Mark "Marty" C. Rathbun


On August 13, 2010, Marty Rathbun, former high-ranking official of the Church of Scientology, in answer to Jesse Prince, wrote the following as a comment on his blog:

As you know I felt degraded for participating in that set up of you.

It’s not clear to me what “set up” Marty Rathbun is referring to with regard to Jesse Prince. It might be related to Jesse Prince’s indictment over possession of a marijuana plant in August 2000, in which Scientology was a “key player.”

But really, I can’t tell: No details are shared regarding this “set up” for which Marty Rathbun “felt degraded for participating” in it.

I believe that all the details of whatever “set up” Marty Rathbun participated in on behalf of the Church of Scientology, whether the target was Jesse Prince or whoever else, should be made public.

No matter how often I try to convince myself that this is private matter between Marty Rathbun and Jesse Prince, I always come to the same conclusion: All the details of that set up need to be brought to public light.

The “set up” obviously has been very damaging to Jesse Prince, and he sure deserves heart felt apologies over it, from whoever participated in it.

Society, the public in general, also deserve an apology, because the “set up” of Jesse Prince inflicted injuries upon every element of society, to borrow Raymond Banoun’s statement regarding the Church of Scientology’s Operation Snow White.

Jesse Prince was the obvious victim, but not the only one. Any and all “set up” performed on behalf of the Church of Scientology inflict injuries upon society.

Any and all “set up” performed on behalf of the Church of Scientology discourage elements of society who might have contributed to expose the dangerous nature of the Church of Scientology from doing so.

These “set ups” to silence people created a chilling effect on many who might have contributed to further expose Scientology. These “set ups” also had a chilling effects on those former Scientologists who might have otherwise asked accountability and reparation from the Church of Scientology, as well as further expose it.

By discouraging scrutiny through Hubbard’s “head on a pike,” these “set ups” have helped (and quite possibly still help) prolong the campaign of abuse of basic human rights by the Church of Scientology. Society as a whole has, and still suffer from this lack of scrutiny into the operations of the Church of Scientology.

Jesse Prince was the visible victim, but such “set up” also victimize all those unseen and unnamed who chose to shy away from further exposing and further bringing accountability to the Church of Scientology.

The right thing to do is to come out clean and provide all the details of what wrongs were done in the name of the Church of Scientology.

Not doing so benefit handsomely the Church of Scientology, it is the one which has to gain the most from not adding to its historical track record, by exposing the dirty tricks performed in its name.

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]

And

People who attack Scientology are criminals.

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

And

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]

And

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…)

There is an interesting article today from the Australian Associated Press (AAP). The most complete version is found in The Age: “Xenophon hits out at Scientology”. (For whatever reason, other versions of the same AAP article were truncated, leaving out key parts: example 1, example 2, etc.)

In short, an independent Australian senator questioned the religious status of the Church of Scientology after receiving many letters from people whose brush with Scientology has been less than positive (euphemism). Here is a key excerpt:

Paul David Schofield said his first daughter Lauren had died after she was allowed to wander one of the Church of Scientology’s Sydney buildings and fell down some stairs.

“My wife and I were actively discouraged from seeking compensation from the church,” he wrote.

“I was also encouraged by church executives to request no coronial enquiry (sic) into her death, something I stupidly agreed with at that time.”

Mr Schofield’s second daughter Kirsty also died, in this case after ingesting potassium chloride at the family home – a substance he said was used widely in the organisation’s “purification” programs.

In another letter, Aaron Saxton said as a member of the organisation he participated in the “forced confinement and torture” of others.

He wrote that Scientologists considered to be “underperforming” were placed on diets of beans and rice for up to two weeks at a time, and they were also not allowed to access medications or undergo procedures such as pap smears.

The Church of Scientology spokesperson true to form response was (my emphasis):

“Senator Xenophon is obviously being pressured by disgruntled former members who use hate speech and distorted accounts of their experiences in the church,” the organisation said in a statement to AAP.

“They are about as reliable as former spouses are when talking about their ex-partner.”

Of course, this is the kind of answer to expect from someone indoctrinated with the writings of L. Ron Hubbard – which teach followers that any exposure of wrongdoings by Scientologists is an “attack” on their religion.

My response to the Church of Scientology spokesperson:

Dear Church of Scientology spokesperson… Would you automatically deem as “unreliable” the accounts of spouses subjected to beatings by their former partner? Because that’s exactly what your answer above entails.

