Daily Archives: July 28, 2011

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: