Why Mark Bunker is wrong

Marty recently posted a blog entry from Mark Bunker entitled Why I Support Marty by Mark Bunker. I know I was not the only one who was interested to read what Mark had to say, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who is deeply disappointed in a man who largely helped to launch the modern-day protest movement.

Mark Bunker is not a stupid man, nor an inexperienced one, and it’s hard for me to believe that he has bought into Marty’s bullshit. But what other conclusion can one come to when one reads sentences like this one:

“Enough tremors keep happening and he might actually shatter the locks on the doors and free people like Heber Jentzsch from captivity.” — Mark Bunker

Now, I feel like I’ve said this about a million times, so here we go with a million and one. Three days after Marty’s famous “Free Heber” post, Heber went to visit his son in Los Angeles. Karen De La Carriere, Heber’s ex-wife, told us herserlf three months later, and yet Marty never made mention of it. I talked about this in “Omitted by Marty: Heber is alive and well,” and I’ll reiterate: While I know life under David Miscavige is pretty terrible, it’s likely that Heber stays because he wants to. We know from Karen’s post that he’s had the opportunity to go the way of Marty, Mike Rinder, and Marc Headley.

Marty preaches and sells Scientology – which means that Marty is, in an indirect way, one of Heber’s jailers.

Mark goes on to talk about the Lisa McPherson Trust:

“We [the LMT] may not have gone about it the best way possible (okay, we didn’t) but we were there because we wanted to draw attention to abusive practices like disconnection that are still hurting members of Scientology today.” — Mark Bunker

First, it bothers me to hear Mark talk so dismissively about the LMT. Nothing looks perfect from the inside, but it was the LMT that helped formed the foundation for Anonymous, which clearly now carries the torch for telling the truth about Scientology.

Secondly, need I remind the Wise Beard Man that disconnection is an L. Ron Hubbard policy? Of course, Hubbard apologists love to point out the 1968 policy “Cancellation of Disconnection” in which Hubbard said that “Disconnection as a condition is cancelled.” (HCO PL 15 November 1968). That’s disconnection as a condition, not as a practice. And yet they conveniently forget that Hubbard talked about disconnection in a 1983 policy:

“A Scientologist can become PTS by reason of being connected to someone that is antagonistic to Scientology or its tenets. In order to resolve the PTS condition, he either HANDLES the other person’s antagonism… or, as a last resort when all attempts to handle have failed, he disconnects from the person. He is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person.” — L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 10 Sept 1983, PTSNESS AND DISCONNECTION

Incidentally, Marty has defended disconnection as defined by Hubbard in the policy above. Perhaps Mark Bunker missed Marty’s post entitled “Pimps, Prostitutes, and Disconnection” (a post I may have elicited) in which Marty uses the disconnection policy to justify walking away from a man beating the shit out of a woman.

Marty wrote, “You’d also be a fool by ignoring the real consequences of allowing a Suppressive to continue to make your life hell. I wholeheartedly advise someone disconnect from a genuine source of suppression, who despite efforts to handle, continues to suppress.”

That this is exactly how LRH defined disconnection.

Now, one could argue that the Church uses forced disconnection, to which Marty says he is opposed. But where is the force? LRH says “Handle or disconnect.” The Church says “You must either disconnect from an SP or you cannot be a Scientologist.” This is a terrible choice for a Scientologist, because they have been conned into believing that Scientology is the only path to salvation. But it is a choice nonetheless.

I am getting off on a tangent, but my point is that if the LMT was opposed to forced disconnection, than why the fuck is Mark Bunker supporting a man who believes in disconnection exactly as L. Ron Hubbard defined it, and just as the Church practices it to this day?

Mark Bunker continues:

“There are many critics of Scientology who can’t forgive Mike and Marty for their actions while in Scientology.” — Mark Bunker

Okay, let’s get two things straight.

First, Mike and Marty not out of Scientology; they are simply out of the Church. There is a BIG difference.

Second, while it is true that I have trouble forgiving Marty for what he did in the Church – mostly because he still maintains that LRH’s Introspection Rundown, which killed Lisa McPherson, constitutes proper treatment for a psychotic break – my reason for opposing him has NOTHING to do with what he did while part of the Church. I have nothing but praise for people like Aaron Saxton and Jesse Prince, who did plenty of evil things in the name of Scientology but have been open and honest about it since.