Side note: To further underline how the thick track record of intolerance to criticism with Scientology can be traced to the Scientology “scriptures,” even independent Scientologist Marty Rathbun still shows intolerance to criticism of Scientology, as seen in one of his recent post, in which he still associates criticism of Scientology teachings with “hate.” L. Ron Hubbard would approve:

NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY agree to an investigation of the attackers.

[…]

So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us – only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don’t use us.

I speak from 15 years of experience in this. There has never yet been an attacker who was not reeking with crime. All we had to do was look for it and murder would come out.

[Ref.: L. Ron Hubbard, “Attacks on Scientology,” 15 February 1966]

Addendum: See senator Nick Xenophon on Youtube for all the details – this is a must-see: Youtube Part 1, Youtube Part 2, Transcript PDF (1.13MB).

After listening to senator Xenophon, one sees that Australia’s Anderson Report of 1965 had it right, well, except that Scientology proved to be much worst (my emphasis):

Many scientology techniques, beyond the elementary stages, are essentially those of command or authoritative hypnosis, and are potentially dangerous to mental health.

[…]

The principles and practices of scientology are contrary to accepted principles and practices of medicine and science, and constitute a grave danger to the health, particularly the mental health, of the community. Expert opinion to this effect was fully confirmed by the considerable number of specific cases of damage to mental health of which the Board heard evidence.

[…]

In many cases, mental derangement and a loss of critical faculties have resulted from scientology processing and have continued long after the individuals concerned have ceased active association with scientology. In a number of instances the direct result of scientology processing has been to produce mental derangement which has required hospital treatment.

[…]

Financial hardship to the customer is the usual concomitant of processing.

[…]

Scientology is not, and does not claim to be, a religion. The general attitude of its founder is hostile to and disparaging of religion.

Scientology is a grave threat to family and home life. As well as causing financial hardship, it engenders dissension, suspicion and mistrust amongst members of the family. Scientology has caused many family estrangements.

The Board has been unable to find any worth-while redeeming feature in scientology. It constitutes a serious medical, moral and social threat to individuals and to the community generally.

On November 4th, 2009, the author of “Leaving Scientology” posted the following comment on Marty Rathbun’s blog:

rebel008 // November 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm | Reply

Compare how LRH [L. Ron Hubbard] handled the defection of and criticism from prominent writer William S. Burroughs. In an April [that would be August], 1970 response in Mayfair magazine, he was respectful of Burroughs, and stated, “Outright lies and false accusations are not something that can be corrected. But honest and valid criticism is always welcome because it helps a lot of good people do a better job.”

Miscavige is incapable of thinking that way, or writing such a response. His first and only thought will be “how do I get revenge.”

[http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/harassment-of-haggis-it-will-backfire/#comment-4172]

There is no question David Miscavige, sociopathic leader of Scientology, Inc. is totally unable to handle criticism of himself, his church, or his religion. But, I wholeheartedly disagree that L. Ron Hubbard was any better at handling criticism. So I felt compelled to answer:

I tend to give more weight to acts performed away from PR [public relation] fronts. LRH’s handling of Paulette Cooper, Jim Berry and countless others doesn’t strike me as respectful.

My comment was never approved by Marty Rathbun. What is it that was so unbearable in my post that it couldn’t possibly be read by others? Isn’t this ingrained culture of hush-hush and censorship – even after leaving the Church of Scientology – just plain tiresome in the long run?

Intolerance to criticism runs deep in Scientology teachings. One just has to read one of the most important policy letter L. Ron Hubbard wrote regarding Scientology: Keeping Scientology Working Series I, dated February 7, 1965, in which L. Ron Hubbard makes it clear that his Scientology writings are infallible, which obviously implies that it is not open to criticism.

How ironic that my comment re. L. Ron Hubbard intolerance to criticism wasn’t accepted as valid criticism by Scientologist Marty Rathbun.

I will conclude with this quote from the Foster Report, regarding the inherent culture of intolerance to criticism in Scientology teachings:

The reactions of individuals and groups to criticism varies from grateful acceptance. or amused tolerance, at one end of the scale to a sense of outrage and vindictive counter-attack on the other. Perhaps unfortunately (especially for its adherents) Scientology falls at the hyper-sensitive end of the scale. Judging from the documents, this would seem to have its origin in a personality trait of Mr. Hubbard, whose attitude to critics is one of extreme hostility. One can take the view that anyone whose attitude to criticism is such as Mr. Hubbard displays in his writings cannot be too surprised if the world treats him with suspicion rather than affection.

