Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Marty Rathbun’s Mission Statement

My last blog entry quoted in full from an essay by another author on Marty Rathbun’s blog (Tom Martiniano). Marty was in disagreement with much of what the author said, but graciously agreed to post the essay anyway. Now Marty has come back to that essay to make clear where he disagrees with it. Marty’s response is at Mission Statement. Before I go on, let me reiterate that I have nothing personally against Marty Rathbun. I don’t know him personally, we’ve never met, and even in his days as “Number 2 in Scientology”, he was no more than a blip on my personal radar.

Up until now, I’ve been loath to comment much directly on Marty Rathbun and his blog. I’ve done so only in a limited way until now for three reasons. First, in Scientology before and now in the Independent Field, I was and am a nobody. I didn’t occupy any important post, wasn’t in the Sea Org, didn’t hobnob with management, and probably no more than a handful of people in Scientology would recognize me. Plus, I’ve been a freeloader in Scienology for the last 25 years, so I’ve missed a lot of the “excitement” that’s happened with David Miscavige. In essence, in the Independent Field, I’ve considered myself in Non-Existence. And if you’ve ever been seriously in Non-Existence and spoken up about abuses and problems you see, you know what it’s like to get yourself swatted down like the fly you are. Marty, on the other hand, has risen into a position of Power in the Independent Field, perhaps comparable to the position he occupied in the Church at one time.

Second, Marty has gathered about him a group of loyal, perhaps even sycophantic followers, who appear to believe he’s the smartest guy in the room, no matter what room he happens to be in. I’ve been upbraided for calling these people “followers”, since OSA is apparently running a Black PR campaign saying the exact same thing. Frankly, I don’t much care what OSA says. But if this is what they’re saying, then I have to agree with them. “Black PR”, normally aimed at wrecking the repute of someone, usually involves lies. This isn’t one of them, even though it may be employed by OSA against Marty. I’ve also been attacked for calling people in the Field “followers”, because being a follower is supposedly antithetic to what we in the Field represent. Such an assertion is just silly. We all at various times follow and lead, depending on the context. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a “follower”. Unless, of course, the person you’re following happens to be bad or wrong in some way.

Third, Marty is also part of a clique of people who are some of the brightest “lights” and most listened to people in the Independent Field, people who were likewise high-ranking individuals when they were part of the Church. To what degree they agree with his positions is unknown. But I do know that they defend him. I’ve been privately and publicly attacked by some of these people for my statements against him.

I’ll tell you what the little speaking out I have done against Marty has gotten me so far. Some months ago, I reviewed Marty’s whole blog, front to back, all the posts. As he got closer and closer to present time, he spoke more and more about the idea of “integrating” Scientology with psychology and other practices. In one particular post of his, I commented, disagreeing with his approach rather publicly and stringently. Marty’s answer, rather than engage me publicly or privately, and refute my claims, was to call me and my blog “flat earth”. I subsequently found (not because he told me so, but by actual experiment) that I was henceforth unable to comment any more on Marty’s blog. I considered that kind of hypocritical and ironic, considering what he has to say about the Church and its censorship policies. But I went on with my life. Whether I could comment on Marty’s blog or not wasn’t really the focus of my life.

But now it appears that Marty has publicly staked out his position with regard to Scientology. And it appears I’m not the only “crazy” one in the field who firmly disagrees with him. (In fact, according to Marty, there’s an actual back channel “conspiracy” against him. Who does that sound like?) So I’m now taking this opportunity to address Marty’s position directly.

Now, before I do that, I’m going to make an extremely evaluative point. I have no particular interest in pointing fingers at people and laying blame here or there. “Blame” is a pretty low tone level, and I try not to spend much time there. Plus, for all the blame you lay on others, there’s usually plenty to go around for yourself.

Marty likes to make the point that he was the “Number 2” guy in Scientology for a number of years, right under David Miscavige. I’m not sure if anyone’s ever looked at it this way, but given Marty’s assertion, my retort would be, “So you’re the guy we have to thank for the fact that Miscavige is still running around wrecking things! You could have grabbed five or ten guys, taken Miscavige behind the wood shed and taught him a lesson he’d never forget. Instead, you blew. Thanks a lot, Dude.”