No, I can’t forgive Marty for what he is doing NOW, which includes making money by selling Hubbard bullshit; lying about L. Ron Hubbard; lying about the real source of the crimes and evils of Scientology; keeping quiet on issues that affect his own well-being, like Scientology’s tax-exempt status; and censoring those who would tell the truth or point out his lies.

Perhaps I could forgive Marty if all he was trying to do was sell Scientology services. If Marty wants to make a buck off the suckers who buy into his bullshit, well, that’s the way of the world. But what Marty is doing is trying to establish a foundation to re-build Scientology as L. Ron Hubbard intended.

And L. Ron Hubbard was a lying, evil, black-hearted con man who captured the hearts and minds of his followers, bled them dry, and left them empty.

I don’t know how a wise, bearded man like Mark Bunker can fail to see that – but then, history is full of men willing to appease evil in the hopes that they will find favor with the new regime.

Needless to say, I am deeply disappointed. Perhaps Mark Bunker is holding out hope that there can be a “kinder, gentler” Scientology (which won’t come from anyone who follows LRH doctrine as strictly as Marty does).

Or perhaps this is all a ruse to favor curry (and donations) for Mark’s movie, which will slam Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard as thoroughly as it should. That would be rather crafty, although it saddens me to think that Mark Bunker would stoop to the level of Hubbard, Miscavige, and Rathbun, all of whom were/are willing to bend the truth in order to line their own wallets.

Either way, I can’t imagine that Bob Minton isn’t turning over in his grave.

If Mark really does support Marty, then I think it’s time for him to supplement his reading of Marty’s blog with some re-reading of L. Ron Hubbard policy. Let’s not forget what Marty really believes in, or who is at the root of the whole Scientology scam.

And Mark, if you really do support Marty, then I’ll take a cue from him and recommend a song:

ML,
Caliwog

26 responses to “Why Mark Bunker is wrong

  1. Enjoyed reading your comments. Sometimes you have to cross the aisle to get a bill passed. Hopefully my film will please everyone but I’ll wager it causes more lively discussions.

    And I think Bob would be fine with how things are standing. I am proud of the LMT and my connection.

  2. As am I, Mark. Thank you for all you do and I look forward to the documentary.

  3. I’m also glad you’re here, Mark. Yet I must say that I’m fully
    with Caliwog on this issue. You obviously have the right to
    do what you did, yet I don’t think it will go down in history as
    correct, all factors considered. I can understand you wanting
    to hear what Marty would say, and thus helping him back then,
    yet other than that, the rest of your associaton or support of
    Marty goes against the very goals many of us thought you
    stood for all these years. Scientology is NOT a religion, it’s a
    pseudo-philosophy, laced with lies, traps and plegiarized truths
    thrown in the mix. Defending anyone’s right to practice it is NOT
    practicing or defending the First Amendment, it’s practicing and
    defending a mind-control and evil operation that robs people of
    their intellect, their freedom, their money and gradually, their true
    spirituality, their health and their sanity on all, A L L levels. That’s
    the case whether it’s practiced in the “Church” or out of it,

    Marty, by publishing what he publishes, doing what he’s doing
    (auditing Scientology on people who leave the “Church”), and
    by omiting and repressing what he’s omiting and repressing
    (NOT allowing true dissent on his blog, a la KSW 1, Scientology
    and Hubbard, excusing and justifying his actions constantly,
    attacking or mocking others who disagree with him, Hubbard
    or Scientology admininstrative policies or “technical” issues),
    by him doing all this and more, is keeping Hubbard’s CON
    GAME, A L I V E. And you can say what you wish, but by you
    supporting him, as you at least seem to have done in the
    post that Marty put up on his blog quoting you, you are also,
    indirectly keeping Hubbard’s CON alive too. And as you well
    know, Hubbard did not just create a con game, what he did
    is outright murderous and extremely lethal to the minds and
    bodies of thousands (some died fast, some slow, some are
    part of the walking dead, “living” their lives hipnotized and in
    a different world than the rest of us — literally. I was there,
    load, stock and barrel, so I well know the “before” and “after,”
    and how much and how long it takes to recover from the ill
    effects of Scientology, Hubbard, the Church and the Sea Org.

