Monthly Archives: July 2012

Marty’s book: Chapter one

Well, I’ve survived the first few pages of Marty’s book without catching pneumonia! (Of course, I haven’t gotten to the stuff about OT3 yet…)

Actually, I think this first chapter is a must-read, and the good news is that you can read the part I’m going to talk about here for free by using the “Look Inside!” link at

What makes it a must-read? Because Marty’s “non-gradient” explanation of Dianetics does a beautiful job of showing just how riduculous Hubbard’s scam really is. Marty explains Hubbard’s analytical/reactive mind concept, which based on a proven (and previously discovered) idea — that we have a subconscious that influences our actions without our realizing it. But Marty adds in the ridiculous bits that Scientology is careful to cover up to brand-newbies (“the gradient”) — such as Hubbard’s notion that the subconcious (reactive mind) is based on evolution, not brain chemistry. Per Marty (and Hubbard), “The reactive mind was presumably created in tooth-and-claw times, where constant stimulus-response reactivity was vital to survival.”

Next, we get to see an example of the reactive mind at work. A kid is hit on the head with a baseball, and while he’s unconscious, his coach says he was “knocked senseless.” Years later, he’s a lawyer, drinking in a bar in a situation that vaguely reminds him of the baseball game, and this forgotten memory is “restimulated” — and the next day he suddenly and for no apparent reason drops the succesful legal strategy he was pursuing, simply because his subconcious has told him his approach is “senseless,” and then loses the case.

Seriously, is that the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard? And yet Scientologists really believe that “wogs” do these kind of oddball, random things, because we haven’t “cleared” our reactive mind. Never mind that if people really functioned this way, the world would look like one big Benny Hill sketch — that doesn’t stop Scns from believing Hubbard’s screwball examples rather than their own eyes. (So much for oft-used the Indie mantra “look, don’t listen,” which they happen to be quoting out of context.)

And lest you think Rathbun has come up with a poor example, I’d say he’s done even better than the Ol’ Fraud Hisself. Here’s one of L. Ron Hubbard’s examples of subconcious phenomenon from Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health:

“An engram received from father beating mother which says ‘Take that! Take it, I tell you. You’ve got to take it!’ means that our patient has possibly had tendancies as a kleptomaniac.”

— L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics, 2007 ed., p. 260

Seriously, outside of badly-written B-movies, do people really yell that sort of thing when they beat their wives? (Did Hubbard?) And if this really worked, don’t men have a moral obligation to start hitting their pregnant wives while yelling things like “Cure cancer! Cure cancer, I tell you. You’ve got to cure cancer!” (Not that I am condoning spousal abuse, but Hubbard did emphasize the good of the many over the good of the few.)

This is where it seems that the book is aimed more towards derailing would-be ex-Scientologists on their way out of the Church — surely newcomers would see right through this hogwosh. Hubbard knew they would, which is why he made the path to Scientology more elaborate, with sub-scams like the Hubbard-authored “Oxford Capacity Analysis” (the dreaded Personality Test) and the introduction film — what Hubbard termed “the gradient.” Granted, Marty isn’t trying to attract people like you and I — Hubbard called us “raw meat” — but I think it’s possible that Marty just doesn’t realize that sane, rational, non-brainwashed people will see right through this. This is what Scientology does to people… to a dedicated Scientologist, that whole “senseless” story makes perfect sense.

Anyway, Marty then covers the cure: Go back and talk about the incident that causes pain. Again, this is a concept common in psychotherapy, one that long pre-dates Hubbard’s Dianetics book. This is the reason that Scientology does not take people who have had psychiatric care. The Church says such people are too messed up, but the truth is they might recognize the techniques and know that Hubbard’s claim of authorship is a lie. And if they tell that to fellow Scientologists, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

That’s not all of Chapte r1, but that’s all the reading I could stomach in one sitting. More coming soon.


Related: The truth about “Look, don’t listen”

Marty’s book: Here we go!

Ok, I’m going to do it — I’m going to read What Is Wrong With Scientology? Healing Through Understanding by Mark “Marty” Rathbun. And if I’m going to do it, I’m taking you with me. (No way am I gonna suffer alone!)

Before I start, I think it’s fair to reveal any bias I might have by telling you what I am expecting. That way, you can evaluate my comments and criticisms fairly, since you know what my mindset it.

Basically, I expect the book to be yet another salvo in Marty’s mission to shift the blame for Scientology’s crimes from Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard to current Church leader David Miscavige. I expect a book-load of what I constantly accuse Marty of doing on his blog: Whitewashing L. Ron Hubbard.

In other words, I expect a lot of bullshit.