I make the above statement not to besmirch Marty’s reputation, nor to lay blame, or anything of the sort. But when you look at it in this perspective, Marty’s overt is quite sizable. It affects all the dynamics of the people on this planet, at least. Look where the Church of Scientology is (and you are) today because of Miscavige’s destructive, suppressive and contagious actions. It’s the kind and magnitude of overt that a lot of people never recover from. And under those circumstances, I have to question if Marty has ever fully confronted the magnitude of it himself.

Another deficiency in Marty’s thinking is too close an identification of the current [Miscavige] state of Scientology with the brand of Scientology that LRH advocated and taught. It appears that Marty believes the current state of Scientology was an inevitability, based on the seeds that Ron sowed into it later in his life. In Marty’s writing, he doesn’t make a clear distinction between the two things. So it’s hard at times to figure out whether he’s right or wrong. If he’s talking about Miscavige’s brand of Scientology, he may be right about a lot of things he asserts. But he doesn’t make it clear. Moreover, Marty uses statements LRH made in the early 50s and then contrasts them to statements he made in later years, and sets the whole thing up as if they were really the same subject. They aren’t. I’m fully familiar with Ron’s statements and thinking from the early 50s and later (not because of a hidden data line; I just did most of the “basics” on my own and have been in Scientology since 1976, a fair amount of that time spent on staff). The subject of Scientology changed quite a bit from the original Dianetics release to the point where LRH wrote about NOTs. Scientology 1954 is not the same as Scientology 1986. The technology changed considerably and so did Ron’s attitude toward it. Such a thing would only be reasonable under the circumstances. In any case, I’m not sure whether Marty’s genuinely (if unknowingly) confused, or if he sets up his arguments this way to purposely invalidate LRH and/or Scientology. I suspect the latter.

In Marty’s response to Tom, he makes several enumerated prefatory points, and then proceeds to directly address Tom’s message. I will do the same, based on what Marty wrote.

Psychologists are Okay/Psychologists are Evil

In the lecture, “The Story of Dianetics and Scientology”, Ron talks about the fact that when he was a kid, he was used to a world where men were expert, where they were competent. And when he examined the field of psychology in college, he discovered that, not only did psychology not know what it was doing, it didn’t care to know. And at that point, he got very interested in it. He then studied the subject up and down and determined that there was no attempt at understanding (“…just some wiggle-wiggles that synapsed on the relays, you put the rat through the maze…”).

In the early years, he dedicated books and such to early psychologists and thinkers. Freud was given a special place because he was really the first one who said you could do something about the mind without whips and chains and the like. Ron even offered the fruits of his investigations to the psychological profession, which promptly rejected them.

And times changed. The psychiatric profession repeatedly and routinely sent in agents to disrupt and spy on our organizations. The government did the same thing and raided our organizations to boot. At least one assassin was sponsored by a government to take Ron out (hidden data line; I happen to know the guy they sent, who detailed the whole thing out of session for me). Dissatisfied PCs and people who had never actually had any contact with our subject wrote scathing books about it. Newspaper and financial attacks were periodically launched from various quarters, making it look like the whole planet was against us.

Imagine that. Here’s a subject whose sole intent was to free Man, and its founder, who would be described as a “failed science fiction writer” (he was anything but “failed”; and what’s wrong with science fiction writers, anyway?). You’ve got a bunch of people running around getting better by applying the principles of this subject and actually succeeding. Why would anyone object to that?

Turns out a lot of people did. Psychiatrists, politicians, bankers, tax men, presidents. Makes you wonder about the planet you’re on. And about the nature of insanity, because such reactions are clearly insane. And so Ron did what any self-respecting explorer of the human mind would do. He investigated. He investigated the origins of our attacks on this planet. He investigated insanity. He had already investigated the role this planet had played in the context of this sector of the galaxy.

The result in LRH, if he didn’t already feel this way before, was a general contempt for newspapers and the media, governments, tax authorities, international bankers, psychologists and psychiatrists, the courts and the rest. But at the center of a lot of the above destructive efforts were one group in particular: the psychs. Traced down through the ages and including the priests they most closely resembled in older civilizations, he discovered their culpability in connection with a great deal of Man’s misery, and an even greater number of the attacks we had suffered. Suddenly, it wasn’t just that the psychs didn’t understand or want to. They actively wanted to suppress any effort to understand or cure.

Consequently, over time, Ron’s tone with regard to these entities and his treatment of them became more harsh. If you haven’t been asleep for most of the 20th and 21st centuries, you will recognize that these sentiments aren’t unwarranted. We live in a civilization which is almost irretrievably broken and in so many ways it’s virtually impossible to count them all. If you’re in the neighborhood of 40 or 50 or 60 years old, just look back to your childhood and compare society then to now.

As Marty explains, after he blew from the Church, he spent a few years completely cut off from Scientology. He was “rescued” or “salvaged” by his current wife, Monique, and her psych father. From this experience, he apparently developed a healthy respect for psychology as a subject, a perspective which colors his attitudes as we see them today.

Now, let me say that I have nothing whatsoever against Monique and her father. I’m willing to take Marty’s word for Monique: she’s an incredibly generous, empathetic and unique human being. And I have no doubt that her father was instrumental in helping Marty “recover”, just as he says.

While we can consider these as facts, the events described above regarding Scientology, Ron, psychs and these other entities are also facts. So we have two seemingly contradictory sets of facts. We have a psych who helped Marty recover from Miscavige’s version of Scientology, and Ron’s targeting of the psych field and its denizens as the focus of evil in the modern world. How do we reconcile this seeming contradiction?

Let’s take a more neutral field and draw an analogy from it. Let’s take the field of automotive repair. The field of automotive repair is rife with dishonesty and corruption. That’s why most people, in searching for a good shop for their car, rely on the advice of friends or others who have sampled the shops in the area. That’s not to say all auto shops are crooked. You may, on your own and without assistance, discover an honest shop which won’t overcharge you and insist you buy services, repairs and parts you don’t need. But the odds are against you. And the fact that you discover an honest shop doesn’t alter the fact that there are a great many more in your area which are crooked. (It’s probably unfair to assert that the majority of auto shops are crooked. But crooked shops still represent a significant percentage.)

So you survey things and find a shrink who seems like a nice guy one day. You investigate his family, his practice, his demeanor. And you pronounce him worthy. Yay. That doesn’t mean that his colleagues down the street aren’t still performing ECT (electro-convulsive therapy), and his progenitors down the track didn’t stand behind the Facsimile One machine, implanting people. If doesn’t mean that his colleagues don’t get together every few years to vote on what new maladies can be added to their DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), so they can now treat them with additional psycho-active chemical compounds.

Here’s an experiment you can do. I’ve done it. Find a psychologist. Get in comm with him. Develop a rapport with him so that he understands you’re not a stalker or crazy person. Now give him a Dianetic book and get his assurance to read it. Check on his progress from time to time. Get him to finish it if you can. Once finished, check with him regarding what he thinks of it. The last guy I did this to looked at me like a deer in headlights and had no more to do with Dianetics after that. Now we can argue about whether DMSMH is sufficient to convince a shrink to change his practice or investigate Dianetics further. But if you remember from reading Dianetics (you have read it, haven’t you?), it was written in a way which should have been rigorous enough for any academic or practicing shrink to be able to grasp and appreciate its basic principles. And if you were truly interested in helping people get better, its techniques would certainly be worth trying on a patient or two to see what happened. I’ve had enough experience with Book One auditors to know that it doesn’t take much to convince one that this Dianetics has something going for it. One PC ought to do the trick.

And if a shrink rejects Dianetics out of hand, then you’re looking at a guy in a niche who likes his niche, and doesn’t want anyone rocking his little boat. Betterment and improvement be damned.

As LRH says (I’m paraphrasing), “Any time you tell a cult… er, profession anyone can do their job, you’re in trouble! But that’s, in effect, what the first book on Dianetics does.”

The World Needs To Accept/Listen To Us

Marty seems to think that the way to go about his goal of whatever he’s after is for those in the psychological and sociological fields to accept Scientology as another avenue toward treating the human psyche. He likes to make the point that Scientology stopped developing and the psych field moved on. And that now they’re starting to catch up. Marty doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The fact is that Scientology reached full maturity and no longer had a need to “develop”. As LRH said, it is a “workable” applied religious philosophy. Psychology is anything but. There are just as many different “schools” of thought in psychology as there ever were. They’re just as much in disagreement with each other as they always were. There are still Freudians, Jungians, Adlerians, Maslovians and the rest running around, proclaiming their way is the best. Psychology, being anything but an exact science, is highly prone to fads and faddish thinking. This is particularly true, since psychology as a whole does not fundamentally understand what it’s dealing with: the human soul. In fact, even a casual survey of the field would be enough to convince even a casual observer that the field is primarily dominated today by psychiatrists whose abiding belief in genetics and modern pharmaceutical chemistry has caused a near epidemic of psychoactive prescriptions for almost anything you can imagine under the sun. Helped along by your friendly local general practitioner (your family doctor, of the M.D. variety).

