Anonymous UK follow up

I am sorry I have not answered each of the comments on the Anonymous/Marty controversy individually – but I read them all and considered them all and decided it best to answer in one single post. First, I appreciate all the comments. They made me reflect on what is going on from a number of different perspectives. I never intended to start a blog in the first place.  A friend (a very unlikely one that I did not even consider necessarily even friendly up to that point) seeing what a dog’s breakfast I had made of my original website volunteered to reorganize all my material in a neater format.  Within hours this blog spot was created. I thought the blog feature was great and started using it to impart information that I recognized was not critical for ongoing investigations  the media is pursuing, or might not appear in the media because under pressure from C of S the media requires me to come up with serious corroboration for everything that is printed or broadcast. I also post to create certain effects on a number of ongoing handlings/investigations/rescues, etc.

I recognize my own fault in creating a lot of the warring going on and I apologize for that. I wasn’t really blogging. I was not really reading or listening or thinking people considered I was expected to answer them. That may have helped create perceptions of  arrogance, egoism and abusiveness.

I am not sitting on my hands. I am working on a number of major fronts to end ongoing abuses within DM’s kingdom.  Though few reading this have any real experience that would lead them to believe this, but there is a method to the psychotic lunatic’s madness. Much of it requires I keep information and cards to my chest for now.  That is doubly so since DM seems to think if he knocks me out of the running everything goes away; and however mistaken that notion is,  I am consequently encountering a lot of flak (some of which I’ve made public on the blog).  So, my temper is not always where it ought to be and I am sure that has helped engender some antagonism too.

Because every word I utter is fair game for DA packs and lawyer letters and is exploited to the hilt, I am not inclined to use this forum – where emotion and passion sometimes reign –  for cross examination of me.

But I will say a couple things that might assuage some common concerns. I have no intention of ever going back to the Church of Scientology – in any capacity whatsoever. I believe it has been so thoroughly rotted to the core that it is a lost cause.  Having the benefit of a lot of hindsight, I doubt whether organized religion of any kind is very workable.  I deplore and would never even consider practicing fair game, disconnection, SP declares, RPF and a plethora of other abusive tricks the current C of S practices.

A lot of information (the type that I am continually pressed for and accused of being an unrepentant criminal for allegedly not disclosing) is coming down the pike. It is coming in the forums that it is coming in because I think it is important all actors involved in the conduct should be questioned publicly and have a chance to be heard. I think that having  neutral reporters of facts trained and experienced in judging credibility investigate and impart that information gives it the most authority and longest life and greatest circulation. And ultimately the most effectiveness. It is not an easy process to go through sometimes as Amy, or Tom, or Mike or a number of others would confirm. But it is the best means of ensuring the information will have the most impact on creating changes I believe we all want to see occur.

I have also been criticized for erasing any comments that don’t fit my point of view. That is not exactly true. I generally try not to allow the blog to be bogged down in personal piss fights.  I’ve cancelled a number of  comments by folk who wholehearedly agree with a lot of my views but who scathingly cut down somebody who disagrees. I’ve allowed a number comments critical of me to stand. The ones that are purely uninformed (like the many that name call for alleged omissions that in fact have been covered in posts, the site, or taped interviews available on the net) I lose because they are misleading and unproductive.  There are plenty of boards that encourage that kind of communication.  I consider this an alternative forum for folks who find the other message boards a downer on anything positive they may have taken with them from Scientology.  I don’t think I can make my position on Scientology any clearer than in the 31 Factors, my other web page articles, the SP Times video interviews – and as supplamented above; except to the extent I update as I evolve.  There are quite a few people who generally agree with a lot of those viewpoints and they find this spot useful and re-assuring that others support them.  Many very connections have been made here that are developing into new vectors of pressure to end C of S abuses as well help people move on feeling empowered and re-energized after leaving the C of S.  And a lot of people are willing to look here to begin the education process outside the bubble – people who would or have discounted the anti-Scientology boards after reading a single thread because of the intolerance often communicated.

