Category Archives: Marty Rathbun

Thoughts on the latest Marty thing

Over on the Underground Bunker, a lot of people have been reacting to the bizarre twist in Marty and Monique Rathbun’s lawsuit with comments like:

“My first thought is that I hope Monique, Marty and their baby are safe and well. No matter what other stuff is going on, that’s the most important part of all of this.”

Yeah, I’m not so sure about that. Let’s not forget that a) this is bigger than Marty and his family, and b) Marty has plenty of blood on his hands (figuratively speaking). The Rathbuns started something, something that could have helped a lot of people and made up for a lot of damage, and now they’ve backed away. One could question whether they had a moral obligation to continue. I can see both sides.

When I saw Marty’s “Rue this day” post, my first thought was, “True colors.” His continued silence hasn’t changed my opinion. LRH wrote something about “misemotion” that was pretty accurage, and I think it applies here: When one reacts with an inappropriate emotion, it’s probably because one feels guilty.

So what happened? We just can’t know. I can’t help but think of Bob Minton backing down and saying “It was like the Terminator was after you.” I didn’t think the Co$ still had that kind of bite, but maybe it does. So maybe the Co$ has blackmailed Marty. (Tony seems to think that isn’t the case, and I suppose he has good reason, though I wish he’d share his thoughts.)

Or maybe Monique just got sick of the whole thing and said “Stop it or I leave.” (Whether Marty should have dragged Monique into this is another question.)

To me, this feels a lot like Mr. Minton’s reversal; the difference is that Bob wasn’t in, he wasn’t DM’s right-hand man, and he wasn’t the one helping to make the misery happen.

The Rathbuns started something big, and now they are stopping it, and a lot of us are going to be disappointed. But we can live with that.

More worrying are the families that are broken up, the lives wasted and destroyed, and the fortunes sunken into this terrible, dangerous, life-destroying business-masquerading-as-a-religion. The Rathbuns’ lawsuit was a great opportunity to help stop that, and now it looks as if that chance is going to disappear.

Sure, it’s great that Marty can get on with his life, and his wife and child the same. But considering the consequences, is that *really* the most important thing?

Just goes to show that not everyone is cut out to be a hero.

I hope I’m wrong and there’s some other explanation.

Seeing Marty’s temper in action, I don’t think there is.

ML,
Caliwog

P.S. Tony: You will rue this day! RUE THIS DAY, I tell you!

Advertisements

Something I never thought I’d read

From Marty Rathbun’s blog, yesterday:

“About the closest thing scientologists are going to find to that original L. Ron Hubbard package is David Miscavige.”

You’ve come a long way, Marty. It’s good to have you over on this side.

Read the entire post

ML,
Caliwog

The times, are they a-changin’?

A conversation I never thought I would see take place on Marty’s blog:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/scientology-intelligence-manual/#comment-283741

The interesting stuff starts at CommunicatorIC’s comment.

Long read (and still growing), but worth it — lots of people making legitimate criticisms of LRH, pretty severe ones at that — entheta to be sure. And yet Marty is letting the conversation take place! I added my own comment, we’ll see if it escapes censorship.

ML,
Caliwog

The Rathbun lawsuit

As you’ve probably read on Tony Ortega’s site, Marty Rathbun’s wife Monique is suing the Church of Scientology.

My issues with Marty remain unchanged. I wasn’t sure where he was going for a while there, but it’s clear from the latest posts that he still thinks Hubbard is some great spiritual guru, and I still think he’s derailing potential ex-Scientologists from their path towards the light by trying to whitewash that old shitheel L. Ron Hubbard (despite recent admissions that maybe LRH wasn’t the person he said he was — no shit, Sherlock). I still don’t like what the guy is doing.

But I stand 100% in support of the lawsuit against the Church of Scientology. Marty and the indies and I may disagree on the source of the Church’s evil ways — they try to blame them on Miscavige, we know they came from LRH — but they are still evil and they are still wrong. The harassment Marty and Monique continue to deal with is terrible, and I admire both of them for dealing with it so stoically.

