God". A Muslim fanatic suicide bomber will say he's doing the same thing: God's work. Bringing justice to the evil ones.

Well Marty was just like a ton of other Scientologists: If they were stopping or hurting whoever was labeled an SP (evil), then that was OK.
Other Scientologists just wanted to audit and try to help people, because it was their nature to try to help and they think (or thought) that it was helping. And it probably was up to a point.

Marty would probably see himself as doing both: auditing to help "good" people - black bag operations on SPs to hurt "evil" people. Because that's what LRH would have wanted him to do, therefore exempt from any criticism.

Whattaguy!

 

[prosecco]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

Marty is not the plaintiff or a party to the lawsuit. Monique is the only plaintiff. Any damages awarded will be only because of the injury done to her due to the alleged harassment. Any damages awarded will only compensate only her, and only to the extent she, not Marty, suffered injury.

Do people really have a problem with Monique suing for the injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of the harassment done to her?

Absolutely no problem, however the ONLY retribution a court can order is monetary, so unfortunately any damages will have to be assessed financially. Shame really as am sure there are some much more creative options that would be preferable. Change the trustees of CST? Use the IAS reserves towards world starvation.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

I think for Marty, aside from the obvious need of ending the harassment, watching and assisting his wife winning this is mainly about se plessöör of thrashing "Scn. Inc.". And I feel with him... in this.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

It's just a basic component of human nature: People will USE any religion, whether it's Christianity, or Islam or Scientology, to JUSTIFY whatever is in their nature to do. People use God to justify whatever they want to do. A mad man runs around killing people, he says he's just doing God's work, killing evil people, "helping God". A Muslim fanatic suicide bomber will say he's doing the same thing: God's work. Bringing justice to the evil ones.

Well Marty was just like a ton of other Scientologists: If they were stopping or hurting whoever was labeled an SP (evil), then that was OK.
Other Scientologists just wanted to audit and try to help people, because it was their nature to try to help and they think (or thought) that it was helping. And it probably was up to a point.

Marty would probably see himself as doing both: auditing to help "good" people - black bag operations on SPs to hurt "evil" people. Because that's what LRH would have wanted him to do, therefore exempt from any criticism.

Whattaguy!

Interesting idea when I read your post and wondered if there is a moral equivalent to the Muslim fanatic suicide bomber in Scientology.

Um, yes.

The Scientology fanatic sue-a-SP bomber.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

Jesus wasn't saying that all you have to look at is a person's origin, to know how they'll turn out. He was saying the opposite, that you can infer the inside truth about some kinds of people, from what they produce. Also, he was talking specifically about people who claim to be 'prophets'; he wasn't saying that anyone who's had some bad luck must be bad inside. 'Fruits' are not just anything that happens to a tree, or around a tree, either. They're the things that really grow naturally from the tree. So this principle of Jesus needs to be applied with some insight and sense. It does, however, imply that, if you see some bad fruit, you might well ask whether it just came from a bad-fruit tree. Conversely, if you happen to find some good fruit, you should consider that the tree might have had something to do with it, even if the tree does not strike your fancy in itself.

Jesus had another parable about seeds that I try to keep in mind along with the above: the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30). Wheat (valuable grain) and tares (pernicious weeds) look similar as young plants, and (at least in Jesus's story) they often grow together so closely that their roots are entangled, making it impossible to pull up the weed without destroying the grain. If you don't want to waste any grain, your best option is to leave wheat and tares to grow together, until the harvest. Then you can thresh out the wheat. For what it's worth, my own interpretation of this story is that there are wheat and tares in all of us. God is patient with the tares, for the sake of the wheat.

..

Thanks, that is helpful in threshing out the seedy affairs of Scientology.

 

[DeeAnna]

Re: Rathbun: Rather than take any iota of responsibility like a man, Tom Cruise went

Well....if Texas is a 50 50 state.....as far as marriages go....then it doesn't really matter if Marty is a plaintiff or not.....

Depends on the state law. Here in Pennsylvania the proceeds of a lawsuit do not automatically become a marital asset. So if, when I was married, I sued someone and won a monetary settlement, I could put the money into a bank account in my own name and that is that. BUT if I put such proceeds into a JOINT bank account with my husband, the money then becomes a marital asset.

In Pennsylvania, inheritances also do not automatically become a marital asset.