Scilonhunter vs Malcolm X and Scientology

Reference: comment from “JIM FYDE“ (under “Food For Thought” post of 27 August whose email address is Scilonhunter@———

I am using this fellow’s response to my post titled Food for Thought, in which I offered a quote from a Malcolm X speech for people to reflect on, to demonstrate the reactionary negative I intend to keep of this blog spot as free from as possible.

Scilonhunter did define Scilon for me. It means “Scientologist” or “Scientology”. I did not approve his lengthy follow up post full of justification and puns on Hubbard. I think this post will demonstrate why such taunting belongs somewhere else. And there are plenty places for it out there as sincere folk who have looked for truth about Scientology and the Church can attest.

Scilonhunter apparently did not think as the post suggested. He instead immediately reacted and tried to provoke and invalidate – with super literal and negative misidentification and dishonest context – to attack me, Malcolm X, and LRH.

First, he takes one sentence of the lengthy quote, repeats it, and said this “is the message of Malcolm X.” No, it clearly wasn’t – the entire passage communicated a thought, or I’d have just posted a sentence. Then, he equates that one sentence with “what is true for you” and equates that with the invalidation of “all history.” If Scilonhunter knew anything about history he would know that Malcolm probably studied more history than most of his modern contemporaries. Hubbard probably studied even more than that. His personal library was several hundred square feet full of fifteen foot high book shelves, filled with books that were obviously handled and read. Even uneducated I have read somewhere on the order of a couple hundred books on history in the past four years. Yet, Scilonhunter would have you all believe we all stand for erasing history.

Second, he takes another sentence from the Malcolm X quote equating it with “LRH’s ‘Chaos Merchant’ from ‘Scientology Zero’, then takes another small quotation from Malcolm X out of context and implies he was racist and he and LRH sought to segregate groups of people from the rest of society.

Then Scilonhunter takes a quote from Malcolm made sometime far earlier than the quote I originally provided, and said the earlier quote “seemed to violate his own advice given in the later quote I provided.”

Finally, he brings up the phone call that still unidentified people covertly recorded with me and posted. He pulls out selected quotes and asks me whether my post on the call is “still true for you”. I already posted that after hearing the call it was clear Anonymous UK and I both mischaracterized it.

Scilonhunter then said the call made it appear “you still enjoy claiming to be a victim…”

Which brings us to the more fundamental problem with the anonymous fringe, which I will for now on refer to as OMINOUS, those punks and trolls who are not in this for the purpose of helping people but instead for the juvenile purpose of causing trouble and upset. OMINOUS because it describes the tone of their discourse. Declaring “war” on a religion and stating a group of faceless and nameless people will come after someone if they continue to practice that religion, is fairly well classifiable as OMINOUS.

Note that I used anonymous in the lower case. There are a number of boards where the discourse on Scientology is pretty much all by folks protecting their anonymity. Those who remain anonymous because they are legitimately concerned about pressure, intimidation, and worse from the Church of Scientology have a good reason to remain anonymous. Those who derive some weird sense of empowerment and lack of responsibility that gives them license to upset others with OMINOUS communications for kicks are sick. They are also destructive to the extent their communication concentrates on the studied invalidation of people’s past to the point they consider themselves victims.

I am working in precisely the opposite direction. I spend the better part of my time assisting people to examine their past objectively, rehabilitate that which they got out of Scientology that they thought was of value, leave behind that which they found was negative, and move on with a clean slate and with some level of enhanced dignity. Part of that process includes application of the tech of handling suppression – mainly because most people have some form of direct Church related suppression impinging on their lives in the present. I feel like I’ve done something for the person when he or she no longer acts like a victim. I believe a lot of Church suppression is operable precisely because people act like victims: cowed, intimidated, and hiding.

I have investigated the mafia on the east coast and the Mexican mafia is South Texas. I learned first hand that a great deal of their power derives from what people have heard of them and their defensive reaction to that. Consequently, by mere threats and ominous behavior or communications criminals can lord over people, neighborhoods and cities. Ultimately, I have seen organized criminals scatter like cockroaches when someone – and then others – stands up to them.

Miscavige operates on a personal and institutional level exactly per mafia tech. It is all about intimidation, foreboding stagecrafting, greater numbers arranged for every confrontation, and threats implied and real. Ultimately, I believe Miscavige’s organized crime racket collapses when enough people stand up and are counted – and are showing their faces without fear. When I saw Jeff Hawkins and Steve Hall intimidated physically and mentally into silence at Int, I knew exactly what was going through Miscavige’s head: “they are scared shitless of me and would never come after me, even sometime down the road.” When I now see Jeff and Steve talking calmly and factually about Miscavige’s protection racket to the broad public, I know they are bringing the facade of inimidation down.