I’m also expecting self-promotion. Cynical though I may be, I believe this book serves, in part, as what Scientologists call “a promo piece” — an advertisement of Marty’s business, which is selling Scientology “services” to like-minded ex-Churchies. His blog serves much the same purpose.

But I’m also hoping to learn more about Marty. I don’t expect the blatent honesty we saw in Aaron Saxton’s interview, but maybe I can get some insight into Marty’s mindset.

It would be great if I could cast off my cynicism and try to keep an open mind, though I’m not sure I can — I’m already pissed off after merely reading the “About the Author” section:

Mark “Marty” Rathbun was Inspector General of the Religious Technology Center (RTC), the organization that controls the copyrights and trademarks of the materials relating to Dianetics and Scientology. His role was to head the Inspector General Network, described by the Church of Scientology as “an independent investigatory and policing body whose function is to keep Scientology working by ensuring the pure and ethical use of Dianetics and Scientology technology.”

That makes me wonder how working on the cover up of Lisa McPherson’s death, including shredding documents to keep them from surfacing in the family’s lawsuit, was “ensuring the pure and ethical use of Dianetics and Scientology technology.” What about bullying the IRS into making Scientology tax-exempt? These are things that Marty has admitted to doing on his blog, but they sure aren’t good for business. I wonder if Marty will talk about them in his book?

I should bring up the issue of buying the book. I had issues with buying it — I have a problem funding Marty’s business of derailing Scientologists on their path out of the Church so that he can make money from deluding them further. On the other hand, I think it’s important for authors to get paid for their work. In the end, I was able to borrow a copy, so that’s a happy medium.

I’m busy with paying work this month, so please be patient with me, but keep an eye on this blog as we attempt to find out what (if anything) is wrong with What Is Wrong With Scientology?. Wish me luck!


“Great Middle Path:” The straw-man argument

Have a look at Marty’s latest, The Great Middle Path Revisited. In it, Marty claims that the polar reactions to his book — Church-goers saying Marty is trying to destroy Scientology on one side, “Scientology ridiculers” saying the whole subject is a pile of shit on the other. This, according to Marty, proves that he is right:

“On the one hand I am accused on attempting to destroy everything L. Ron Hubbard stood for. On the other hand, I am accused of being Hubbard’s greatest defender… It makes me feel like I must have hit the ball right in the sweet spot.”

Now, there are no shortage of “Scientology ridiculers,” myself included. But who does Marty cite? None other than his old buddy Tony Ortega, who has done more than anyone (even Tobin and Childs) to give Marty a fair shot in the press.

Except, for the sake of this argument, Tony is not Marty’s friend. Instead, he is, Marty says, “the most prominent and persistent of Scientology ridiculers.”

If ever a sentiment were worth of ridicule, that’s it. Tony has been so fair and even-handed about Marty’s indie movement that I’ve wondered in the past if Marty doesn’t have him snowed about Scientology. (I don’t think he has.) While I don’t agree with Tony’s light-handed treatment of Marty, I do admire his fairness and objectivity — even when Marty is perfectly willing to throw Tony under the bus, as he has in this blog entry.

Here’s what Marty says about Tony’s review of the book:

On the other extreme Tony Ortega, who has spent seventeen years attempting to make nothing of Scientology, calls What Is Wrong With Scientology?: a ‘predictable mass of Hubbard apologetics’, a ‘bundle of contradictions’, [the apologies are for a religion that is] ‘permeated with sickness’, ‘expensive malarky’, [attempts to pass off] ‘Eastern woo woo as ‘scientific certainty’, and the defense is a bunch of ‘new age happy talk.’

Sounds like the opposite extreme, correct? Well, yes… unless you actually read Ortega’s review of Marty’s book.

The review, though excessively long, is written with the fairness and even-handedness that marks Tony’s work. Yes, he says that Hubbard is full of shit. Yes, he questions the effectiveness of Scientology in such terms. But the bulk of the review, like the bulk of Tony’s stories about Marty, is fair and even-handed. Tony translates what Marty is saying for an audience unfamiliar with Scientology, and the small percentage of time spent ridiculing Hubbard and Scientology shows admirable restraint.

This is a straw man argument if ever I have heard one, which is funny, because there are no shortage of true “Scientology ridiculers” out there. Perhaps the problem is that few have enough interest in balanced coverage to slog through Marty’s latest diatribe. With limited time to devote to this blog, even I have wondered if reading the book is a worthwhile endeavor. (As it happens, I’m too morbidly curious not to read it, though I can’t say I’m looking forward to the experience.)