[http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/foster07.html]

Addendum: In case I hadn’t make this clear, it’s less about having my comment moderated, and more about whitewashing L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings when it comes to explain the long track record of abuses/wrongdoings/crimes in Scientology.

There were interesting comments on Marty Rathbun’s blog regarding the Part 2 of ABC’s Nightline special report on Scientology (my emphasis):

Mr. // October 24, 2009 at 1:54 pm | Reply

I agree with Alex. Part 2 was a hatchet job on the doctrines of Scn. I actually don’t blame Tommy for walking out on the upper level inquisition. A disappointing show, should have left it to Part 1 only.

[…]

martyrathbun09 // October 24, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Yes. A cheap shot. And pretty deceptive in that they never hinted the subject matter would arise, nor pose the questions to me. However, as long as DM and co continue to dodge and lie and BLOW from the questions – the more they’ll be hit with it.

[…]

NOTSaware // October 24, 2009 at 9:17 pm | Reply

Part two was nonsense. Upper level stuff discussion doesn’t belong anywhere.

Those comments are in response to Nightline’s Martin Bashir asking Church of Scientology’s spokeperson Tommy Davis about the core beliefs of Scientology, more specifically, the Xenu story:

Martin Bashir: Do you believe that … a galactic emperor called Xenu … brought his people to earth 75 million years ago and buried them in volcanoes?

Tommy Davis: OK.

Martin Bashir: Do you believe that?

Tommy Davis: Martin, I am not going to discuss the disgusting perversion of Scientology beliefs that can be found out commonly on the Internet and be put in the position of talking about things for … that … talking about things that are so fundamentally offensive to Scientologists to discuss…

Tommy Davis eventually walked out upon Martin Bashir’s insistence on asking him about Xenu.

To Marty Rathbun, speaking openly of a core Scientology belief on a special report on Scientology is “[a] cheap shot,” and he is of the opinion that ABC Nightline was “pretty deceptive” because they did not warn him that the Xenu story would be addressed in Part 2.

Here is my stance on his stance.

I believe Scientology deceptively ensnaring people without first disclosing its core beliefs is a much worst “cheap shot” and much more deceptive – and it’s exactly how L. Ron Hubbard designed it.

Here is something else that was deceptive. First an excerpt:

Marty Rathbun: I watch him on Matt Lauer. And I go, “That ain’t Tom Cruise. That’s David Miscavige. That’s not the Tom Cruise I knew two years ago.”

Martin Bashir: You’re referring to the moment when he attacked Brooke Shields for suffering post-natal depression and–

Marty Rathbun: Attacked Matt Lauer, I mean, he’s talking –

Martin Bashir: For not understanding –

Marty Rathbun: – he is talking to Matt Lauer like David Miscavige talks to his staff. “You’re glib, man, you don’t get it. You don’t understand… –” you know.

The problem with Marty Rathbun’s statement here is that Tom Cruise doesn’t need David Miscavige to inspire his anti-psychiatry stance. The disgust toward mental health profession is drilled into every Scientologist as anti-psychiatry permeates all of Scientology teachings. Here are some select examples:

We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one. This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them.

[Ref. L. Ron Hubbard, 22 February 1966, “Project Psychiatry”]

And…

The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda.

[Ref. L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL of 5 October 1971, “Propaganda by Redefinition of Words”]

And…

The names and connections, at this time, of the bitterly opposing enemy are:

  1. Psychiatry and psychology (not medicine).
  2. The heads of news media who are also directors of psychiatric front groups.
  3. A few key political figures in the fields of “mental health” and education.
  4. A decline of monetary stability caused by the current planning of bankers who are also directors of psychiatric front organizations would make us unable to function.

[Ref. L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL of 16 February 1969, “TARGETS, DEFENSE”]

All parts of Scientology teachings, as written by L. Ron Hubbard. Even entry-level Scientology teachings plant the seed of suspicion toward mental health profession, as seen in the materials used in Applied Scholastics’ “Study Tech” program.

See also Jeff Jacobsen’s “CCHR – Human Rights Organization Attacks Its ‘Enemies’ ” for more insights re. Hubbard’s hate of psychiatry/psychiatrists.)

Teachings of intolerance and hate in Scientology scriptures are among the root problems leading to the abuses seen in Scientology. Blaming only David Miscavige is silly, Scientology had already a thick track record of abuses, wrongdoings and crimes before he arrived at the helm.

