Daily Archives: November 4, 2010

Response to OTDT

I’m writing this as a response to this comment on Marty’s blog from a user named OTDT.

OTDT, you raise some good questions, and I’ll do my best to explain where I’m coming from. Sorry if it gets a bit long-winded, but that’s just me.

First of all, please understand that I believe that Scientology is a destructive group. This comes from my own experience learning the tech (originally as a WISE company employee, and I went on from there) and observations of several friends and acquaintances who are Scientologists. I should add that the Scientologists I know best are all Church-affiliated and public (a couple ex-Sea Org) and aside from one who occasionally grumbles about the cost, all seem pretty happy with Scientology.

My observations of these folks – the decisions they make, what they believe to be true, what they believe to be lies, how they are alike and how they are different – along with my observations about LRH and the tech were what led me to the belief that Scientology is a destructive group. Now, I should add that there were things I liked about the Admin Tech, and in learning about auditing and processing from my friends, I recognized “wog” psychotherapeutic techniques that I knew worked. Still, on balance I realized that Scientology is destructive, and this was a conclusion I came to long before I heard of Marty’s Independent movement.

Out of respect to my friends, I have always kept the extent of my views to myself, only saying that I didn’t think Scientology was for me. (That’s part of why I use a pseudonym, by the way.) Every single one respected and continues to respect that. No one ever tried to push me to become a Scientologist, although one or two expressed the belief that I’d come around some day. They were, and are, fine people. And that, by the way, is part of why I feel the way I do about Scientology – my viewpoint that LRH has manipulated such wonderful, big-hearted people makes me angry.

Okay, so let’s move on to Marty.

My feelings about Marty formed when I realized that he was lying about LRH and DM and censoring those who pointed out the misinformation. I felt, and still feel, that Marty is lying to his followers as well as new public who don’t know any better. I should add that I don’t necessarily think that Marty is lying out of true malice (although some days I’m not so sure). I believe he’s lying because of a) his belief about what is entheta, what is suppression, and how they should be treated and b) because he was trained in the culture of current Co$ management.

Now, the fact that Marty is lying to his followers is inconsequential. That may sound harsh, but the fact is that most Scientologists (Church-affiliated or independent) tune out criticism of LRH. They’ve been conditioned to label it as hate speech and vitriol (or, in the case of Marty’s followers, a subversive act by DM). It makes me angry that Marty lies to the people who trust him to tell the truth, and that anger sometimes comes out in what I write*, but there’s nothing I can do about it. Scientologists won’t hear the truth until they are ready, and that change almost always comes from within, not from without. Sad as it makes me, frustrating as it is, I do not believe that there is a whole heck of a lot I can do to get Scientologists to see LRH and Scientology the way I (and other so-called “Scientology haters”) do. They have to discover it for themselves.

* HE&R is not a bad thing. It’s what makes us human.

But lying to the outside world is another story. Marty does much the same thing the Church does, which is to make LRH out to be something other than what he was. But Marty goes one step further by trying to blame the abuses of the Church on DM, when in fact they are based in LRH policy. This is not my opinion; it’s fact, and it’s dead-easy to verify. LRH left a huge body of work, all of which is available on the Internet, including pre-reign-of-Slappy versions.

Problem is, the tech is huge and difficult for the uninitiated to understand. So that’s one of the reasons I established the blog – to counter Marty’s lies and to show that that the Scientology abuses blamed on DM are often as not based in LRH tech.

I should clarify one thing: These are real abuses, and by carrying them out, rather than putting an end to them, DM is every bit as guilty as LRH. In my book, they are both evil men.

The good news is that even without my help, most people can see what Scientology is. The general public sees the forest; Scientologists only see the trees. That’s why, for example, Panorama came out the way it did. The BBC sure as hell didn’t need my help. They didn’t leave most of Marty and Mike’s stuff on the cutting room floor because of some secret plot by DM or because they are being paid by psychiatrists or because the bits weren’t juicy enough. They did it because they are smart journalists, and they either thought that what Mike and Marty were saying was bullshit or irrelevant, or because they don’t think Marty’s personal vendetta against David Miscavige is all that important.

So, anyway, along the way, I’ve become something of a cheerleader for the protest movement. I use this blog as a pedestal to provide information and insight to protesters, which they can (hopefully) use as they protest in their own way.

Why do I do it? Because I think we all have an obligation to act out against evil. There is lots of evil in the world, and no one person can fight it all, but this is one bit of evil I understand better than others, so I do what I can to help.

Is this blog fueled by anger? Of course it is. I don’t think you can watch people pull the wool over the eyes of those who trust them and not get angry; that’s just human nature. (LRH labeled HE&R as a bad thing as a way to keep people from judging. Does HE&R get in the way of rational thought? Damn right it does, and that’s just as it should be, because emotions are the voice of our conscience. What LRH said about mis-emotion is actually pretty accurate.)

Is this blog fueled by hate? Not at all. I know it sounds that way to those who have been conditioned to think that any anti-Scientology or anti-LRH sentiments are hate speech. I always think about how what I write would sound if I swapped the word “Scientologist” for “Jew” or “Christian” or “Muslim.” I realize that if my tone is too harsh, I might well be working to the wrong end, convincing Scientologists that protesters are bad, hateful people. I may not always say things in the best way to get my meaning across, but I always speak from my heart. There’s no gradient here; I say what I think and feel.

Do I respect others viewpoints? I suppose that depends on how you look at it. I think I do, because I allow everyone to post whatever they want in the comments section, with no censoring or editing. But I don’t water down what I say because it might hurt someone’s feelings or upset their world view. To me, that’s not disrespect of others views; that’s patronizing. Scientology “tech” attempts to protect you from entheta, and Marty does the same. I don’t think you need to be protected. I think you’re smarter than that. If you have a different viewpoint, then by all means post a comment and say it. I don’t moderate comments (which Marty does – does that mean I have more respect for my readers’ viewpoints than Marty?). I only delete those that are obvious spam, so unless your viewpoint is “please her 2nite free shipping on viagra,” it will appear on my site.

Anyway, I hope this gives you some insight into why I write what I write, and what experiences have made me feel the way I do about Scientology. If I haven’t answered your questions, then please let me know, and I’ll fill in more.

By the way, it appears that Marty censored a comment that you wrote to me, so feel free to post it here.

And while we’re on the subject, Marty also censored another comment I wrote, in which I suggested that I suspected he didn’t really think I was OSA, but was merely trying to dead-agent me and/or position me with something his followers think is bad in order to make me seem distrustful. I went on to say that I honestly don’t care if Marty thinks I’m OSA, but if he did, then for goodness sake allow me to straighten him out, because he was evaluating on incorrect data – and with all the crap the Church pulls against him, he should know who really is OSA and who isn’t. Marty zapped that comment and still hasn’t emailed me, so draw your own conclusions as to whether Marty really thinks I’m OSA. As it happens, your observation that OSA would never let me post all this anti-LRH is probably correct – I imagine I’d be comm-ev’d and declared before you could say “entheta.” I think Marty is just trying to manipulate opinions of me, in case you somehow read my blog and decide I’m a reasonable guy (which I don’t expect you will). Like Church management, Marty does not appear to trust his followers to make their own judgments. But maybe that’s just my anger talking!

A heart-felt thank-you for hearing me out.

ML ,