Caliwog says: Go get ’em, Mosey!

ML,
Caliwog

Two viewpoints on LRH

“Hubbard’s theory [of prenatal engrams] never makes it really clear, at least in a manner that would be accepted by most medical doctors, exactly how engrams can be planted before a foetus had developed a nervous system or the sense organs with which to register an impression, or even how a person could retain or ‘remember’ verbal statements before he had command of a language. Scientologists simply accept his theory on faith, that if a husband beats his pregnant wife and shouts ‘take that’ as he hits her, a ‘take that’ engram can be planted in the womb. Thus, when junior grows up, he might react to this statement literally, and become a thief whose goal is to ‘take that.'”

— Paulette Cooper, The Scandal of Scientology, Chapter 3

“Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard discovered methodologies that can enhance self-determinism, increase freedom of choice, and bring about higher states of awareness and beingness to those who practice them.”

— Mark “Marty” Rathbun, 31 Factors

[L. Ron Hubbard] is quite literally viewed by millions worldwide as Mankind’s greatest friend.”

— Official Church of Scientology website

Hmm. Which of these two go together?

ML,
Caliwog

“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.

ML,
Caliwog

Science catches up to L. Ron Hubbard

When I set out to write my series on the Credo of a True Group Member, I promised myself I would spend a straight week writing about LRH tech and not get distracted by any Marty Rathbun fuckery. But then he posted Life After Death and the Scientology Axioms, and it’s so farging funny that I just… can’t… help… myself!

Here’s the gist of the post: Marty starts off with a few of LRH’s “Axioms” – I’ll get to those in a minute – and then cites a pair of articles by Robert Lanza as evidence that LRH was right. Robert Lanza is an acclaimed doctor who has made great strides in the field of stem cell research. He is also a proponent of “biocentrism,” the theory that biology is the highest of the sciences and that the presence of life is what brought the universe into existence, and not the other way around. It’s a belief that loosely aligns with LRH’s idea that “thetans” (spirits) “postulate” the universe into existence.

Marty links to two of Lanza’s articles, Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes and Is Death An Illusion? Evidence Suggests Death Isn’t The End. (If Dr. Lanza owned L. Ron Hubbard’s album The Road To Freedom, he’d know that “Death is only an invention.”) Here’s the over-simplified version: Since what we experience of the world around us (sights, sounds, smells, etc.) is actually our brain’s interpretation of stimuli, and since experiments seem to indicate that the act of observing an experiment affects the outcome, then the universe around us is actually our own creation; and since fields like quantum physics have shown that many of our scientific theories break down at a certain level, science is wrong about the nature of life and all bets are off. Dr. Lanza’s opinions have met with mixed reactions; personally, I think they’re a bit too simplistic, indicative of the human need to come to firm conclusions rather than accepting that there are things we can’t quite understand. (It’s the same phenomenon that leads to our belief in God.)

Anyway, back to Marty, who uses these two controversial articles as proof that science is finally catching up to Hubbard. Wait, let me use his own words, because the jab at the organized Church makes them even funnier:

“Is it not a travesty that corporate Scientologists would be burned at the stake (figuratively) if they were to dare to even take a peek at such a magazine? Is it not a travesty that Scientology Inc is busy using the billions you have donated to them to stage public demonstrations of their flat earth mentality while science catches up with L Ron Hubbard?”

Lesson learned: Do not drink soda while reading Marty’s blog. My nostrils still hurt.

(Marty’s “burned at the stake” comment stems from the fact that the articles appeared in Psychology Today, which Scientologists are about as likely to read as Pedophelia Today. Shame, though, since Scientologists usually grab right onto anything that purports to prove Hubbard right. That said, given the scientific community’s mixed reactions to Lanza’s biocentrist theories, the Church might be smart enough to think twice about casting their lot with him.)