As for Marty’s treatment of Tony Ortega in this blog entry, it’s clear that Marty doesn’t understand the concept of not biting the hand that feeds him…

…probably because Hubbard never wrote a policy about it.


Victory is so sweet!

I haven’t had much time to write recently, but I’ve had time to read — and oh, how I am enjoying Marty Rathbun’s frustration over the refusal of “The Media” to separate Scientology from… well, from Scientology.

Marty writes:

“It is unfortunate that there has not been time, nor the inclination on the part of media, to differentiate Miscavige’s cult and its conduct from the philosophy of Scientology.”

Ah, but Marty, bubby, clearly they are taking the time — the time to properly reasearch Scientology. Rather than take your attempts to whitewash Hubbard at face value, they are taking the time to read more about the subject, and at the very least realize that, Slappy Miscavige or not, Scientology is still a bug-nutty UFO religion. You can write all the books you want, Marty, but you can’t change that fact.

Unfortunately for Marty and other Hubbard apologists, the proof is in Hubbard’s own prolific writing. Go back through the archives of this blog and you’ll see countless examples of Hubbard policy dictacing the wrong-doing that these clowns attempt to blame on David Miscavige. Is Miscavige bad? Hell yeah, he is — he’s scum. But Hubbard is far, far worse, a lying, scheming, glory-seeking con man whose money-making, tax-evading scam persists even decades after his death.

And now one of Marty’s minyans wants to start an Indie youth group? Fuck me.

Marty Rathbun has been saying for years now that the organized Church of Scientology is dead. Clearly, it isn’t, not yet at least. But perhaps I can take this opportunity to do what Marty does, and declare Scientology dead. It appears we’ve hit the tipping point where the mainstream media is no longer willing to accept Rathbun and the other vocal Indie’s insistance that Scientoloy is good, and Miscavige is the problem. That hackneyed old story has sprung so many leaks that there just aren’t enough Independent thumbs to plug them all.

Of course, Scientology isn’t dead, and we should not rest until everyone understands that it is nothing but a self-help scam designed to enrich its long-dead founder. And when I say everyone, I mean even the people who really don’t want to see it — the Indies themselves.

Marty, if you’re reading this, I know you like to read non-Scientology books (and I commend you for that). Why not read this one and comment about it on your blog?


Death of Alexander Jentzsch

Let me start by offering my sincere condolences to Heber Jentzsch and Karen de la Carrriere on the death of their son, Alexander, who was just 27.

Tony Ortega reported on this, and it seems that Ms. de la Carriere is beside herself. How could she not be? The death of a child is one of the worst possible events in the human experience.

Although… if she’s this upset, she’s not a very good Scientologist.

You’ll forgive me if I’m being insensitive, but I think a frank discussion of the Scientology view of death is in order, and appropriate in this case, since both Heber and Karen have done so much to spread the word about the wonders of Scientology.

According to L. Ron Hubbard, Alexander did not actually die; he merely “dropped his body.” Normally, at this point, the thetan (spirit) is whipped away to an implant center and has his internal hard drive reformatted – his memories are mostly wiped, his image of the world re-implanted, and he is slammed into another body at the moment of birth, just as he was slammed into the body to which Karen was about to give birth back in 1984.

If Alexander was able to achieve the Operating Thetan levels in his short lifetime, then he’s all set. He can control his destiny, avoid the implant stations, and either pick up another body at will or whiz around the universe to his heart’s content. Maybe he’ll hang out with Hubbard. He might even come back to spend a lifetime as a dog or a horse, according to Hubbard. And if he was in the Sea Org, he gets his 20 years or so to find a body and grow up, then he’s due to report back for service according to the terms of his billion-year contract. Death, according to Hubbard, is no big deal.

“What happens to Man when he dies? Basically all that happens is that a separation occurs between the thetan and the body… The first thing one learns about death is that it is not anything of which to be very frightened. If you are frightened of losing your pocketbook, your money, your memory, boy or girl friend, well, that’s how frightened you ought to be of dying because it’s all the same order of magnitude.” — LRH, “Death,” Professional Auditor’s Bulletin #130, Feb 15, 1958

Furthermore, according to Hubbard, Scientologists should not get all worked up about death:

“The subject of death is never a very serious one to a Scientologist beyond the fact that he feels kind of sorry for himself sometimes. There was somebody of such terrific elan, who made him real happy and this person was thoughtless enough to dispose of the mock-up and go out of communication and the Scientologist feels unhappy about it, for it is a thoughtless thing for a friend to do. This, by the way, is a very early concept of death. You now more or less progress back to death as it was regarded very early on this particular track in this universe…

“Death is in itself a technical subject. You can, with considerable confidence, reassure some husband whose wife is dying or has just died that she got out all right and she is going someplace else to pick up a mock-up.” — LRH, ibid

Scientology doctrine is rife with the notion that death is no big deal. So why is Karen so distraught? Why isn’t she happy that the Alexander (who, let’s face it, was only her son because his thetan happened to be stumble upon the body that was about to slip from her womb) has moved on to his next life?