    Mark, last but not least, please realize this is nothing personal;
    in other words, I don’t wish you anything bad at all, in fact the
    contrary, I wish you the very best. Yet I can only suggest that
    you reconsider what you have done and reflect on it for real.
    If you then find what you did (or how it was expressed at least)
    as wrong, I suggest you apply the Tao, admit it (as the imper-
    fect human being that you are, like all of us) and correct it as
    best and as fast as you can. Supporting Marty is NO minor issue.

  4. I’m on the fence on this one. I feel similar to how I do about some of Tony Ortega’s articles.

    Giving Marty coverage certainly annoys the CoS and their harassment of him, however mild compared to some historical cases, is providing lots of bad PR for them.

    Likewise, I believe Marty has the right to say what he wants without being harassed by the Church and am happy to make common cause on objecting to their behavior on this front.

    However, I still think criticizing Marty is valid. I believe he is knowingly lying about Hubbard in order to promote himself as the only source for “real” Scientology. As you say, he believes in disconnection, SPs, etc. and a lot of the odious Hubbard policies. When critical comments are let through on his blog it seems they are allowed in order to give his adherents the opportunity to claim the commenter is OSA and / or David Miscavige and throw ad hominems at them.

    He is also fairly unsympathetic to victims of the Hubbard era because you can’t easily blame those on Miscavige.

    So as long as Mark is not feeling obligated to tow the Marty line — and I’m encouraged by his defense of using Xenu — and is willing to continue to look critically at Hubbard and Marty I can live with it.

  5. Just looked at the latest batch of comments on Marty’s blog. I decided a while ago to stop posting comments there since a decent number weren’t approved but it’s getting tempting again.

    Some people are going on about how criticizing the tech is a suppresive act, failing to defend Hubbard is an overt and even posting the “what are your crimes” policy as an appropriate response to criticism.

    I almost wonder if some independents would rather have someone join the Church of Scientology and pay their life savings to buy scotch for Miscavige than think badly of L. Ron Hubbard.

  6. lurker(not the mostly)

    I think criticizing Marty is valid, but is it really Marks place to do so? when I think of the ‘protest’ movement against Scientology I see how the many different factions all do their part…

    Anon and the vocal critics have shut off the access to ‘fresh meat’ from the church. They have been very effective in cutting down the number of new dupes (at least in the English speaking portion of it), but Anon, and people who were never in Scientology, or those who completely reject LRH and the tech (that word always gives me a giggle) can’t reach those who are still in the cult, and who still believe, but are unhappy…

    I have noticed, from watching Martys ‘movement’ plus watching those on ESMB who leave the cult and then join freezone or the independents that most of them, over time just leave the subject all together… Maybe they don’t get out as fast as they would if the secondary line was there to keep them in, but maybe it is a softer landing to. I don’t know, I have never been in the cult..

    I do notice, that people like Jeff Hawkins and others who reject the tech, but dont reject those that still want to follow it, still have their connections with old friends who left. and maybe thats not such a bad thing. When you think about what it must be like, to leave the cult and think you will be utterly alone, and then find that there are friends on the other side, that might just make it easier to leave..

    I guess my take on Mark Bunker is that he gets it from all sides, the deep koolaide drinkers think he mocks them and their beliefs by naming his site Xenutv, or mentioning OT3, Anons and more vocal critics think he soft pedals the independents… He is making a movie, and from a practical side, him attacking Marty sure as heck wouldnt make talking to independents easy. I believe he is trying his best to be fair, and mainly get a wider distribution of knowledge out about the abuses going on in the cult RIGHT NOW, which is really the only thing we CAN do something about. Maybe someone else can come along after him and do comprehensive books and movies about LRH and the Marty movement (if it takes off where the COS leaves off)…

    In other words, I can’t knock Mark for not wanting to fight Calis battle for him, he has his own dragons to slay…

  7. I think that the 1983 Policy was one not written by Hubbard (Vaughn Young wrote that he was asked to write it by Miscavige) so, sooner or later, if you keep referencing it, some Independent Scientologist will jump up and say, “See, see, that proves that DM hijacked Ron’s wonderful Scientology,” etc. At that time (during an earlier schsim), there were a lot of queries “up lines” asking about the policy of disconnection, so I imagine it became annoying. Hubbard had published his b.s. “cancellation” (as a PR handling) in 1968 (along with “cancelling” Fair Game and Security Checking) in 1968, so some confusion lingered and resurfaced at the time of the 1982 schism. So a clarification was published. Possibly on order from Hubbard (who was in hiding) to Miscavige. But that part’s vague.