I continue to encourage people who have a personal beef with me to email me. I have answered everyone who has approached me with civility on specific matters they truly want resolved.

43 responses to “Anonymous UK follow up

  1. You might want to add that you had no idea that your blog would be so popular 🙂

    Any way keep doing what your doing because what ever your doing is causing a good effect.

  2. “I deplore and would never even consider practicing fair game, disconnection, SP declares, RPF and a plethora of other abusive tricks the current C of S practices.”

    Mark, glad to hear you say this. Believe it or not, a lot of us out here weren’t sure. For some of us, that’s the only “battle” we are fighting, and it sounds like, hopefully, we are on the same side.

    Susan Elliott

  3. My viewpoint is that purpose is above policy and tech. And I believe the purpose in sight is to stop the human rights abuses. I think most anons are with that purpose.

    Geir Isene

  4. Please don’t ever apologize for dissmenating the truth, Marty. Please get fighting the best way you know how.

  5. Thank you for responding a little bit better to the concerns that were put to you. You probably understand by now the reasons for our concerns and the reasons why we called you.

    We were a little confused as to your interpretation and memories regarding the call. The call was listened into by a number of people live, and a recording of the call also exists. The caller was polite and courteous to you, and he was 100% up-front and honest. He identified himself as anonymous, and asked you if you were free to talk. You replied yes, and consented to a chat.

    You tried to spin the episode as very sinister and intimidating in your previous blog posting – something which the call was definitely not. It reeked of LRH tech and was akin to the response of any church member. But hey, everyone makes mistakes.

    Your latest blog posting eases a lot of the concerns that this anon has, and it is a step in the right direction – but there are many steps to be climbed.

    We mean you no harm or distress Mark, but we had a lot of concerns and issues that needed to be addressed. We now hope that you have a better understanding of our motives and intentions.

    – An anonymous member in the UK (not a spokesperson/leader/follower of anyone)

  6. I appreciate you addressing this Marty.

  7. martyrathbun09

    I’m not sure I do have a better understanding of your motives and intentions quite frankly. The call was taken on the basis of one caller who refused to identify himself. Then you posted saying you listened in on the call. Now you state “a number of people” listened in on it; and that there is a recording of the call. Why don’t we end the gamesmanship. Shoot me a copy of the call and if the caller and I am satisfied it hasn’t been altered we’ll post it for all to listen to.

  8. This sort of ominous tone in ultimatum smacks of what you ostensibly want to rectify. It isn’t helping your cause to merely take on the trappings of that which you oppose. That is the trap, you have a big foot in it, and the other might be in your mouth. That call recording would settle where the other foot is.

    Don’t forget who WE are. There are lots of us that have been around this rodeo and we’ve emerged disabused of it.

  9. That’s for ‘AUK’ in case it isn’t clear. Jim

  10. Dear Mark,

    There is no ‘gamesmanship’ at play. Its simple, a group on a Skype conference call listened in to one of the participants speak with you. At least one of the participants recorded the call. I have not once implied that I was the only listener to said call.

    The recording will hopefully be made available in its entirety shortly.

  11. martyrathbun09

    Actually, the gamesmanship apparently hasn’t ended with you. You ignored my request to receive the recording first.

  12. Dear AUK,

    Isn’t it illegal to record someone’s phone conversations without their consent?

    Or do you work for GCHQ? NSA?

    Or maybe OSA?

  13. Frankly, I don’t see why it’s necessary for some Anonymous members to call Marty, interrogate him and then put it all over the internet.

    He has admitted that some of his past actions where pretty reprehensible, and he has invited those people that he has hurt to contact him privately to work stuff out. That’s where stuff like this needs to be worked out, in private, and I don’t think that other people need to concern themselves with this.

    Marty might still be a scientologist, but as far as I’m concerned everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I don’t see much in the scn tech, but I do know that others have found parts of it very useable. What matters is that we fight the abuse, and I think that both Marty and Anonymous are doing this in their own way.

