Marty’s latest post, David Miscavige and David Lubow – My own Frankenstein monsters, talks about his continued harassment by the Church, which is now being focused on his wife Mosey. In this post, Marty takes the blame for these sort of actions:
Mike Rinder and I were personally assigned by Miscavige to run Lubow [the guy allegedly harassing the Rathbuns] on a no-expenses-spared international operation to cave [Scientology protester Bob] Minton by threatening his money…One reaps what one sews [sic]. I helped to create these monsters.” — Marty Rathbun
While it is nice to see Marty accepting some responsibility for the wrongs he did as a member of Scientology’s upper management, the fact is, this isn’t his fault.
The concept of attacking enemies like a rabid dog didn’t originate with Marty Rathbun, or even with David Miscavige. Hubbard was the true master of the attack dogs. If anyone looked like they were going to attack Scientology, LRH said to let ’em have it. “Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way,” he wrote in HCO PL 15 Feb 1966, ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY (Additional Pol. Ltr.):
“…attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so far as we are concerned… So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait… Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines.” — LRH [emphasis in original]
Why would Scientology be going after Mosey’s wife by talking to her ex-husband and his new wife, asking questions and spreading innuendo? According to this same policy letter, that’s all part of LRH’s plan:
“The way we will eventually stop all attacks from there on out is by processing the society as follows: (1) Locate a source of attack on us. (2) Investigate it. (3) Expose it with wide lurid publicity.” — LRH
LRH endorses the sort of harassment that the Church is visiting upon Marty and his wife because in his experience, it works. From a policy letter written three days later, entitled ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY (Continued):
“I can count several heavy attacks which folded up by our noisily beginning an investigation of the attacker.” — LRH
With such clear evidence of LRH’s motives, one has to wonder why Marty insists on pinning this on David Miscavige. Surely, no one could rise to the position of power Marty had without extensive knowledge of LRH policy. Marty has to know that DM is doing LRH’s will… doesn’t he?
Personally, I’m convinced that Marty knows the truth. But he is so angry at David Miscavige, so obsessed with bringing DM down, that he’s either got a mental block – entirely possible, what with the trauma he’s undergone – or he’s willing to lie to the public and his followers who aren’t as familiar with LRH’s administrative technology.
Why would Marty lie? He’s simply following LRH policy:
“Handling truth is a touchy business also. You don’t have to tell everything you know – that would jam the comm[unications] line too. Tell an acceptable truth.” LRH, HCO PL 13 August 1970, THE MISSING INGREDIENT
Even this is an example of LRH manipulation. In this policy, Hubbard says that that there is a difference between lying and telling an “acceptable truth.” Scientology PR people shouldn’t lie, LRH says in this policy, but theyshould tell an acceptable truth. Thus, LRH encourages his followers to cover up the truth – but without feeling like they are lying! Pretty slick, eh?
Marty’s personal obsession with toppling David Miscavige is one of the reasons I oppose what he’s doing. Don’t get me wrong; I agree with Marty that David Miscavige is a bad guy. DM is in a position to end the abuses of Scientology (hmm… come to think of it, so was Marty), and yet he continues to terrorize and defraud.
But by focusing his efforts on David Miscavige and telling “acceptable truths” about L. Ron Hubbard, Marty isn’t helping to eradicate the real problem. He’s simply feeding his own desire for revenge.
That’s too bad, because while David Miscavige hurts some of the people some of the time, Scientology hurts all of the people all of the time.
ML,
Caliwog
Caliwog's Blog 
Caliwog wrote: “…Scientology hurts all of the people all of the time.”
People have to be able to differentiate between the different parts of Scientology.
The part of Scientology that harasses and abuses people is bad. These references were found in the hat packs of people like Marty and Mike. A few of these references were written by LRH, but others were written by former GO/OSA execs.
There is another part of Scientology that is useful. If you wonder why so many are attracted to the subject or spend years studying it, it is because of the good part of Scientology that people found useful. Many (but not all) people had some wins with the technology.
When people have big wins with the technology, they increase their trust in LRH and the Church of Scientology. Then the bad side of Scientology is enforced on them in the church. Outside of the church and apart from people like Marty, a truly independent Scientologist can have wins from the tech without the bad Scientology at all.
>There is another part of Scientology that is useful.
I appreciate your comment, Jonathan, though I respectfully disagree. There is a small percentage of “tech” that works, but most of the workable “tech” that I have experienced, read, or heard about comes from other sources (including psychiatry), and was used to get people hooked — i.e. “If Hubbard has the answers to that problem, surely he has the answers to more.”
But you raise an interesting quesiton: Can there be such thing as “good” Scientology? Hubbard left very strict instructions as to what Scientologists should do, i.e. “the tech MUST be used this way.” Can one apply the workable “tech” while ignoring the bulk of Hubbard’s questions? If you do that, are you still a Scientologist? And if one were to do that, where does one draw the line, i.e. “This tech is good, but this tech is harmful?”
ML,
Caliwog
“While it is nice to see Marty accepting some responsibility for the wrongs he did as a member of Scientology’s upper management, the fact is, this isn’t his fault.”
It isn’t his fault that he is now getting fair gamed by the CoS, but it certainly was his fault, when he himself was involved in fair gaming other people like Bob Minton.
Sure, this is all based on LRH policies, but that doesn’t mean that the upper management has to follow these policies. I doubt that the majority of Scientologists would care, if the upper management would not follow the insane, destructive fair game orders of LRH. In fact most Scientologists aren’t even aware of these policies. So who exactly is forcing them to follow the policies? It is only due to their own fanatism and strict LRH adherence, that they have engaged in this criminal or at least morally questionable activity. It is only due to their religious belief and the CULTure of the organisation, which LRH created, that the “tech” is always right and thus they have to follow it exactly.