Steve and Jeff are not victims. Nor are the other twelve who have spoken out, faces in plain view. If they were, they wouldn’t have had the fortitude to stand and be counted and face evil. They may have felt like victims at one time or another, but by whatever means they rose above it and at are at cause. If Jeff or Steve were convinced they had wasted their entire adult lives because they were stupid and weak enough to be conned by a science fiction writer I don’t think they’d be standing in the light and throwing water on the wicked witch of the west. If they were subjected to the continual reinforcement that they were mere victims of low intelligence that state of mind might have ensued to some extent and maybe they never would have stood up. And we’d back to sophomoric tricks that alienate Scientologists and reinforce Miscavige’s hold on a lot of folk who don’t deserve to be treated the way they are.

I am taking no credit whatsoever for Jeff’s or Steve’s personal struggles to become cause. They both were taking huge, heroic action before I ever touched base with them. They just came to mind by way of example. And by their examples, and the other twelve, dozens more are coming out of the shadows of self-invalidation and contributing in myriad ways to bring the abuses to an end.

I have been told by anonymous people that I am being watched in the event I form a group. Well, I realized I am already part of a group. We don’t have a name. We don’t have titles. We don’t even have meetings or conference calls. We are relatively small, but are growing rapidly. We don’t walk in lock step by any means; each individual has his own understanding and thoughts about Scientology and Hubbard, politics, and life in general. I am referring to a very strong circle of friends who had at least one thing in common that diehard anti-Scientologists will apparently never understand. We all devoted decades of our lives for the sole purpose of helping people. We all did suppressive things along the way. But we also in our minds only did them because we somehow thought by doing them it aligned with the basic purpose we had signed up to attain: to help people. That, no one can ever take away.

When people want to spread venom to make everything about Scientology seems sinister and weird it tends to invalidate what we share. It is sort of like a theme Malcolm X talked about on many different occasions. He explained an operation that was run on black people for hundreds of years in America to make them think everything about Africa was weird, savage and backward. He said once people began to hate the tree, they began to hate the branches and leaves which were in fact themselves. And once that set in they were victims and were easily kept down. His primary purpose was to wake them up from that illusion. That is what we members of the unnamed group do for one another.

My blog site was created to forward that healing process.

The hate messages, the denigrating messages, the invalidative messages so much resemble the standard operating basis of Miscavige it is anti-therapeutic and goes against the purpose of the blog spot. I am not going to subject my friends to this. Anyone is perfectly free to peruse the blog and do whatever they want with the information on it. There are plenty of forums on which you can spit on it, dice it and slice it and invalidate it into the ground. Doesn’t mean everybody has to agree. The discussion that occurred the other day between several Anonymous folks and ex members of the Church who consider themselves real Scientologists was great and is encouraged.

47 responses to “Scilonhunter vs Malcolm X and Scientology

  1. As soon as I read the Malcolm X quote…. it was empowering. When I then read what Jim Fyde wrote my first thought was about people that are literal — about everything. Like dude, you don’t even get it! Marty, you explained the rest with such savvy.

    I’ve talked with Marty, and he’s the real deal. He is who he says he is. And he does what he says he does! After my first conversation with him I had a difficult time falling asleep… a little too keyed-out. And after that? I started to feel a feeling I haven’t felt in a long time: It’s time to have some fun cause I’ve got the world by the balls.

    Not alot of people I know feel that. And there’s a purpose in what Marty and others are doing and in the quest for true freedom from suppression and the effects of suppression.

    And that quest is sacred.

  2. Thats a great post Marty.

    To those who are doing it, stop the abuses and the intimidation. History has shown these methods don’t work, even for the abusers and intimidators, as in end they always succumb. Dave Miscavige will be included in this history.

  3. Totally agree. The signal to noise ratio is huge.
    Trying to handle the bullbait is pointless. Your efforts are hugely appreciated. Don’t get distracted.

  4. Hey Marty I love ya man!

    Just keep doing what you’re doing and don’t let OMNIBUS (meaning a collection of small minds) OMINOUS ( sharing the same brain cell) get ya down.