Here’s another point along this line. Marty believes that if LRH hadn’t developed Scientology, someone else would have. Ron made statements like this in the early 50s, and I’m sure he believed them at the time. He did make a good point that he benefited from being able to survey both Eastern and Western philosophy, and then apply the scientific method to building the foundations of Scientology.

But after fifteen plus years of research, in 1965, he became thoroughly convinced that his prior statements had been naive. And he was right. Thus, Keeping Scientology Working and Safeguarding Technology. And here’s the proof that LRH was right in his latter assertions: this universe is a good 76 trillion years old. Ron did quite a bit of research into the whole track. And I have no doubt that his research extended beyond the boundaries of this sector and this galaxy. And in all that research and all that time, no other workable efforts to free thetans ever popped up on LRH’s radar. At least none he ever mentioned. So what are the chances that someone on this backward excuse of a heavy gravity wasteland was ever going to come up with a workable technology for freeing thetans?

Of course, we can sit here and speculate about it, as Marty does. We can assert that LRH never really looked beyond this planet. We can say that he probably did find some similar effort, but chose not to disclose it, so as to keep his “franchise” to himself. We can make all kinds of wild statements about what we think LRH did or thought. And all of it is just idle speculation. LRH made his position clear in KSW and Safeguarding Technology, and he was unequivocal about it. Why should we doubt him? Let’s face it; he was right about one thing: in 50,000 years of thinking men, no one has come up with another workable way out. And God knows, the shrinks have been given all the money and latitude you could want to come up with something themselves. Theoretically, it would be their job, and they obviously haven’t done it. (Neither did all the German, French, English and oriental philosophers, for that matter.)

Marty also asserts that Ron claimed later that, “his discoveries were not inevitable by the cultural evolution of humankind and his contributions to it, but instead were due to some mythic quality of his own cosmic character.” Have you seen the supposed “cultural evolution of humankind” lately? Look around you. I think it’s fairly clear that whatever “cultural evolution” Marty thinks is going on is confined to his own mind, and would never produce a workable technology to free beings.

Moreover, the above statement by Marty is an undisguised insult of Ron. Ron never claimed any “mythic quality of his own cosmic character”. What Ron did say about his unique ability to develop our subject was that he saw it as his purpose, and that he went ahead and executed it, regardless of the barriers and counter-intention against it.

Where Scientology Comes From

Marty seems insistent that Ron and we take great care to properly attribute the roots of Scientology to past thinkers, so that the emergence of it doesn’t seem so “unreasonable” to the rest of the world. This argument sounds a lot like seeking the approval of the rest of the world in order to somehow validate our own existence or that of our subject. Why should we possibly care whether the rest of the world considers the emergence of Scientology reasonable or not? In fact, I’d be inclined to listen more carefully to the assertions of a single inventor, researcher or explorer. Because an awful lot of older group-derived thought is rife with pure garbage.

The truth is that our philosophy, while it may share some aspects with older philosophies, is of less importance to Scientology than the technology. The most important aspect of Scientology is its workable technology, which shares almost nothing with prior philosophies and practices. And that technology has one Source. And it ain’t Jesus Christ or Mohammed, Confucius or Lao Tze.

Censorship, ad hominem, etc.

Marty claims to have proven to himself that Scientology works. Well and good. He also claims that the certainty he has attained by its application gives him the right to have his own opinions about it. Again, well and good. This isn’t Miscavige-land.

And then he says, “to attempt to dissuade those who have [asserted their opinions]– and to condemn them with belittling labels and false accusations about their alleged history – signifies a weak certainty on the subject in my opinion….” One presumes that Marty is talking here about those who are actively and loudly disagreeing with him (and his followers), and their subsequent treatment of him.