    All these ‘fights’ only serve the purpose of the COS, so let’s just put our egos aside here and try to keep the bickering to a minimum 🙂

  14. Hello Mark.

    [audio src="" /]

    The actual recording sounds very different to the way that you portrayed it in your blog posting. Care to comment?

  15. Mark,

    As other have said, thank you for addressing this. This goes a long way towards putting my own doubts to rest. Perception goes a long way towards interpretation of events.

    After listening to the call I didn’t believe it to be really threatening so much as concerned about what your position might or might not be regarding CoS. I could see how you, being called out of the blue by someone might be seen as threatening.

    In any case, keep doing what you need to do. For those who believe this might be an OSA op, I seriously doubt it.

    Best Regards.

  16. martyrathbun09

    I agree that it isn’t quite how either you or I put it. In my view it was a lot worse than I characterized it. Your “a war has been declared on Scientology” pronunciamento, unwillingness to consider the difference between the religion and the Church of Miscavology, and your vow to “go after” me for believing that Scientology works when properly applied with good intentions bodes very badly for your bid to tap into the reform wave independent Scientologists have recently created.

  17. You know, Anonymous, a really important life skill is the ability to stand in another person’s shoes (metaphorically). If you were able to stand in MR’s shoes, having been attacked as he has been attacked in recent times, or feeling as he said like he has a target on his back, you might have felt defensive upon receiving that call – and interpret things from a defensive angle – too.

    The call is a non-issue, as far as I can see.

  18. Heather, you said that much better than I did.

  19. Personally I feel publishing someone’s personal communications broadly on the internet is a violation of a person’s privacy.

    To me it’s similar to the tactic that Miscavige used to silence Marty. In my opinion it is a police state tactic. Nothing more, nothing less.

    What ever point you were trying to make seems lost.

  20. Really? I do believe that Marty posted first saying that he had been threatened. AFAIK the only reason the tapes were put out there was to refute this allegation.

    What I was saying though is that I could understand how Marty could feel threatened when called by an unknown person. After listening to the tape I did not get that impression but I understand how he could.

  21. It doesn’t explain why the conversation was recorded in the first place, which as I noted earlier is illegal, unless the person is aware that they are being recorded or some law enforcement agency has a warrant to do so because of probable cause.

    I know that you weren’t personally involved in the recording or distribution of it. However I do not understand why you would defend such a flagrant violation of privacy. Besides there are other ways to refute Marty’s allegations, such as posting a rebuttal.

    Don’t get me wrong I support freedom of speech on the internet but I am opposed to anarchy, whether its perpetrated by the state or by a group posing as a self appointed abitrator of conscience.

  22. Fair enough.

  23. RJ, it’s not illegal everywhere. Some of those involved in the call were apparently in other countries.

  24. In agreement with Heather and you RJ.

  25. I’m glad that we’ve found some common ground Anonymous 🙂

    Heather I wasn’t aware that in some countries it was legal. Thanks for putting me straight 🙂

  26. Marty:

    We learn to pick our own battles. It sounds like some anon called you (how’d he get your cell phone number?) just to troll you, to get a reaction out of you, so he could blab it to his friends over on WhyWeProtest. In other words, your willingness to communicate & be sincere became some jerks instrument to cause strife & upset to you. If you hang out on WWP, you will see a common thread with many of these anons.. who have absolutely no concern or interest in anything related to abuses under Miscavige, rather a convenient cause with which to toy with for personal gratification, with absolutely no concern for the victims of Miscavige’s tyranny.
    I hope this childish, immature nonsense rained upon you by the UK anons is a valuable lesson in your continued journey to expose Miscavige’s abuses. Wishing you peace & the very best.

  27. Actually GS, you couldn’t be further from the truth. The call to Marty was not a troll call, but a genuine call to try and find out some answers regarding the concerns of many from the activist forums.

    The reason why many of us dedicate so many hours to fighting Scientology is because of the human rights abuses and the many crimes of the cult. The ‘lulz’ are just the icing on the cake should they occur.

    We had no intention of releasing the recording, but we felt it had to be release to refute the claims made by Marty – most notably “The Anonymous fellow was arrogant, rude, and threatening to me.”