  5. Dear Marty,
    I am not nor never was a scientologist but with all of the recent developments my interest has focused on the battle being fought on the cofs. I lurk around the message boards to get my news and am pleased with the St Pete Times expose’. I understand where you’re coming from and applaud you on your efforts to rid the evil involved.
    I’m not happy about the way your words are being picked apart and disected to find hidden meaning along with your character. From reading what the exes say, they don’t trust you because of who you were back then. If you read their prior posts most will say that what they did when involved with the church they were ashamed of it and felt remorse over it. I find this sort of behavior two faced. I feel they want you to stand up and tell what you did just to see your shame and this is disturbing. I’m quite certain you have had plenty of time to reflect on your actions and know what you did wrong and to publicly put them out there at this time would be hazardous to your fight against the church. You have said that you would deal with the people who felt they were wronged by you in private and that should be enough. Lynch mobs are not effective in seeing justice done. I see people on the same side fighting eachother and it is so counter productive. Your actions will speak louder than your words and I truly hope you win this war for everyone involved. The people that have been hurt by the church regarding it’s policies and abuse are counting on you.
    Godspeed to you Marty.

  6. lol, you people are so mindfucked.

  7. Another Surfer


    This is YOUR blog, and you can edit it as you see fit. I am in full agreement with that! I’m an Ayn Rand fan, with all that it implies.

    If my post disappears from here, that’s cool. I will post it elsewhere and hope that it will be read.

    Just as you anticipate understanding for some of the actions you took as head of OSA that were out-tech and of those, some seemingly inhumane, you could perhaps extend that same spirit to a group of people that started with one agenda (in January, 2008 – just about 18 months ago), but many of whom realized quickly, after researching, that scientology itself (as an “applied philosophy”) might not be so objectionable, yet as applied by miscavige, was very objectionable.

    anonymous is an incredibly loosely knit “group” (if it can be called a “group” at all) and is comprised of people from many walks of life, many political views, and spans at the least (from what I have been able to discern), three generations.

    To paint them all this way: “Which brings us to the more fundamental problem with the anonymous fringe, which I will for now on refer to as OMINOUS, those punks and trolls who are not in this for the purpose of helping people but instead for the juvenile purpose of causing trouble and upset” is just as bad the behavior of which you accuse them. (Perhaps you meant “the fringe of anonymous?” It’s not clear, here.)

    As well, to imply that Mr. Fyde’s response was simply trying to cause trouble and upset (when at least this reader did not “get” that from his post, and from what I’ve read elsewhere, I’m not alone) is of interest to this avid reader, who quite frankly feels that you have SO much to offer, and actually very much enjoys reading your thoughts.

    Personally, I would like to know what you think about the words “wog” and “raw meat.” Wog is a derogative word in all cultures – with the exception of scientology. “Raw meat” implies – well… ugh.

    Now that you’ve been out for a bit, maybe you can imagine what “the rest of us” might feel about that. Anyway — both of these terms were used by l ron, and of course, most scientologists, to describe un-converted homo sapiens (versus homo novis – the new race that was defined by l ron himself).

    It reinforces the feeling that scientology regards the unconverted as raw product to be productized.

    It is chilling to those of us who have not become scientologists.

    And — I imagine you have used both of these words in your long career in scientology, which was much longer than (most of) anonymous’ 18 months of attention to scientology. If I’m wrong, I’m sure those who’ve known you will let me know.

    I’m truly sorry if you have received hate mail. I, for one, would not send hate mail. As far as invalidating, I wouldn’t seek to hurtfully “invalidate,” anyone, but I would absolutely question the tenets of a faith (using the word “faith,” because scientology is supposed to be a religion) that uses such derogatory language with regard to those who are not believers in it.

    And just as you are sure that most scientologists are good people who want to help, I am sure that most of us who are concerned about the cult that is organized scientology and who are actively protesting it are good people who want to help.

    This is also my experience with most anonymous that I have met and with whom I have had discourse.

    There will always be those individuals present in groups who exhibit idiocy and prejudiced behavior.

    I again would like to ask about the terms “wog” and “raw meat” in scientology. How would you characterize the use of these terms?


    Another Surfer (Jeanne)

  8. I would advice those, who want to get out of the mindfuck, to seek help from a professional psychologist, who is specialized in helping cult victims. There are good people out there, who can really help you get your thoughts and life straight.
    Sorry, but i somehow doubt that Marty is such a good counselor in this situation, because he , having been in the cult for so many years himself, lacks an objective outside perspective that is imho necessary in such situations.
    No offense, just trying to help.

  9. Such hatefulness as displayed by you and your ilk will never help one single person become un-“mindfucked”, if that is truly your purpose.

  10. I just ask readers to judge the individual posters, and not all of Anonymous, by what is written here.

    With tens of thousands of Anons involved in Project Chanology over time, as you would expect, there are moral and ethical people, fools, wise folk, trouble-makers and trolls in amongst that large group of people.

    We are Democrats and Republicans and none of the above. We are Christians and Muslims and Atheists and Wiccans and Jews and none of the above. We are school kids and grandparents and singles and families and everyone you can imagine. A few voices might be louder. But that doesn’t mean they represent us. They represent only themselves.