    The point is that anyone who was involved in Scientology through the 1970s knows, “handle or disconnect” was always standard policy and practice. Hubbard’s writings on “SPs” make it clear that continued association with a person or group antagonistic to Scientology is a suppressive act.

  8. Free Speech, Free Thought, Free From Judgement, FREE althought marty might still be inslaving peoples minds if they leave CO$ they will be free when marty starts locking people up and killing people then i will give a crap what hes doing until then he is just a street vendor to me….

  9. I am with Caliwog on this one. Marty’s blogs most recent subject: “Restoration of personal Integrity” just ticks me off. There should be a law against Marty even using the term “Personal Integrity”, and it hurts me to use both Marty’s name and “Personal Integrity” in the same sentence. He and his followers sure as hell live in a fantasy world, one of his making. He is taking advantage of those who have already been brainwashed for him…making his crimes doubly evil in my book.

  10. Sorry Mark, but I’m with Caliwog. The cult must go in its many forms.

  11. You have a lot of nerve to solicit funds under false pretenses Mr Bunker. Furthermore I find your dismissive post trying to draw a parallel between your actions and what takes place in our failed political system laughable. You Marty Tory and all the rest will never dictate terms to those kids. Nice job driving your credibility into a wall. See you at the premiere or should I say……Expect US ?

    • lurker(not the mostly)

      I think thats pretty harsh, and kind of uncalled for. Bunkers focus is on the abuses of the church, right now, and telling the story of the people who have fought the church, (I believe he is also talking to folks like Paulette Cooper, and people who were attacked in LRH regime)…

      He is trying , from what I can see, to make as comprehensive a documentary as he can. That story includes Marty, and others in the freezone. If he came in shaking his finger he would only get a small portion of the story.

      I personally can’t stand Marty, but I also have to say, its hard for me, an outsider to understand the Independents at all. The language they use alone makes it hard for me to track their thinking. I know that I am looking forward to see from a psychological point of view, what thinking patterns are in the independents…

      The one thing that has always made me a bit confused the absolute black white thinking, not only of the cult, but of the people who protest it. As a person who came into this late, sometimes watching the back biting amongst even the critics (mostly played out on the ESMB boards, especially amongst some of the players of the LMT) makes me wonder if some would rather fight with each other, rather than keep their eye on the goal, no matter how much they can’t stand each other…

      I thought Bunkers analogy was a good one, because the gridlock in the government is a wonderful example of standing up and looking good to your various factions, while not getting a damn thing done… Bunkers doing something, even if you don’t agree with it…

      I see Calis point, but in this case, I don’t agree with him, even if I did, I think sometimes to get something done, you might just have to dance with the devil (although I think calling Marty the devil is giving him wayyy to much credit.)….

  12. While I understand that much of Mark’s material in recent years has come from Marty & Mike, my concern is that Mark is too close to M & M, and that his new film will be the Gospel according to Marty, which will deny it any real lasting credibility. I don’t believe that Marty Rathbun is a person one can honestly deal with, given his past and present activities. The man is an out-of-control psychopath – always has been, always will be – just like his lord and master David Miscavige. Sell your soul to the devil – you don’t get it back!

  13. I’m still holding out hope that KR will be more like Thompson in “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72” — making good use of access but being uncompromising to the point where that access will never be granted again.

  14. Hello Caliwog,
    I would like to address your remark in pgh 23 above:
    “And L. Ron Hubbard was a lying, evil, black-hearted con man who captured the hearts and minds of his followers, bled them dry, and left them empty.”
    This is the most central truth about Hubbard. It’s very difficult to face. But, if one examines honestly, all roads lead to it as a final, inescapable (ableit painful and ugly) conclusion.