If they wanted to, they could do it like other religions and simply ignore or reinterpret the abusive parts of their doctrine.
So who or what is to blame? Imho their blind adherence to LRH is to blame and LRH himself, because he established this TECHnocracy, where the tech and his policies may not be altered and must always be followed 100 %.
Scientology has never been shown to have positive objective effects. So what people say about it is strictly subjective. If you think about it, what Scientology processing does (at least the auditing and TRs) is provide a heck of a lot of attention.
Attention is rewarding, intensely rewarding to some people. Much like addictive drugs because it tickles the same part of the brain. I once heard a drug addict speak about heroin same way that Scientologists speak about Scientology.
So, yeah, Scientology is good in the same sense that addictive drugs are good, subjectively.
I quote: “Even this is an example of LRH manipulation. In this policy, Hubbard says that that there is a difference between lying and telling an “acceptable truth.” Scientology PR people shouldn’t lie, LRH says in this policy, but theyshould tell an acceptable truth. Thus, LRH encourages his followers to cover up the truth – but without feeling like they are lying! Pretty slick, eh?”
I suppose if you wanted to, you could liken “an acceptable truth” to someone who puts up a blog using a pseudonym in order to belittle and criticize a particular subject. For example, because the blogger is using an “acceptable truth” as an identity, the readers would never know if the blogger was actually a child molester advocating the activities of the “child protective league” to cover his tracks and had some entirely different agenda that what was being presented on the surface. There would be no real way to evaluate the validity of the information since the blogger was using “an acceptable truth” as an identity.
Like just about anything else, you can use ideas and principles for good or for evil. The concept of telling an “acceptable truth” in communicating an idea on a public relations channel is no different. The same goes with a blog in which the author hides his true identity.
@P. Brown:
>I suppose if you wanted to, you could liken “an acceptable truth” to someone who puts up a blog using a pseudonym in order to belittle and criticize a particular subject.
Not really, P. I’m not purporting to tell the truth about my identity. I think most people will assume that my real name is not Caliwog (although, for all you know, it could be… Peter J. Caliwog!). Regardless, the name under which I post does not affect the validity of what I say. The Church purposely altering the truth in its PR releases does affect the validity of what they say.
>There would be no real way to evaluate the validity of the information since the blogger was using “an acceptable truth” as an identity.
Again, not true – there is an excellent way to evaluate the validity of the information I post here. Look up the LRH policy that I quote. I’m not making preposterous claims that LRH was a child molester. I use verifiable evidence, including fair-use excerpts from LRH’s published writings and documents that have been authenticated in court cases, to show my readers the side of Scientology that its participants would prefer they don’t see.
Nice try, though, and thanks for commenting! Please continue to read and participate. A willingness to look at the truth outside of Scientology is the first step towards getting away.
ML,
Caliwog
I love this stuff about the workable technology bit…. 30,000 pages, thousands of hours of garbage lectures, pathetic films and there “is a good part of it”. Ha ha. What a joke.
Any technology that is this unworkable can be scrapped altogether. The workable parts strangely enough were written by others, and LRH stole them.
I love freezoners, they are like drug addicts. they do not understand how a Human Brain works and don’t actually know they are deluded. I have been a good drug user before, so I know the state. The argument of course can be made that if the user feels it is good, then what is the harm? We all do things to make ourselves feel better and FZers are no different. What they do not understand though is that the spread of this shit will result on totalitarian states and complete loss of freedom. So to that exptent I have to say to them “screw what you like, think about the children and everyone else.”
Worst nightmare I can imagine is a planet run by the Sea Org, though a far worse nightmare is LRH running the planet while billions run around building him spaceships to clear planets in other sectors.
Intelligent people giggle at them.
And some sigh.
FZers are about the dumbest people I ever met. Incapable of knowledge, incapable of research and impossible to educate. Some of these clowns have been in FZ movements for 25 years and still they can not tell you the truth about LRHs REAL past, the Churchs real history going back to 1950 or the discrepancies in the tech. When will they learn that anyone just talking about a problem can assist – thats what good parents do, good friends and councellors. Oh, that’s right, Scientology made it illegal to talk about your probelms – case on post. And H,E & R is illegal to display – we can’t have robots pretending to be humans! No wonder ex-SO and staff are so screwed up that they think an ARC Break session is the freaking best tech in the world.
FZers – what a joke.
P.Brown wrote:
>Like just about anything else, you can use ideas and principles for good or >for evil. The concept of telling an “acceptable truth” in communicating an >idea on a public relations channel is no different.
Scientology PR representatives, have always only used it as a means to deceive the public.
They wouldn’t need to tell “acceptable truths”, if they had nothing to hide.
If Scientology wouldn’t be so fucked up, then they would have no problem to just tell the full truth about their beliefs, their true intentions and practices and Tommy Davis wouldn’t need to run out of every interview in which he gets asked about Xenu.
Instead they only try to damage control, cover up and deliberately try to deceive the viewer about their true beliefs and practices.
“Acceptable truth” tech is something that only corrupt organisations use in PR with the only intention to deceive.
Example:
Tommy Davis on CNN, denying the existence of the disconnection policy.
Well, that wasn’t even an acceptable truth, it was just an outright lie.
In later interviews however he resorted to the old “acceptable truth” technique by claiming that it would be the decision of the members themselves to disconnect, which is technically true, but not the full truth, because what he omits to say is that members who don’t disconnect from an SP get declared SP themselves , because it is according to LRH policy a suppressive act to be connected to a SP.
So they don’t have the choice between disconnecting and not disconnecting, but they only have the choice between disconnecting or getting declared themselves, with all the negative consquences that such a declare entails for them.