    Peace to you all.

  11. Yeah then you shouldn’t take “No offense” Anoyingnox when I say you’re a fuck up.

    Oh by the way why don’t you find that psychologist you recommended and see if he can find out why you’re so cognitively dissonant?

  12. Some critics like to trash L. Ron Hubbard in all possible ways, some Scientologists worship every idea Hubbard has hit upon, neither of these extremes are an healthy approach. My guiding principle is that how useful is the “data”? Is it of primary or secondary importance in my hierarchy of knowledge? Is there any other data from other sources, which elucidates the point better? The quote in the link below is data of primary importance!

  13. Hi Marty,

    As for a pun on LRH teachings (not on LRH) I did not create the term or use it on your blog until asked about it. I thought you knew what it meant having lurked other boards. And I thought the “pun” was obvious. I guess I was wrong.

    I was under the same impression when I felt that you where trying to threaten me by dangling my e-mail address (actually part of my e-mail address) for the entire internet to see. It is one of many that I have and was created to be disposable. My intent in response was not to “provoke and invalidate” that is actually what I thought you attempted to do to me.

    As for attacking Malcolm X, and LRH I still do not understand exactly what you are trying to say or what post your refer to. As for misquoting Malcolm X I made a point, I was not trying to make a good one, my sole intention in coming to post on your blog was to see how you handle other points of view.

    The information was all there (regarding Malcolm X) for all to see if I was correct or not. I left it for you and others to make your own decision if I was correct or not.

    If I misunderstood LRH’s Scientology Zero I thought it would be an ideal time for someone like you to offer me the correction. The question was :

    “Perhaps that is the same idea as LRH’s “Chaos Merchant” from “Scientology Zero” ?

    It was obviously worded as a question. With a question mark included.

    And the phone conversation is also available for anyone to listen and “see for themselves”. I thought it would be good to make people aware of that opportunity. From the “Food for Thought” post I assumed you would invite people to listen to it for themselves. Again I guess I was wrong. But if you are 100% correct am I encouraging people to go out of their way to find out that I am a liar ? I think most anyone would be able to see the points I made. Some may think my points are over the top, others will see them the same way I did.

    I did not say that Scientology stands for erasing history, or many other things that you suggest. You had a my e-mail address did you think of contacting me before you wrote this long article, did it cross your mind to ask for clarification ? I thought I was very honest in my deleted post.

    You wrote:
    “then takes another small quotation from Malcolm X out of context and implies he was racist and he and LRH sought to segregate groups of people from the rest of society.”
    (for Marty’s complete quote see his message above)

    NO I DID NOT suggest that he sought to segregate groups. I said:

    “IMO, this is the type of thought that segregates groups of people from the rest of society.”

    I thought that Malcolm X was doing something that was not productive to his cause. I do not think that was his goal.

    I would like to make one clarification. When I talked about playing victims, I stated specifically those who have been spokesmen for the Church of Scientology. I included you (Marty) among them. I was not speaking of the other three from the “Truth Rundown” article. Although in retrospect it would include Mike. (sorry Mike I didn’t mean to drag you into this) Or the 12 others who spoke out to the St. P Times.

    All 16 of you I do feel are victims, I was saying that you Marty in addition to being a victim in the past, are playing the victim when defending against comments such as mine.

    Marty, my original post was a test so I could come to an opinion about you, and how you handle people with apposing viewpoints, and criticism. You failed to make a good impression. I doubt that you are concerned with my opinions about you, I could care less what yours are about me. But I went to the source to see if my assumptions where wrong. My impression of you, that I thought was perhaps more negative than it needed to be was confirmed.

    I hope I answered with the civility required by you to post on your blog. It was an effort that I kept in mind because I can tell you don’t like it when people have emotions or thoughts you don’t approve of.

  14. Great post, Marty. Some day, some people will grow up and realize that life isn’t as black and white as they previously thought it to be.

  15. The reality is that what’s happening here must be Mr. Miscavige’s wet dream. His critics duking it out with one another and taking their focus off of him. Of course, it’s right at the moment that he’s been placed under perhaps the most unwelcome scrutiny of his term as leader of COS.

    This debate is largely irrelevant, truth be told. While most Anonymous would dispute LRH’s tech, it is NOT the reason they protest Scientology. Want proof? To this day, there have been zero, count ‘em, ZERO protests of the Freezone.

    The goal of Anonymous has been from day one to expose the abuses of the Church. Perhaps no one has been more effective in doing this than Marty. Arguably the SP Times article never would have been published had it not been for Marty’s participation.

