Monthly Archives: January 2014

Monique Rathbun vs. David Miscavige by the numbers

There have been published reports that seventeen lawyers have appeared in the Comal County courtroom on the Scientology side of the aisle in the case of Monique Rathbun vs. David Miscavige, et al.  In fact, twenty-two lawyers have made official appearances and/or physical appearances in the case for Scientology Inc.

Many of those lawyers have made multiple flights to Comal County from New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., or driven from Dallas, Austin and San Antonio to attend hearings on behalf of Miscavige and his co-defendants.

For some perspective consider these facts:

  1. The Scientology lawyer roster was roughly half of that for the nine-year, $30,000,000+ Lisa McPherson litigation. That litigation involved upwards of a half dozen lawsuits.  David Miscavige on many occasions lamented that McPherson constituted the greatest public relations disaster in Scientology’s history (including that created by 11 top Scientology officials being jailed for conducting the largest domestic espionage campaign in history against the United States government). Principal lawyers in the McPherson matter are visibly directing the big name lawyers recruited by Scientology Inc. to front in Rathbun vs. Miscavige.
  2. The Rathbun v. Miscavige Scientology lawyer roster is about double that employed to deal with United States v Hubbard (the aforementioned government espionage case).  That litigation involved at least a dozen lawsuits. Principal lawyers in the U.S. v Hubbard matter are visibly directing the big name lawyers recruited by Scientology Inc. to front in Rathbun vs. Miscavige.
  3. Scientology and Miscavige employed roughly half the number of lawyers he has so far in Rathbun v Miscavige during the take down by over-litigation and intimidation against the largest and most feared agency of the United States government, the Internal Revenue Service. That matter included more than twenty-two hundred lawsuits. Principal lawyers in the Scientology Inc. v IRS matter are visibly directing the big name lawyers recruited by Scientology Inc. to front in Rathbun vs. Miscavige.

I have come to learn through life experience that oftentimes the magnitude of force one musters to intimidate and overwhelm can serve as a fairly accurate measuring stick of the degree of the organizer’s cowardice.

 

Cult Leader Personalities

The following is a list of personality characteristics of authoritarian personalities (which according to the article in which the list appears, most cult leaders display) from  the book “Captive Hearts, Captive Minds” by Madeleine Landau Tobias and Janja Lalich.

Traditional elements of authoritarian personalities include the following: 

-the tendency to hierarchy 

-the drive for power (and wealth) 

-hostility, hatred, prejudice 

– superficial judgments of people and events 

-a one-sided scale of values favoring the one in power 

-interpreting kindness as weakness 

-the tendency to use people and see others as inferior 

-a sadistic-masochistic tendency 

-incapability of being ultimately satisfied 

-paranoia 

The context for the list can be found at this link, Cult leader sociopathy.

Judge to Scientology…

Here is a balanced and accurate piece of journalism on yesterday’s proceedings in Monique Rathbun vs. David Miscavige, et al.:  The San Antonio Express News.

Scientology’s Power Doctrine

From Chapter 12, Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior:

The seventh lesson was explained and memorialized by L. Ron Hubbard in a thirteen-page policy letter entitled “The Responsibilities of Leaders.” It begins with a several-page essay summarizing the rise and fall of nineteenth-century South American liberator Simon Bolivar. Hubbard speaks of Bolivar in glowing terms: brave, dashing, and cunning.  He recounts how one of Bolivar’s many mistresses, Manuela Saenz, stood above all the rest. Hubbard then analyzes Bolivar’s failure to empower Saenz to use any means she deemed necessary to keep his enemies at bay, and how Saenz failed to demand or utilize such power. That, per Hubbard, was the reason that Bolivar and Saenz wound up dying in a ditch, penniless.

Among other things, Hubbard criticizes Saenz for the following faults:

…she never collected or forged or stole any document to bring down enemies…

…she never used a penny to buy a quick knife or even a solid piece of evidence…

…she was not ruthless enough to make up for his lack of ruthlessness…

…she never handed over any daughter of a family clamoring against her to Negro troops and then said, “Which over-verbal family is next?”