    It is also a logical “jumping off point” to other valuable questions and areas of exploration: How was Hubbard able to pull off such an astonishing con? And completely escape any personal consequences whatever? How was Hubbard able to so ruthlessly and mercilessly deceive, use, and betray the people around him? Could such an utterly sociopathic monster actually exist (outside of fictionalized villians)? New books about Scientology (ie, “Inside Scientology” Janet Reitman) should be covering new ground such as this, rather than a re-summary of Hubbard exposes that are already known.

    Fiat Lux

  15. Robin was able to far more succinctly put what I was trying to say but also ask yourselves this question: Isn’t the timing of the appearance of his commentary on Marty’s blog the least bit questionable to any of you ? Is LRH Tech not the problem we are all trying to address in all it’s forms.?

  16. ok let’s sum this up:
    the anon money faucet turned off cause mb turned from the core “anti-sci” movement to the “lets reform it” movement and now he needs money for his personal pockets and his film…. so he jumped overboard from the anon ship and now is sailing on the mahty pahty cruise line full time…!!!

  17. El Ron Cupboard

    Very very disappointed to see Mark Bunker dancing with Rathbun this way. I’m one of the people who forked out a (not insignificant) amount towards the film Bunker is making, and I’m now wondering if that was a mistake.

    The danger isn’t corporate Scientology — the danger is Scientology, full stop. The corporate body is carrying out some of the worst abuses currently, but the bad things are baked right in to Scientology by LRH.

    To think that Bunker is aligning with Marty, after all the apologia, obfuscation and dissembling on that blog is vomit inducing.

    Please wake up, Mark. Your enemy’s enemy is not necessarily always your friend.

  18. Another one sucks up to the common factor of being likable.

    Mark lost his principles, plain and simple and settled for less. Support for Marty in any shape is disgusting.

    The Church must be loving this – getting the big critics on-board for indi Scientology. At the end of the day it means book sales, e-meter sales and eventually more Scios.

    Good one Mark, way to go.

    Can;t tell you how many critics I have seen take this route of “agreeing to get something done”.

    Mark you should go read my article on Dead Agent – you just became one.

  19. Hello,

    Just found your blog for the first time today.

    I have been on Martys blog for a while.

    Quick about me:

    I am NOT A former Co$ member. I have never met a Co$ member, I am aware of.

    I do hate the current “church” and David Mismanage.

    I don’t have a problem specifically with anything anyone wants to believe.

    I don’t think “disconnection” is a bad thing either. However “forced disconnection” I have a major f****** problem with.

    Disconnection, actually makes sense to me.

    But, in this way: If someone in my circle of family or friends hates my new GF and always disrespects her or tries to get me to dump her. Well, I have a choice to make. Her or them?

    There is no need to be around someone who is hostile towards something—ANYTHING — you are doing that you believe in. No matter what the case is….religion, social life, work etc…

    If someone is negative about something in your life, if you disconnect with them, I would imagine you WOULD feel less stress because of it.

    In no way am I defending or do I believe in disconnection the way the Co$ believes in it.

    But to say it is silly stupid or not necessary i believe id being a little naive.

    Bed Man

    OKC

  20. hi Michael Brown,

    Disconnection as employed by C of S is not really as simple as you have stated it.

    If you had a meth habit and your family were upset at the drug dealer – are you saying it is wrong to be upset at the dealer?

    We are not talkng about people being concerned about a little thing,w e are talking about people being upset their son etc. is in a cult that destroys their lives, their finances and changes their thinking via brainwashing.

    The purpose of disconneciton policy is to keep the person under control – not to help them and has nothing to do with anything else.

    It takes further investigation and an understanding of cults to get this.

    I was asked when I was in the SO for two years to disconnect from my own mother – does that sound like the right thing for a 17 year old to do who has had little contact with their mother – because the cult made it that way?

    I am all for ones free choice to disconnect – but remember, Scientology takes people who have no intention of leaving their families and gets them convinced that they should “Scientology isn’t working for you because you are connected to them, disconnect and it will work!”

    Do not simply a rather complex action of control.

  21. Marty and Mike have never asked for forgiveness.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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