    If Marty and other former members of the Church may have found it easier to speak out about the abuses they experienced because of the protests of Anonymous, that’s great. Maybe they didn’t. Whatever the case, they are NOT obliged to adhere to any standard set of beliefs.
    As the Church has done a pretty effective job of demonizing Anonymous to its members, perhaps it’s a good thing that there are critics NOT strictly aligned with their mindset. The diversity among critics makes it that more difficult to dismiss their commonality.

    While Marty’s post quotes Malcolm X, I’d like to invoke another great civil rights leader who had advice I believe is especially applicable here; “keep your eyes on the prize!”

  16. I would like both groups (Unnamed and Anonymous) to sort out their differences concentrate on the common goal of stopping the abuses.

    Maybe a manifesto that addresses all Anonymous concerns will help.

  17. I appreciate what you are doing Marty. One of the things I was thinking about today was the idea of “jury nullification” and I think it applies to what we are now seeing with Anonymous. Jury nullification is a phenomenon that any criminal lawyer is aware of. It happens when both the defendant and victim are “crazy”, the jury may believe the crime occurred but simply ignore the law and acquit because they just do not care.

    Are there two “crazy” groups out there: scientology and anonymous? If there are, the general public is simply going to dismiss each of them because it has no effect on their lives. I agree with you that the identifying the OMINOUS vein of anonymous is helpful in sorting this out.

  18. martyrathbun09

    Thanks for that quote.

  19. Thanks for the /b/lackup, Xenulover. I was going to post pretty much just that but you beat me to it.

  20. martyrathbun09

    I apologize for disclosing your email address. That was uncalled for – I guess part of that lingering dark side Miscavige was able to tap into for all of those years. Thank you for coming after me. I tend to communicate more truthfully and forcefully when I perceive I am under attack. My response to you has struck a chord with an interesting array of people who have reached out to DO something, people who were before that silently watching from the sidelines. Please realize, I am not being facetious.

  21. This concept of “invalidation”… I’m pretty sure it’s also David Miscavige’s rationale to surround himself with yes-people only: All those he got rid of were “invalidating” him, or “invalidating” Scientology’s growth to which he is dedicated.

    Not unlike L. Ron Hubbard’s Guardian’s Office was busy running around handling people “invalidating” Scientology (Paulette Cooper wasn’t the only one…) Thus “invalidation” concept in Scientology teachings is used as a free pass to avoid debating critically… Scientology teachings.

    Let’s see… I will try the following comment: “When Scientology ‘stats’ are not up to expectation, Scientology writings taught David Miscavige, or *whoever* is at the helm at any level, to find the ‘suppressive(s)’ in the vicinity causing the ‘downstat’ problem, and take care of him/her/them.” Am I engaging in “invalidation” by suggesting there is something wrong with Scientology teachings here?

    The thing is, this “invalidation” concept is not a valid argument in itself, but is just a way to dismiss quickly whatever someone says deemed inconvenient.

    The same way this comment of mine can be quickly dismissed, because poor me do not have a wall of books at home to which I could appeal to suggest that my insights are probably superior. And admittedly, my comment might also contain traces of “invalidation” re. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology teachings.

  22. From Marty (see in the comments above)

    I apologize for disclosing your email address. That was uncalled for – I guess part of that lingering dark side Miscavige was able to tap into for all of those years. Thank you for coming after me. I tend to communicate more truthfully and forcefully when I perceive I am under attack. My response to you has struck a chord with an interesting array of people who have reached out to DO something, people who were before that silently watching from the sidelines. Please realize, I am not being facetious.


    The e-mail address thing is not something you should worry about, or think of further.

    As for the deleted message, this is your blog and you have no obligation to host information that you don’t want. You may want to be careful about the information you ask people to disclose.

    If you have the same policy put forth by the CoS about that term I used that was coined by LRH that is related to what you consider a “pun”. I ask you to think about reconsidering it. It is a big deal to people and they shouldn’t have to spend years on the bridge before they discover that particular belief.

    I also hope that you explore the idea that perhaps there are more problems than just those DM was responsible for. ( it looks like you might already be doing that )


  23. Logical Mind

    Probably going to be flamed for this, but here goes.

    What’s the chances that you all know there’s something wrong with Scientology but cannot face it and Marty provides an intellectual scapegoat for your doubts?

  24. Logical Mind

    Censoring comments is intellectually dishonest whatever the context.

    While no one will say that removing comments like “fuzz u!” or “ship for brains” is dishonest, removing comments like Jim Fyde’s is.

    Controlling what people see is just what it says. Controlling. Allow the merits of each statement stand on their own.