And so Bolivar and Saenz became victims of the petty jealousies and shortcomings of the mere mortals who surrounded the romantic couple. The policy letter concludes with three pages of Hubbard’s seven points about power to be learned from Bolivar’s life. They are offered as points one can only fully grasp if one has already learned well the six lessons of a veteran Sea Organization member, described earlier.  Those seven points about power deserve some attention here, for three reasons.

One is that Hubbard and his wife wound up living the Bolivar story Ron recounted as we shall see. Two, while adherence to the policy contributed to great strides for Scientology expansion, in Hubbard’s waning years the policy’s lessons had a backfire effect. Third, this one single writing would become the bible of his successors.  It would take precedence over all other of the thousands of pages of policy letters Hubbard had issued.

Here are Hubbard’s seven points concerning power:

One: …if you lead, you must either let them (those you lead) get on with it or lead them on with it actively.

Two: When the game or show is over, there must be a new game or a new show.  And if there isn’t, somebody else is jolly well going to start one, and if you won’t let anyone do it, the game will become getting you.

Three: If you have power, use it or delegate it or you sure won’t have it long.

Four: When you have people, use them or they will soon become most unhappy and you won’t have them anymore.

All very rational and sage so far.  But the final three points are a bit more complicated.

Five: When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police…Abandoning power utterly is dangerous indeed.

Then we graduate up to intrigue and believing that the ends must necessarily justify the means in dealing with any attempt to lessen a power.

Six: When you’re close to power get some delegated to you, enough to do your job and protect yourself and your interests, for you can be shot, fellow, shot, as the position near power is delicious but dangerous, dangerous always, open to the taunts of any enemy of the power who dare not boot the power but can boot you.  So to live at all in the shadow or employ of a power, you must yourself gather and USE enough power to hold your own – without just nattering (carpingly criticize) to the power to “kill Pete,” in straightforward or more suppressive veiled ways to him, as these wreck the power that supports yours.  He doesn’t have to know all the bad news, and if he’s a power really, he won’t ask all the time, “What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?”  And if you are clever, you never let it be thought HE killed them – that weakens you and also hurts the power source.  “Well, boss, about those dead bodies, nobody will suppose you did it.  She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me.”  “Well,” he’ll say if he really is a power, “why are you bothering me with it if it’s done and you did it. Where’s my blue ink?”  Or “Skipper, three shore patrolmen will be along soon with your cook, Dober, and they’ll want to tell you he beat up Simson?”  “Who’s Simson?”  “He’s a clerk in the enemy office downtown.”  “Good. When they’ve done it, take Dober down to the dispensary for any treatment he needs.  Oh yes.  Raise his pay.”  Or “Sir, could I have the power to sign divisional orders?”  “Sure.”

And when one can develop that attitude and park one’s conscience when it comes to dealing with the “enemy” of the power one serves and from whom one derives his own power, the final point can be performed without a second thought.

Seven: And lastly and most important, for we all aren’t on the stage with our names in lights, always push power in the direction of anyone on whose power you depend.  It may be more money for the power or more ease or a snarling defense of the power to a critic or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark or the glorious blaze of the whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise.

During my two years handling Hubbard’s communications to and from his messengers at the international Scientology headquarters, Hubbard withdrew further and further from the church.  I would soon learn the reason why, and play a central role in attempting to combat that reason.  As competing factions within the by-then sprawling international Scientology network vied for power in the larger-than-life vacuum left by Ron, he who adhered most exclusively and closely to the seven points of power from The Responsibilities of Leaders would emerge with all the power.

Wanted: Scientology Evidence

1.   Print editions of any Freedom magazines published since summer 2009 to the present.

2.  Any first hand witness to the following youtube channel and the video of our home – or any similar ones – depicted in the screen grab below:

115Bayshore

3.  Evidence of David Miscavige, Religious Technology Center (RTC), Church of Scientology International (CSI), and any of their agents ordering or executing the destruction of evidence since July 2013.