I would remind Marty that that is precisely what he did with me, and likely has with others, when we have disagreed with him. A quick trip to the dictionary to look up the word “irony” might be helpful here, Marty. Glass houses might not be the best places from which to launch rocks, my friend.

Scientology and “Blind” Adherence

Marty seems to believe that the run-of-the-mill Scientologist, in preaching “blind” adherence to Scientology, is doing a disservice to the movement by preventing the rest of the world from climbing on the bandwagon.

This is a complex argument to dissect. First, Ron made it clear that we are a non-denomenational applied religious philosophy. Back 30 years ago, when I started the Minister’s Course, we were required to do a survey of the other major religions of the world, so we would have an appreciation of the religious traditions of others. Further, as an applied religious philosophy with no real dogma, we should, in fact conflict with no other religions we encounter. I was at one time the Distribution Secretary for my Org (in charge of getting new people in), and if I had one of my juniors turn someone away because they were Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist or other, I would have patiently explained to them that such a thing was entirely forbidden (after I sent them to Qual for correction). And that’s the attitude I would still expect from Scientologists today.

Second, because Marty doesn’t make a clear distinction between Miscavige Scientology and Hubbard Scientology, it’s hard to see what sort of “blind” adherence he’s talking about here.

One thing I can say is that, just as most people don’t know who the vice-president of the United States is or how many representatives there are in Congress, they also know almost nothing about philosophy, nor even in many cases much about whatever religion they may adhere to, if any. So Scientology would likely be their first exposure to philosophy as such. I can also say that, having surveyed a good bit of modern philosophy myself when I was a young man, if they ever encountered some of the ideas of these philosophers, they’d shake their heads and abandon the effort to understand them as quickly as they could. Most philosophy on this planet is pure garbage and yields nothing but confusion. This is in stark contrast with Scientology. Who would have a hard time understanding the ARC triangle? The KRC triangle? The tone scale? All these things which make up the philosophy of Scientology are a lot easier to understand than, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” and “If a tree falls in a forest and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

Now, if Marty is talking about a sort of arrogance demonstrated by a lot of Scientologists toward the ideas of others, I agree. If someone wants to believe that the Earth is flat and balances on the back of a big elephant somewhere, let them. Just because 99.99% of Scientologists would disagree with the elephant theory doesn’t mean we should attack them or their ideas. I don’t know what Miscavige teaches people, but I would teach them tolerance for the religious and philosophical ideas of others. The only problem I can see would arise if someone’s fixed philosophical or religious ideas get in the way of applying the Tech as intended. Now we do have a problem. Listing and nulling are done an exact way per the book, and if you’ve got some prior idea from somewhere else that prevents you from executing it properly, you’re not going to graduate your auditor training.

Perhaps a good example of this is the experience of “past lives”. Many religions on this planet would deny the idea that one would live more than one life. And I wouldn’t argue with them. But the truth of the matter is that, sooner or later, they’re going to go down the track in session and encounter the real reason they’re deathly afraid of bees. And afterward, they won’t be afraid of bees anymore. When it happens often enough, they’re liable to abandon one of their religious ideas in light of the fact that confronting past track experiences does indeed resolve problems in the present.

Just for the sake of completeness, let me make a point related to Safeguarding Technology. If you’re going to stand there and make claims that we could somehow combine some part of Scientology and “primal scream therapy” (an actual type of psychological therapy) into something kewl and new, I can see some serious resistance. Again, at the end of 15 years of research and discovery (at least) Ron decided that to let people change Scientology or combine it with something else would likely yield something unworkable. And the whole point of this Scientology stuff was that it was workable. That was the best thing we had going for us. And it had become painfully clear by 1965 that people who tried to do such things would be a problem for Orgs, where we expected Technology to be 100% Standard, because that’s where we delivered most of it and (more importantly) trained most of it in.

Back 25 years ago, there was a dust-up with Orgs in the PAC area about something called “Instant CalMag” as I recall. If you’ve done a Purification Rundown, you’ve encountered cal-mag. Stuff tastes terrible, but it’s an integral part of the Purif. So at some point, someone got to work and introduced something called “Instant CalMag”. Didn’t taste half bad and was easier to prepare than regular cal-mag. And someone mentioned it to LRH as a possible substitute for the regular stuff on the Purif. Ron’s response? No. Why? Because the Purif had been piloted with regular cal-mag. And no matter how much better Instant CalMag tasted or how much easier it was to prepare, the Purif was not piloted with it. The Tech as promulgated by LRH (not Miscavige) bore his imprimatur as a guarantee that it had been tested and was workable. He made sure of it. And Safeguarding Technology makes clear that if you’re going to alloy it with something else, you’re in effect pulling people off the route which bears the label “workable” on one branch of each fork in the path.