    That’s the strength of free speech Marty. Good ideas will resonate with more then bad ones.

    Let me put it this way. Whenever someone makes a claim, whether it’s “Snake oil will prevent cancer.” or “Dianetics will improve your eyesight.” or “Psychiatry will cure your depression” evidence is required by the person making the claim.

    The intellectually honest thing to do is address the points and agree and re-evaluate your position or you disagree and you show why the statement is wrong.

  25. Marty, I just want to get a couple things out there that you may not know. When you and the others spoke out to the SP Times, the critics and Anonymous CHEERED. People showed up THAT DAY at protests with copies of the SP Times, and many made copies of the front page on giant picket signs. One sign was at least six feet tall, and this was brought to a protest in Los Angeles, during the Maiden Voyage event there.

    Even now, critics and Anonymous are “digging” your letter to TC’s lawyer, in order to draw awareness to it. Have you heard of “harpoons”? That’s when a story or article is promoted over the internet by the critics and Anonymous, via emails and internet postings. Trust me, your contributions have been harpooned all over the place (this is a good thing). Anonymous is big on “staying on target” and if something helps the cause, it will be promoted.

    There is a lot more to Anonymous, including some fun and hilarity that have kept me laughing for the last 18 months. There are some jerks, too. Someday there will be college classes about the movement, because aspects of it are fascinating. The way people come together around the world, the way things get done, the culture, the way every possible aspect of computers and the internet are used to maximum effect (Youtube, harpoons, message boards, leaks uploaded and downloaded, relevant news stories webbed and copied and webbed again). Stories are shared around the world. Again, an English mother came to Los Angeles in the Spring to try to see her Sea Org daughter, and people around the world watched and cried with her. She recently went to a protest in Manchester, England, and we all cried again when she was recorded there giving a message to her daughter.

    The other side is that Anonymous doesn’t like it when someone tries to be a leader, and wo be to the person who makes a claim that can’t be substantiated with pictures and documents (pics and docs). Also, “Anonymous does not forgive” if you do something stupid, unless, as I have noticed, if you apologize sincerely. Funny enough, that actually works.

    This may be more than you want to know, but on the other hand, it is pretty darned intersting, in my opinion. Lately I have been getting a stream of Youtube videos sent to me pertaining the injustices in Iraq, which some Anonymous members have moved on to.

    Last story about Anonymous and the use of the internet…You may have heard of critic named Angy Gay Pope (AGP). At a protest in front of Int Base in Hemet, AGP was able to get some excellent photos of the spikes, motion detectors, and lights on the fences there. He posted these on the internet, and critics from all over analyzed what all the wires and devices were that were hanging from the fences, including some exes who had lived there, and helped build the fences. From there, these photos were sent to news sources, and have appeared on picket signs all over the world. Other protesters came from all over (as far as Sweden) to take part in protests there, and to see the conditions for themselves. Funnily though, AGP isn’t necessarly a popular critic with Anonymous for many reasons, but still his contributions are appreciated.

    So, the point is, your contributions are definitely appreciated, too, and now that you have made it clear that you are against the abuses that all the critics are against, I believe we have a lot of common ground. I urge you not to pass judgement on the “group” of critics, without getting to know more of the people involved, and what has been going on for the last 18 months, and longer.

    Susan Elliott

  26. martyrathbun09

    When asked what I learned from Miscavige over all those years, I have answered “intolerance.” If there is one thing I have been working on – and you can see from some of my reactions, it has taken a conscious effort – for four years now is the virtue of tolerance. Thanks for the data – I am not feigning internet and computer illiteracy.

  27. That’s true of any religion.

    Others on the outside of course are going to see that there may be something wrong with it maybe objectively or due to their own bias, while adherents see nothing wrong even if there may be and are therefore considered “true believers”.

    Here you are dealing with matters of conscience and subjective perception.

    People have differing views of things that you may not think are “logical”. Yet to them they are.

    Scientology in my view isn’t perfect but I’ve personally experience beneficial results from its correct application and I’m sure Marty has as well as well as others who defend the subject have.

    These benefits are personal and subjective.

    Also as a trained auditor I’ve seen others achieve gains (as we call them) by the correct application of the subject. Though these could be considered an objective perception of these gains. They are limited to those persons affiliated to that individual and the person himself.

    In other words Scientology like any religion is a personal thing.

    You of course have the right to say what ever you want about the subject and the founder but I have every right to disagree with you.

  28. Well, do you feel you view your faith through rose coloured glasses?

    Do you think your bias directly affects how you percieve events and how you “think” about what has happened to you?

    For example, let’s say you have a throbbing leg. It just built up and you use some sort scientology nerve assist. The pain goes away.