If you have access to such evidence, please contact me at rathbunmark@yahoo.com.

Scientology Ethics Deconstructed

For those who don’t frequent Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker, there is an excellent series running on the scientology ethics system.  It is a series of interviews with Jefferson Hawkins.  Jeff deconstructs the system and exposes it as more of a means of control than an attempt to upgrade personal and organizational integrity.  I suggest you read the interview segments in order as Jeff analyzes the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book from beginning to end.

1.        Opening interview.

2.       The Optimum Solution.

3.       Honesty.

4.      Statistics.

5.     Conditions.

6.     Suppressive Persons.

7.     PTSness.

8.    Knowledge Reports – institutionalized snitching.

9.    High crimes and misdemeanors – the justice code.

10.  Justice proceedings.

 

Scientology: Witnessing and Prohibiting

The following is an excerpt from chapter one of A Course in Graduating From Scientology.

At its core scientology revolves around the auditing process.  The word auditing comes from the Latin root audire which means to listen, or to listen and compute.  The entire purpose of a scientology auditor is to provide an environment in which an individual may look at his or her life in such an honest fashion that that which is viewed no longer has a hold on that person.  Scientology postulates that ‘charge’ (mental energy) ‘erases’ through that process.  One could just as easily consider that one’s witnessed experience objectifies.  That is, one’s experience moves from the subjective (part of, and affecting oneself) to the objective.  In that construct, matters of the mind that tend to drive one on an automatic basis are no longer hidden and automatic.  Objectivized energy of the mind is no more capable of driving you than any other person or idea that you can clearly see as apart from yourself.  Given a workable methodology for pursuing such objectifying, your own choice in the matter of what to do, what to choose, what to pursue and what to react to can be restored to you.  Each time one honestly witnesses in this wise one recognizes a little more about the true nature of self and its relationship with matter, energy, space, time and life.  Witnessing is what led the Buddha – and many other sages – toward recognizing the impermanent nature of matter, energy, space, time, and life forms.

It is my view that any time devoted to honestly viewing the content of your mind, your experience, what arises in consciousness, is progress in moving the external world back out of one’s head where it no longer drives you.  That is so provided one is permitted to do so on a self-determined basis and to cease once one’s  attic is cleared to one’s own satisfaction.  Hubbard once described the mechanics of auditing in this very wise in the book Evolution of a Science.

There used to be a saying in scientology, ‘any auditing is better than no auditing.’  No matter what processes, what grades, what levels attained or not, every hour spent objectivizing the subjective was net gain.  As we shall see, all that radically changed along the development path.  At the upper reaches of the scientology way one is indoctrinated to believe that viewing certain aspects of the mind is a potentially deadly activity – not only possibly killing one today but keeping one comatose and crippled for millennia to come.  Because of indoctrinations like this and because there is so much emphasis included in scientology about the attainment of static grades and levels, and purported permanent states of consciousness,  the failure to attain very high on the Scientology Bridge (the chart of progressive grades and levels of spiritual attainment) tends to serve to invalidate the work a person did execute in witnessing his or her own mind.

Scientology contains so much dogma asserting superiority to and difference from all other forms of witnessing that people tend to lose sight that they spent a tremendous amount of time and effort doing just that, witnessing.  I use the term ‘witnessing’ because it is a generic term that captures what is at the heart of all effective psychotherapeutic and spiritual practices.  Most forms of meditation (Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, etc.), most forms of psychotherapy, and Scientology too, create a desirable effect to the extent the individual applying it honestly views what arises within her own consciousness.

NOTE: To those who have already completed venture one, you’ll notice this passage has been revised.  As I learn from you all I find myself going back and adding to and revising.  I will continue to post significantly revised passages like the above as previews for blog readers, and a heads up to you that changes were made.