According to one of Marty Rathbun’s latest post, titled “Censorhip”:

censorship should have no place in a civilized society.  There is no purpose for it other than to attempt to control the flow of information amongst the minds of beings.  It is the supreme invalidation of the beings it targets. It implies they are not intelligent enough to evaluate information for its credibility and importance.  It has historically been used by dictators and tyrants attempting to suppress dissent and differing views.

Of course I wholeheartedly agree with such statement — it is what got me involved with exposing Scientology in the first place, with the Church of Scientology’s attempt at censorship when it tried to force Google to remove links to a site critical of Scientology from its search results, in 2002 (see “Google pulls anti-Scientology links,” CNet.) Now, keeping in mind that Marty Rathbun is still faithful to L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings, his post re. censorhip is rather surprising to say the least.

L. Ron Hubbard teachings permeate intolerance to dissent. It would be plain impossible to enumerate all instances that hint at intolerance to dissent in Hubbard teachings, but it’s easy to cite a few of the most obvious:

The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES.


The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

[Ref. “THE SCIENTOLOGIST / A Manual on the Dissemination of Material,” L. Ron Hubbard, 1955]


People who attack Scientology are criminals.

[Ref. “Branch 5 Project, Project Squirrel,” L. Ron Hubbard, LRH ED 149 INT, 2 Dec 1966]


Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist. Because they do.

[Ref. “CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY,” L. Ron Hubbard, HCOB of 5 November 1967]


Find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person’s repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized. Be very alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage the public presses from mentioning Scientology. The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

[Ref.: L. Ron Hubbard, as quoted in the Reader’s Digest in 1980]

And so on.

Farther in his post, Marty Rathbun states states:

I have told many people that the greatest ability I ever attained in Scientology was the ability to disagree.  When I regained that faculty I considered myself no longer  a lemming following group think over the cliff.

The double-speak in there boggles the mind. Therefore I couldn’t resist commenting on this, twice. First:

This is what got me involved, “attempt to control the flow of information” by the Church of Scientology.

So, I gather this means I can talk freely about L Ron Hubbard’s policies re. the treatment of critics, like “noisy investigations,” (to which you were subjected in the U.K. as per your blog) with specific examples like Paulette Cooper, Jim Berry, etc.? You know, those on-topic posts, filled with specifics, I made on your blog in the past which you never allowed to be read by others — because you deemed them… let’s say… ‘enturbulating’ I suppose? Or is censorship not censorship when the rationale involves the subjective concept of ‘enturbulation’?

By the way, what happened to your Dec. 23 post titled “Brisbane Independent – Lise O’Kane,” which was the subject of a lot of criticism? I can’t see it here. I have a full copy of it if you wish to reinstate it here.

Second, in response to one of his comment:

Doesn’t strike you as ironic to justify the censorship of comments by referring to them as “full of generalities,” without anything more specific? (Since we can’t see these censored comments, you are asking people to trust entirely *your* interpretation — but with all due respect, I rather rely on my *own* interpretation.)

I ask, because the comments I made in the past, which you never allowed, had specifics in them, and yet somehow you decided against them. I would appreciate very much that you point out actually *specifically* where the problem(s) was(were) in those posts.

None of those comments were accepted for publication on his blog, and neither did he care to explain his contradictory statements/behavior.

I gather Marty Rathbun’s newfound ability to disagree doesn’t include disagreeing with the teachings of Scientology, which is not at all surprising, given that Scientology teachings call for the intolerance of dissent — as per Scientology self-serving teachings, Scientology doctrines do not allow doubt of Scientology teachings (Ref. “Keeping Scientology Working”)

On these words, here is a bit of Scientology history, pre-David Miscavige era, an excerpt from a news 1972 article (my emphasis):

Most important, perhaps, Cooper says that her case is typical of efforts by Scientologists to silence anyone who writes critically of the church. Her complaint alleges that Scientology has filed 100 libel suits in the last two years in the United States and Britain. Among those who have been sued in America, in addition to Tower and herself, are the American Medical Association and the National Education Association, Fairchild Publications (for an article in Women’s Wear Daily), The Washington Post and George Malko, along with Delacorte Press, for his book, Scientology—The Now Religion. The Scientologists have also sued Realist publisher Paul Krassner. And they’ve tried to block the publication of an Olympia Press book about the church by Robert Kaufman. They have also threatened to sue Life, the Rev. Lester Kinsolving of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and Parents’ Magazine, to name a few, according to Cooper.

Scientology has won none of these suits. The actions against Tower, Cooper, the AMA and NEA, Delacorte, Malko and Krassner are all in process, with no quick settlement in sight. The suits against Women’s Wear Daily and The Washington Post were dropped. And a hearing is to be held some time in May on the Kaufman book.

[Ref.: “Scientology fights back,” The Nation, May 22, 1972. Keep in mind that in 1972, the Scientology attempt to silence Paulette Cooper through Hubbard’s “Operation Freakout” had not been uncovered yet.]

(David Miscavige was around 12 year old at the time…)