    Do you immediately attribute it to Scientology? Or did something happen that you simply did not percieve.

  29. You are a poopy pants. Yes, yes you are. A POOPY PANTS!

  30. Rhill,
    The snippet of material you’ve read on statistics and suppression isn’t enough to get the full story. There are any number of places to get the full data. You sound interweb savvy so have a boo and I’m sure you can find it.

    But that’s not my point in responding here. There are two specific things to be ‘shunned’ in Dianetic and Scientology counselling and as an extrapolation they are considered in discourse outside of a counselling session: invalidation of the person being counselled and evaluation of what he’s saying or experiencing.

    The first is probably clear to you. If you told me you wanted to climb the Matterhorn as a purpose and I said ‘are you wacked?’

    The second is where I would tell you a better purpose would be to read a book. Or, as a contrast to say psychoanalysis, I then interpreted this goal to mean something like you’re a person with a small head and want to show everybody, includint the girl that wouldn’t let you take her to the prom that you are strong and masculine. I’m then telling you what is meant by it instead of you yourself determining that. This is a perfect example of how, in counselling and extended to life, it is a principle in Scientology that what is true for you is what you yourself have observed to be true. Not by my evaluation of its truth or validity.

    These two points are important in the interchanges of living beings. You can see how they would be and when you are either invalidated or had your thoughts and ideas and life evaluated, it is very pleasant.


  31. The last phrase should have an ‘isn’t very pleasant’.

  32. As an intellectually valid request to your epithet, what are the chances that you would accept there being something right in Scientology, in the absence of peer review. That is, you, yourself, on your own, postulating that there might be something in the vast subject that might do something for somebody (maybe even you) that is as valid and real as the manifestation of the pressure of the finger tips on the keys as you type an answer. In order for you to do that though, you’d have to be willing to actually do some sort of process from the array of them. Try Self-Analysis.

    This is something you, as a scientist, with yourself in the lab, can perform and if you follow the protocols in the book, you’ll be able to see for yourself. If you want to get a peer review after that, that’s up to you. At the very least, it will go from a purely abstract intellectual exercise to something you can experience.

  33. It’s great seeing someone who doesn’t want all scientologists painted like DM, but doesn’t mind painting all of Anonymous with the same brush.

  34. martyrathbun09

    You don’t get into metaphysical bullshit. You keep using nerve assists until some day maybe when the pain doesn’t go away.

  35. MARC Abian :-

    This debate is largely irrelevant, truth be told. While most Anonymous would dispute LRH’s tech, it is NOT the reason they protest Scientology. Want proof? To this day, there have been zero, count ‘em, ZERO protests of the Freezone.

    I must first state that I’m aligned with the FZ, Marty and Anons.

    You probably couldn’t find an FZ place to
    protest at. 🙂

    However on the net, there is, from best I can see, a few individuals who protest the FZ with enormous hostility.

    I have been subject to that, and on the original was kicked out many times. I had some influential anon contacts that got me back in once or twice. All the moderators there were rabidly antago to FZers. The final end was when I was banished to the thunderdrome and one mod, said if he posts anything he’ll be kicked out, while another mod was saying if I refused to answer questions, i’d be kicked out.

    Got kicked out. 🙂

    The goal of Anonymous has been from day one to expose the abuses of the Church. Perhaps no one has been more effective in doing this than Marty. Arguably the SP Times article never would have been published had it not been for Marty’s participation.
    I agree. I must say that as a full time protester, the anons on the street have been very supportive of me as an FZer.

    They, and here’s a new concept, have combined “Joking and degrading” with “Spirit of play.” A natural pairing I’d say. 🙂

  36. Terril park,

    Well, I would disagree, I’m sure Anonymous could find Freezone locations to protest.

    I would certainly distinguish between an IRL protest and online disagreement with LRH Tech.

    I have issues with the Tech, but wouldn’t protest it. Just like I would never protest the beliefs of ANY religion. If it works for you, that’s terrific.

    It’s the abuses that I want to end.

    Most Anons that I’ve met and talked to (and I’ve talked to quite a few of them) would agree with this position. That’s certainly the dominant consensus on WWP.

    There’s a vocal minority that you and Marty have run into and my point would be that they don’t speak for the rest of us. That simple.

  37. “The reality is that what’s happening here must be Mr. Miscavige’s wet dream. His critics duking it out with one another and taking their focus off of him. Of course, it’s right at the moment that he’s been placed under perhaps the most unwelcome scrutiny of his term as leader of COS.”

    I thought that initially, but I’m seeing some real communication come out of this. Now, I tend to think of this as a natural process of early communication, and the thrashing out of differences, concerns and identification of commonalities.