On August 30, Mark C. “Marty” Rathbun posted the following piece on his blog: “Scientific proof II”. At some point, he states:

From a true Scientologist’s perspective it is ridiculous to try to make Scientology prove itself through science

However, puzzingly, most of his post, including the title, is discourse to suggest that Scientology is scientifically sound.

But my interest is that on Marty Rathbun’s blog, there is this overall theme, that David Miscavige only gave Scientology a bad name. This of course, I find ridiculous, as the track record of crimes, abuses and deceit traces back all the way to the 50s. When I read this passage:

Miscavige’s first impulse when he reads this post will likely be to strut around the office ranting to his inner circle

I felt compelled to answer, so yesterday, I replied on his blog as follow:

“Miscavige’s first impulse when he reads this post will likely be to strut around the office ranting to his inner circle”

L. Ron Hubbard’s first impulse when he saw Jim Berry’s cartoon in 1977 (URL supplied below), was to order his crew to disenfranchise Jim Berry, so that he would stop “SP Scientology.”

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/operation-funny-bone.html

Where was David Miscavige at the time?

Regarding Linde, he a real scientist, meaning that he his of the opinion that *ultimately*, any scientific theory must go through the validation/invalidation process of repeatable, quantifiable objective experiments, which always involves measuring things (or else there is absolutely *no use* for the theory.) Real scientists embrace debates and peer reviews. I doubt he would be pleased to have Hubbard compared to him. It boggles my mind to even see those two names mentioned on the same page.

My point, of course, was to illustrate that Scientology was already corrupt prior to David Miscavige. In my opinion, Scientology doctrines such as “Suppressive Person”, “stats”, etc. will invariably lead to a culture of abuses and arbitraries.

Previously, I had been pleasantly surprised that he did accept to publicize my commments on his blog (like here, here, here).

However, this time, it appears my reply didn’t make the cut. Today, in the comments section, he posted something which I feel explains why my reply wasn’t accepted. I quote him:

… I attempted to open discussion to anyone, giving some who have attacked Scientology generally the benefit of the doubt that they were simply misinformed. The responses you don’t see, and won’t anymore, are worse than distractions. They are attempts to discredit any positive spiritual experience people may have attained using Scientology. That is hate, not discussion. They are living proof that some who say they are in the Scientology protest business for the sole purpose of protecting fundamental human and civil rights are not being sincere. The latest was attacking me as ”blaming everything on Miscavige.” The implication is that Hubbard needs to be blamed. I cannot in good conscience, and will not, give Miscavige a pass on that score. …

Oh well. I will go through each of his points.

… I attempted to open discussion to anyone, giving some who have attacked Scientology generally the benefit of the doubt that they were simply misinformed …

Thanks for this, I really appreciated it (while it lasted.)

… The responses you don’t see, and won’t anymore, are worse than distractions. …

This answers well why my last reply wasn’t accepted for publication on your blog. I was wondering.

… They are attempts to discredit any positive spiritual experience people may have attained using Scientology. …

Not really. This was rather an attempt to show that many Scientology doctrines are at the root of pattern of crimes, abuses, deceit of organized Scientology. They act as natural selection to bring people like David Miscavige at the helm of organized Scientology. Prior to David Miscavige, it was the Guardian’s Office.

… That is hate, not discussion. …

There we go, associating critical analysis and dissent to “hate”… There is this French expression, “Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop,” which I found translate as follow: “Leopard cannot change its spots”, that is, critical analysis of Scientology is still perceived as “hate” to former Church of Scientology officer Mark Rathbun.

… They are living proof that some who say they are in the Scientology protest business for the sole purpose of protecting fundamental human and civil rights are not being sincere. …

I point at harmful Scientology doctrines, obviously, being sincere can’t be part of my character.

… The latest was attacking me as “blaming everything on Miscavige.” The implication is that Hubbard needs to be blamed. I cannot in good conscience, and will not, give Miscavige a pass on that score. …

So apparently, making a case that Scientology contains many harmful doctrines is to “give Miscavige a pass”… I started to assemble a web page on Church of Scientology leader David Miscavige back in October 2005. Does it look like I am attempting to give David Miscavige a free pass? To me, it rather looks like Mark Rathbun is attempting to give Scientology a free pass.

I will note that Paulette Cooper and countless others certainly deserve more than this kind of Scientology apologetics. In my opinion, they have never been totally vindicated, I wish they will be one day, as of now, it’s not going to come from Mark C. “Marty” Rathbun, this I can tell.