So if Marty wants to use the “blind adherence” argument to bludgeon people who disagree with his squirreling or mixing practices, that’s a different matter than allowing new people to have their own ideas about philosophy or religion.

If you want to sit out in the field and alloy Scientology with something else, you’re welcome to. But don’t expect support from anyone in Orgs (Miscavige or otherwise) or anyone who considers “workability” or “standardness” important.

Marty can stand back and say, “Yes, but look at what LRH said early on about….” That’s all fine and good, but LRH never intended people to alloy Scientology (in any era) with other stuff. Back in the early 50s, Ron was more amenable to people experimenting with techniques he had discovered or other stuff people came up with on their own under his tutelage. But later on, after the Bridge was put in place, the situation changed. Now there was a standard route to get from here to there. No experimenting anymore. Sorry folks, but that’s the price you pay for a “standard” “workable” route.

Another point. You’re free to stand out in the field and come up with your own route, different from LRH’s, and call it “Martyology” or “Martynetics” or whatever you’d like. It might even be workable. Just don’t expect the rest of us to follow you or support you. You do things like that at your own risk.

Marty’s Particular Responses to Tom

From Marty in relation to one of Tom’s assertions:

“Once an injunction is laid down that it is ‘fatal’ or even detrimental to look outside the parameters of what another has said – be it a wise man, Hubbard or God herself – you have stripped a person of self-determinism and freedom to think. To think with, attempt to integrate ideas with evolving thought and technology, and foremost to discourse philosophically in terms evolving thinkers are developing are means by which humankind advances.”

Oh my Lord, Marty. First of all, you’re painting this in the most dramatic terms possible to get sympathy for your position. No one said you’re not free to think anything you like. Well, maybe Miscavige, but in my mind he really doesn’t count. Second, “discourse” (arguing about stuff) never much advanced Man anyway. Mostly it results in group think, which is pretty low quality think. It’s about the most overrated method I’ve ever seen for advancing anything. Our U.S. tax code and our byzantine codex of laws are the direct result of “discourse”. Forget it. I’ll take one guy, operating on his own and following the path of discovery over “discourse” any day.

In fact, if you want to know why no one ever discovered a workable way out before Scientology, one of the primary culprits would be discourse and the obsessive desire for agreement from other humans. Those things alone would spell the death of any way out you tried to develop. How many meetings do you think LRH held to discuss whether he should go this way or that way in the the development of Dianetics and Scientology?

From Tom Martiniano:

“Realize that ANY attempt to write against L Ron Hubbard is an attempt to destroy that which frees mankind from their traps.”

According to Marty, such a statement now puts you in a class with fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims, and thus automatically makes you “less bright, intelligent and enlightened”. Sign me up! Apparently such thinking hasn’t prevented anyone from attaining OT VIII and/or Class XII, etc. Nice theory perhaps, but in practice, I think you’re wrong.

From Marty regarding the above quote from Tom:

“Such an argument will be about as effective in the world as those that the fundamentalist Christian and Muslim advance to one another. Such absolutist thinking ultimately leads to persuasion by force and violence.”

Again, Marty seems to be seeking acceptance and license from the world at large to survive or exist. Who cares? And if Marty’s point about force and violence is true, why don’t we see this in body routing at Orgs? I have yet to see or hear of a body router employ violence to get someone into an Org. Outside of David Miscavige’s shadow, I know of no one in Orgs who has been hit with violence to get them to conform.

I have to agree with Tom. If you’re going to sit around and run down LRH, you’re attempting to invalidate the Source of Scientology, and by extension, the subject of Scientology itself. And my personal opinion: you’ve got some evil purposes going on. But that’s just me.

From Tom Martiniano:

“Is Scientology the only route out? Yes. It is the only applied philosophy that has the OT sections (which were removed from the bridge by David Miscavige).”