Could it be simple human instinct? Her deep-down knowledge that the bond between mother and child is stronger than the mere happenstance that LRH says it is?

Could it be that Karen knows, even if she is not ready to admit it, that Scientology is bullshit?

Because, let’s face it, if she was a true believer, she wouldn’t be so upset about merely not being able to see her son’s body.

LRH designed his king con to divest his followers of normal human feelings such as loss upon the death, divorce, or disconnection of a loved one. Such things got in the way of expanding Scientology and making money.

Problem is, LRH was a sociopath. He did not understand that you cannot entirely separate people from what he scoffed as as “H E & R” – Human Emotion and Reaction. LRH wasn’t much of a father, but most of us really do love our kids. LRH never understood that when you are dealing with healthy human beings, that bond is nearly impossible to break.

Now, I’m sure that we won’t see Karen repudiating Scientology any time soon. I am sure she will turn her grief into more anger towards David Miscavige. He probably fucked up Alexander’s spirituality so bad that poor Alex will wind up back at that implant station, all his Scientology training and devotion for naught. She might not even stop to wonder how, in this day and age, an otherwise healthy man died of a simple fever, or if she does, she’ll blame it on Miscavige, and not LRH’s quack theories of using “touch assists” to cure ailments that need doctors and medications.

But she’s sad about her son’s death, and that’s a step in the right direction – proof that even the most devout Scientologists can’t buy into LRH’s bullshit 100%.

Again, my deepest condolences to both Karen and Heber.


Caliwog on the Cruise-Holmes divorce

Perhaps Tom and Katie should have read How To Save Your Marriage by L. Ron Hubbard which, according to the Ol’ Fraud hisself, “contains thousands of successful marriages” (skip to 13:05). Or perhaps they should have taken the How To Salvage Your Marriage course. Or used the Marriage Assist, which you can read on this Church site.

Or maybe they did all those things, but they didn’t work, because a) Scientology is bullshit and b) Katie Holmes wisely realized what this bullshit is doing to her life, her finances and her child.

What happens if a Scientology partner says “It’s either your religion or me?” A proper, dedicated Scientologist will choose Scientology.

Hubbard preached his own version of “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.” His version was “The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” The first dynamic is self; second is your family; third is the group; the fourth is the human species. Remember, Scientologists believe that Scientology is the only salvation for mankind. (That’s the crutch that allows Marty Rathbun and other ex-Church members to keep themselves deluded.) Even if you love your spouse, love her with all your heart, letting her go so you can continue with Scientology is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It helps the greater good.

And so, like thousands of Scientologists before you, you let your wife go. Hubbard may have been evil, but he wasn’t an idiot – as with his ban on those who had gone through psychiatric care (who might recognize “Dianetic auditing” as totally cribbed from psychotherapy), Hubbard knew the best way to keep his followers from listening to critics was to get the hell rid of them. You can easily get the faithful to ignore the media, even friends and blood relatives, but tuning out the person you sleep with and raise children with, that’s a lot harder. Hubbard knew exactly what to do with them: Cut them off like a gangrenous limb, which is essentially what anyone becomes when they see the real truth about Scientology. Get rid of them before they can poison the body. And so he taught his followers that Scientology is more important than our desires, our loves, our vows.

This is yet another reason why I think Hubbard is such an absolute pile of human garbage. This is yet another example of how Hubbard used (and the Church continues to use) the well-meaning urges of selfless people to like his own pockets. Ron, if the Scns are right and you are still floating around out there, know that this Thetan thinks you are a scheming, steaming pile of shit.

I always wonder what will happen if Marty’s wife Mosey realizes that Scientology is a con job. I truly hope he chooses her over Hubbard. I certainly see signs of cracks in his belief, the lies he just can’t explain. But I’m not optimistic.

So, anyway, no doubt Scientology played a big role in Cruise’s divorce. That’s how you go from jumping on a couch to signing a divorce decree and knowing you are doing the right thing.

Now, who wants to start a pool on how long it takes before Marty and his sheep start blaming David Miscavige’s misapplication of “The Tech” for Cruise’s divorce? After all, if the Church weren’t delivering “reverse Scientology” and “black Dianetics,” Hubbard’s marriage-saving books and courses would have worked, right? Right?