Marty’s evidence is the first ten of Hubbard’s “Axioms” (if you don’t want to read them on Marty’s site or a Church site, here they are in PDF). The Co$ says the Axioms are “truths which are proven by all of life and which represent the most succinct distillation of wisdom regarding the nature of the human spirit.”

In fact, they are made-up baloney that rely on a) careful redefinition of words and b) the utter certainty that Hubbard knew what he was talking about, and wasn’t just a blowhard who couldn’t tell an ion from an eon.

Let’s look at a couple of examples:

“AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC. Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.”

One could spend hours arguing the intellectual merit of this. (A jellyfish has no brain; it can perceive but probably not postulate. So does it lack a life spirit? Or is each jellyfish inhabited by the spirit of some poor fucknob who meant to inhabit the body of a dolphin, but missed?) However, to accept this as a “truth” is completely and totally absurd. There is no proof and no way to prove it. But that doesn’t matter to Scientologists, who accept what Hubbard says as fact.

“AXIOM 4. SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION.”

Not according to Webster’s dictionary it isn’t. It amazes me how a man so obsessed with dictionary definitions was so willing to abandon them when it suited his purposes to do so. Scientologists do the same thing; tell them LRH was a fraud, and they’ll whip out their dictionary, look up “fraud,” and explain why, even if Scn is a scam, LRH isn’t, by definition, a fraud. But give them something ridiculous like “Space is a viewpoint of dimension” and they’ll buy it without question. Unfuckingbelievable.

“AXIOM 9. CHANGE IS THE PRIMARY MANIFESTATION OF TIME.”

Sounds legitimate and defensible. But there are a host of other theories about time, and ironically, both of the Lanza articles Marty mentions cite an argument, based on an experiment, that time is more liquid than we thought, and that change can occur irrespective of time. But I don’t want to get into an intellectual debate, because that is another Scientology tactic: Argue the minutiae of something until your audience’s brain turns to mush and they just accept it, assuming that the reason Hubbard’s arguments make no sense is because Hubbard is smart and they are stupid. (Considering they’ve probably just paid $1,000 for a “course” that involves screaming at ashtrays, they might be right.)

“AXIOM 10. THE HIGHEST PURPOSE IN THIS UNIVERSE IS THE CREATION OF AN EFFECT.”

I love this one, because after nine axioms that can be explained away, Hubbard drops in this non-sequitor. I’m tempted to say that I could just as easily claim that “THE HIGHEST PURPOSE IN THIS UNIVERSE IS THE CREATION OF A PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY SANDWICH,” but Hubbard apologists will dismiss that as a “glib” non-argument. Fair point, so let’s try this:

I would argue that since Hubbard’s axioms say that change is the primary manifestation of time, and a change in relative position of particles is a natural occurrence, then the creation of an effect is not the highest purpose, since effects are a by-product of the passage of time. A higher purpose would be to impose one’s own order on the universe – to stop the effects of time. So I would say that the highest purpose in the universe is the cessation of an effect.

That makes sense, right?

Of course it fucking doesn’t. I made it up without the slightest bit of thought. But because I can talk my way around it, it seems to make sense. I always talk about Scientologists mistaking verbosity for intelligence. There we are, I’ve just made it work for myself. (Give me a grand and I’ll give you an ashtray to scream at.)

Let’s get back to Marty’s premise: The fact that someone wrote an article in 2011 that happens to correspond with some of Hubbard’s writings does not lend even the slightest shred of legitimacy to his theories, let alone prove the absurd idea that science is “catching up” to L. Ron Hubbard. Both Lanza’s and Hubbard’s theories are questionable, and Hubbard wasn’t the first one to think of them, although he would like his followers to think he was.

That said, I will accept that science is catching up to L. Ron Hubbard when they prove the following theories, which you can hear in Hubbard’s own words:

ML,
Caliwog

Read more about Hubbard taking legitimate concepts and completely fucking them up in Positioning, Misunderstanding Of.