    If DM “shot his wad” earlier this week when reading this, then he did so prematurely.

  38. I would just add that when EO closed down, there was a lot of stuff going down that shouldn’t have been. WWP is definitely better modded these days. I would suggest reapplying for an account. If you have a problem, email me, they have my address here.

  39. Thanks Marc Abian,
    I do have an active account on WWP, and thanks for the offer. 🙂

  40. Logical Mind

    I had a long written out explanation, but instead of touching upon your topic and then the next one you have, I’ll just bundle it.

    Saves us all time.

  41. I just brought the Scientology “stats” as *one* example to illustrate that many Scientology doctrines lead to systemic abuse. This was true before Miscavige, and I expect it to be true after Miscavige. Over time, many have tried to show this to Scientology adherents, and often this is countered as being “invalidation,” rather than to address the specifics. (More accurately, Scientology adherents no longer in good standing with Scientology, Inc. are more likely to resort to “invalidation” as rebuttal; most good standings members faithfully stick to accuse those who express criticism as “religious bigots” though.)

  42. martyrathbun09

    Rhill. Who doesn’t operate on statistics of some sort? I saw people used statistic management effectively and saw people use it suppressively. Reviewing my own history I don’t see statistics had one thing or the other to do with crazy stuff I got myself involved with.

  43. Logical Mind,

    When Scientology processing is delivered correctly, it extroverts the person’s attention toward objective reality.

    Even an Ayn Rand reading Objectivist is only fooling himself about his admiration of objective reality if subjective feelings and biases obstruct him from perceiving objective reality clearly.

    L. Ron Hubbard took it a step further than Ayn Rand by developing objective processes to orient people to objective reality in present time. Then the subjective processes locate and remove the obstructions to one’s ability to observe objectively.

  44. “Who doesn’t operate on statistics of some sort”

    I would say most don’t use a “stats” doctrine to dictate how human beings should interact with each others.

    “A GOOD MANAGER IGNORES RUMOR AND ONLY ACTS ON STATISTICS … Our whole statistic system exists to end excessive discipline of valuable staff members. To me a staff member whose stats are up can do no wrong.” — L. Ron Hubbard.

    When you woke-up to the Church of Scientology’s culture of abuse and how you became a participant in it, your stats went down, you lost your value. As per Scientology teachings.

    Before David Miscavige, the organization was riddled by “rogue” elements, at the root of all what was wrong with the Church of Scientology, we are told. Then history repeats itself: You are here telling people that the organization is run by a rogue element named David Miscavige. To me, and I would say many others in the “wog” world, these are not “rogue” elements, they are the natural outcome of applying religiously Scientology teachings, and this is supported by the continuous track record of abuses over decades since Scientology, Inc. came into existence.

    I’m just a normal Joe that web stuff. But there are great minds who have peeled , scrutinized, analyzed Scientology teachings. I know that in Scientology, dissent is frowned upon (hence “invalidation,” “suppressive” concepts) but I think they deserve to be read as much as this Nicholas Christakis which you quoted in another post.

  45. Rhill,
    The above datum you’ve quoted, seems to me to be a valid point. It obviates ‘opinion’ and makes a clear view for someone who wants to manage.

    In the absence of a clear indicator of one’s production, a statistic, then all manner of personal idiosyncrasies, rumors, and such can come into play.

    It seems to me that any successful activity would have to have an indicator of its success and a production statistic appears to be sound.

    What would you use to manage with?

  46. “What would you use to manage with?”

    There is no single answer to such a broad question. It all depends. Depends on what is to be “managed,” depends whether I would agree with however “successful activity” is defined. Depends if I would agree that whatever is to be “managed” needs management in the first place. And once the specifics are laid out, I would probably say that whatever measurement is used, it always need to be assessed according to the context, and balanced with other factors. Looking for a single answer for such a question is already a problem.

    I wish you asked me what I wouldn’t use though, that’s easier to answer. I would *not* use principles which result is to depersonalize people, which reduce people to mere sequence of numbers, where people’s value is only measured in how their “stats” rank with the “stats” of their preview week. This is a sure way to create an environment were abuses thrive, and arbitraries run wild. One’s failure to raise what is deemed “successful activity” become a threat to someone else’s own “successful activity,” and thus a culture of “stats” for the sake of “stats” emerge: pressure to perform, scapegoats, time-off forbidden, turning people against each others, constant sense of emergency, lying/deceit acceptable if what is deemed “successful activity” is furthered, etc. I could go on. Not pretty stuff in the end.

  47. RHill, sure statistical management is abused just like any other data can be.

    This doesn’t mean these data are wrong.

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