    While it was a UK anon who made the first blog comment here, the caller (if you hadn’t have guessed) was from the US, as were the majority of the listeners.

  28. Hi Anon UK,
    I’m a freezoner and I appreciate what Marty’s doing. I’m also a member of anon sort of. I’m not anon but attend all the protests in London. If there is actually an Anon UK writing we may even have met. In general I’ve never had any response from London Anons other than we they are against the abuses, not the beliefs. You want to meet and chat let me know. 🙂 I’m in London.

  29. Marion Hernano

    For a Blog that is so “young”, it is extremely popular. In a few years, Marty’s Blog could be “the Blog” for Scientologists who don’t trust DM anymore.

    But Marty walks kinda on a thin line. Against him are anti-Scientologists and OSA/DM. Supportive of him are Scientologists who had bad experience with DM or his management. Neutral is much the broad public who doesn’t understand as SCN is that huge complex subject. He could feel lonely at times.

    Anonymous is just a balloon of hot noisy air. These guys are in no position to point the finger on anyone. (Have a look at their Encyclopedia Dramatica) We Scientologists studied Scientology for many years and they claim having understood it by reading some postings on message boards. Instead of Anonymous, they should call itself Ridiculous. That would describe them a lot better. They just try to intimidate. Don’t let them get to you. Call the police if they bother you and let them deal with the mob.

    Another subject: DM has no guts to declare Marty. Very interesting.


  30. Thanks, Marion. 😉


  31. From my readings of WWP and hearing the recent “interview” of Marty by Anonymous, I suspect some Anons have a different understanding as to what is and what is not included in the Tech.

    The policies abused by David Miscavige’s Church of Scientology such as Disconnection (canceled by LRH), Fair Game (canceled by LRH) and the RPF are not included with the Tech.

    LRH defined Standard Tech this way: “Standard technology is contained in HCOBs. It actually isn’t contained in any of the books of Dianetics and Scientology. Did you ever realize that? Modern technology is not contained in any of the hardcover books, or any of the other books. It’s contained in HCOBs, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins, and there they just run off one after the other. And one of these fine days I suppose we will roll up our sleeves and publish them all in consecutive order, all corrected so that nothing ever corrects anything in the bulletins and make it very, very easy. But we will have to put them probably in about seven or eight or ten different volumes, because there are quite a few of them. But that’s standard technology. They’re on white paper printed with red ink. If I haven’t signed it, it isn’t true. And that’s standard technology.” (excerpt from SHSBC434 The Classification Chart and Auditing 26 July 66)

  32. Marion,
    your generalities on Anonymous don’t fit with my reality.

    Anonymous, even with their little knowledge of Scientology, accomplished a lot.

    There are people who studied Scientology for many years and they act like blind robotic “linsten-don’t-look” people, following destructive church orders with total irresponsibility.

    It is really a shame that scientologists have not been able to put ethics in on their own church up to now.

    I admire Anonymous, because without much knowledge of Scientology, without money, without any profit they saw that something was wrong with the church and they decided to do something about it, they did it, and they accomplished a lot.

    They took responsibility to fight the abuses of the church, a responsibility that most scientologists failed to take.

    They raised their voices making general public aware of church abuses and crimes, did you? They gave to disconnected family members the hope that things will change and they will hug their parents or children one day.

    Every “true” scientologist should also thank Anonymous if one day we will have a church that no longer disconnect and suppress its own members, enforce abortions, harass ex members, lies and suppress free speech and destroy any free use of the Tech.

  33. martyrathbun09

    Antianon (purporting to be from Germany). I am sorry I nixed your proposed comment. I tried to email you to ask that you tone down the rhetoric so as not to start a new round of flash wars. Email address provided with your comment came back as undeliverable.

  34. I listened to the call as well, what was posted on the interweb. Unmistakably, the young man ‘James’ has taken up a cause, as young men do frequently. I hope I, as an older man, can help him with this one he’s chosen, that of destroying a religious philosophy, any one of the three he mentioned, Christianity, Islam or Scientology. It’s impossible. These are ideas, and unless you at the same time destroy all mens minds and capacities for thought and speculation of their origins, meanings, and life, then you’ll never destroy the ability to think.

    I’d stick with a doable cause, that of correcting abuses sounds like a good one.

    On the idea of religious philosophies, here’s a quote from philosopher William James, from his work, The Varieties of Religious Experience: “In the natural sciences and industrial arts it never occurs to any one to try and refute opinions by showing up their author’s neurotic constitution. Opinions here are invariably tested by logic and experiment, no matter what may be their author’s neurological type. It should be no otherwise with religious opinions.”

  35. Mostly Lurker,
    Marion, this is for you too. I understand both of you. Because these are two opposed viewpoints they have the potential to keep you apart. What is in common can bring you closer together and united I think it will work better to resolve the departures from what Marion envisions as ideal, and what Mostly Lurker is lurking around.

    It will serve mankind to have beings find common ground to improve life. That’s something of which mostly anonymous, and Scientologist alike would be proud.

  36. Binette Smithers

    Hi you guys,

    No offense to anybody, Marion, Anonymous, Heather and Jim Logan but as a Scientologist, I feel thankful to LRH for the tech but not to DM’s cult nor to Anonymous. I consider them rowdies on both sides. It was LRH who created and produced and the others live off his creation, products and fame.

    Anonymous are highly irresponsible and weird too. Remember the yucky guy who covered himself with cut off toe nails and hair? Downtone like hell.

    Scientologists will reform Scientology (or better lead it back to the kind and helpful movement that we had under LRH). This will be never archived by Anonymous.

    And DM might use Anonymous against Marty or others. We don’t know for sure who is behind that UK Anonymous call.

    Anonymous has many members and most can be bribed. My advice: don’t trust Anonymous. Who knows who runs them.

  37. I read the post above in which you appease Anonymous and other critics.

    Actually I am surprised that your resolve has crumbled so fast. You’ve already done an about face with regard to your assertions that you are a Scientologist who applies the tech standardly.

    In the above posting, you are throwing out many parts of the tech.

    If you have no intention of ever going back to the Church of Scientology, how can you call yourself a Scientologist?

    The Church is the vehicle that LRH worked so hard to create to carry on his work. Hell, there’s a whole encyclopedia of organizational policy that is considered Scientology technology for the third dynamic. I guess you’re discarding that now?

    The purpose of policy and Church organizations is because LRH found that Scientology is best delivered by Scientologists and that the way to have standard tech is to have on policy organizations. These organizations are clearly Church organizations as covered in numerous policy letters. But you have dumped this whole sector of the tech.

    You also say that you reject any sort of organized religion of any kind. There’s plenty of LRH policy and bulletins which show exactly how Scientology needs to be organized in order to deliver the highest technical quality possible. But this part of the tech is now being rejected by yourself. That’s a whole other part that you’ve thrown out the window.

    The subject of PTS/SP and what warrants disconnection is covered in numerous LRH bulletins, policy letters and taped lectures. Even SP declares which you reject are covered in LRH policy. Per your above statements you reject this whole section of the tech.

    You even reject the RPF, which was an LRH program intended to rehabilitate errant Sea Org members. You throw this program out the window as well.

    I’ve already seen the comments that you’ve dumped the idea of having sessions C/S’d, getting your PCs proper exams, videoing your sessions and getting your metering and TRs critiqued, etc. Plus you obviously don’t think you need preclear folders and proper session admin, FES in PT, etc.

    The fact that you’d like to destroy the Church (which LRH fully supported and dedicated his life to making work) shows that your motive/purpose is a destructive one.

    I can only guess that you think that if you can weaken the Church, you’ll be able to create an out-ethics environment where squirreling can be done without consequence or even censure.

    Be that as it may, please be honest that you are not a Scientologist as no Scientologist in the true meaning of the word would be so anti-LRH tech and policy.

    Here’s another concept for you. You seem to be fighting something. It may be the Church, it may be David Miscavige, it may be a combination. In any case What about the Third Party Law? Doesn’t that apply to this situation? If you found the third party, wouldn’t that resolve the conflict?

    But, resolving conflict is the furthest thing from your mind isn’t it?

  38. Marty, as I’m sure you realized at the time, most of the comments made in that conference were tongue in cheek.

    There has been serious interest in whether or not you intend to resurrect the cult after Miscavige’s departure, and you have to be aware of this, as you are no doubt aware of anonymous and why we STAY anonymous. You seemed to be trying to misunderstand, and when that post when up, it seemed rather obvious to me that you wanted to characterize it a certain way.

    None of us are concerned with your personal beliefs. We’ve talked to many other exes, some of whom are still in the FZ or what have you, and none have reacted as strangely as you. Most have helped any way they could.

    The message people are getting from your actions/reactions is that you’re really not behaving as someone who has willingly and voluntarily left the organization behind.

    Miscavige is a very bad apple, but he’s not the only thing wrong with Scientology, and it was not roses before he turned up (like the GO committing cold-blooded murder in NY).

    You’re also appearing less than willing to offer up information that would help dismantle the organization and save many people from degradation and misery. I’ve heard from many that this may be fear of implicating yourself, and if so, I say that’s cowardly. if you’re really repentant, spill the beans and save some lives, and if that means taking RL consequences for your actions…well, why not?

  39. martyrathbun09

    Mercu 10. For those who say I have any personal self preservation motive – I offer a little verse from the great Bo Diddley: ‘For ya cuse me, better look at yo self.’ When I copped to the document destruction I had no idea what the State Attorney’s reaction would be. My close friends – and those reporters – witnessed that – and that is good enough for me. Another verse comes to mind from Nas: ‘Ain’t ‘fraid a none you cowards but of my own stremf.’

  40. Wow, Marty. I was certainly expecting something evasive, but this adds a level of self-congratulatory smugness that beggars belief.

  41. Marty, I’ll apologize in advance for downloading and listening to the call. I believe it was an invasion of your privacy and the way you were treated was just wrong.

    Here’s my take on it; despite protestations to the contrary, the call was a troll. Yes, there are a number of people who have expressed concerns about some of the positions that you have expressed. There is also a fair amount of “tinfoil hat” speculation that you may have withheld key information about some of the issues you have publicly discussed.

    That being said, Anonymous has no leaders and no “central clearing committee” to decide who should and shouldn’t be a critic of abuses of the Church.

    It’s unfortunate that your well-meaning intention to give the caller the benefit of the doubt lead to your being manipulated by them. But that’s what trolls do.

    I thought you acquitted yourself quite well and offered levelheaded explanations where none should be required.

    While a reasonable person might consider the call to be borderline harassing, I think it would be a stretch to describe it as threatening. That’s just my take.

    Bottom line though, the group behind the call to you spoke for themselves and no one else, whether they were serious or not. Many more in the critics movement (Anon or otherwise) fully support your efforts in speaking out and will continue to do so.

  42. mercu10 wrote: “None of us are concerned with your personal beliefs.”

    It would be more accurate if you had written that “some” are concerned — overly concerned.

    I personally have no fight with the Anons protesting David Miscavige’s Church of Scientology.

    There are Anons, however, who persist with their message that no amount of Scientology is acceptable. Those are the anti-religious extremists in the midst of Anonymous. The anti-Scientologist extremists are hurting the good reputation of the social activists with their message of intolerance.

  43. qwerty, playing lip service to standard tech with all of the accompaniments you named is reduced to adhering to the letter of the law instead of realizing the spirit of the law.

    All of the organizations and staff in the world won’t matter if they are delivering an Overt Product.

    I have witnessed the church doing its worse to people with the tech: People intentionally being ARC broken or left in mystery, people being given down emotional curves instead of wins, people being restimulated without being destimulated, processes and grades and training begun and left incomplete, O/W write-ups given without end ruds, out-gradient ethics/justice handlings, people given ruinous wrong items and so forth.

    And the irony is that those things occurred with the help of the Case Supervisors and Examiners and the rest of the organization.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s