And part of Marty’s reply:

“Here is the demarcation point where Scientology bumps into the glass ceiling limitations imposed by firmly held religious belief.”

Apparently, “firmly held religious belief” is a bad thing. Additionally, it is apparently a bad thing to believe that Scientology is the only route out. Great, Marty. Show us the other workable route. You’ve got my email address. I’ll spread the word.

From Marty:

“The Scientologist hallmarks of arrogance, aloofness, meddlesomeness, pedanticism and strained intensity are not an accident. They are inbred by scripture.”

Is Marty talking here about Miscavige Scientology or Hubbard Scientology? He mentions “scripture” here, so I have to think he’s talking about Ron’s version of Scientology. So let me get this straight– Ron, by virtue of his writings, encouraged Scientologists to be thoroughly obnoxious. I must have missed that on my courses. Now, are Scientologists that way? Some are, some of the time. I’ve seen it far more in the Sea Org than in personnel at the regular Org level. But according to Marty, these are the hallmarks of “Scientologists”. I wonder what enemies of Scientology Marty is talking to to come up with this opinion.

From Tom:

“Should someone follow L Ron Hubbard blindly? I would say so because it would be better than stumbling around blindly for the rest of your existence.”

From Marty in answer:

“…do not expect that such think and practice will popularize the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard and lead to more broad scale study of them.”

Again, Marty appears to be interested in the broad acceptance of LRH’s ideas. Does this sound to anyone else like being “PTS to the middle class” or similar?

If you want someone to pick up on LRH, you don’t “discourse” with them. You don’t try to get their agreement about this or that in Scientology. Here’s what you do: You sell them a book. You give them a pinch test at a meter or an OCA test. You give them an assist if they need one. You run the “dissemination drill” on them. There are numerous routes onto the Bridge as piloted by LRH. Getting a bunch of psychologists or typical humans to agree with you isn’t a workable route and never has been.

And let me again echo what Tom says. I’ve personally studied the various schools of psychology and philosophy. Tom’s right. There’s way more chaff there than wheat, and there are enough curves to completely confuse you regardless. And no matter that Marty seems to think, the rest of humanity and psychology aren’t slowly coming to the realization that there’s something beyond the physical universe which has an influence on it. Quite the opposite. Even the truly religious people are becoming convinced gradually that thinking and behavior rest solely in the genes and in the chemistry of the brain.

In Summary

Marty apparently thinks:

  • Our culture/civilization is reaching a point where it will discover a workable technology on its own. It’s not and it won’t.
  • We need to get the rest of the world to accept and/or “discourse” the ideas of Scientology, so as to gain them more broad acceptance. No, we don’t. And we’d be unlikely to obtain that acceptance anyway.
  • Scientologists are arrogant, aloof and meddlesome, and it’s LRH’s fault. No, they’re not. And if they were, it would be because of Miscavige, not LRH.
  • Objecting to people running down LRH makes you equivalent to fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims and leads to violence. No, it doesn’t.
  • There’s a lot of worthwhile truth to be learned from studying psychology and philosophies. No, there isn’t. There’s more truth per square inch in Scientology by far.
  • We should be allowing open discourse about things in the field. True. Apparent exception: you disagree with Marty.
  • Discourse is a good way to obtain other people’s agreement. True. If you’re looking for group or bank think. Otherwise, false.
  • Psychologists are the Good Guys. No, they’re not.
  • Ron’s assertion that ours was the only workable way out was wrong and bad. False. It is the only workable way out.
  • Scientology mostly came from older ideas from people other than LRH. Wrong. It came mostly from Ron’s research and piloting.
  • This civilization/society is evolving. False. It’s crumbling and self-destructing.
  • “Blind” adherence to LRH’s ideas is a bad thing, makes you stupid, and makes it hard for the rest of the world to accept you and/or Scientology. No, it’s not. No, it doesn’t. And stop obsessing about the “acceptance” of others.

It’s too bad we don’t have a good cramming line in the Independent Field. Marty would make a good candidate. Of course, that assumes he’d agree to go there. Maybe his first stop should be to Ethics instead.


Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “Marty Rathbun’s Mission Statement

  1. Pingback: Oooh, I’ve been declared! | From Ashes Born

  2. SOFIA13 on said:

    You are my kind of independent scientologist!!! Brilliant article!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: