Ruthless

 

 

I did not plan on reading Ron Miscavige’s book.  Since Ron spent dozens of hours on the phone with me after leaving Scientology to share his observations and thoughts about his experience I did not think there was anything else to be learned from him. Then after his first sensational press junket, his publisher St Martins reached out to me as follows:

 

Hi Marty,

 

The only book to examine the origins of Scientology’s current leader, Ruthless: My Son David Miscavige, and Me (published by St. Martin’s Press on May 3, 2016) is the revealing story of David Miscavige’s childhood and his path to the head seat of the Church of Scientology as seen through the eyes of his father, Ron Miscavige.

 

If you are interested in receiving a copy of the book to share with your readers, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

 

Thanks,

Christine

Christine Catarino | Associate Director, Marketing
ST. MARTIN’S PRESS | 175 Fifth Ave, 15th Fl., New York, NY 10010

 

So, I indulged Ms. Catarino and read the book.  I also complied with her request that I share the book with my readers. Here is my review:

It is ironic that St. Martin’s Press reached out to me to publish a review of its much-publicized book Ruthless by Ron Miscavige with Dan Koon. I had offered to conduct a free-of-charge fact-check on the manuscript but Ron and St. Martin’s ignored it. As Ron was well aware, I was in a particularly authoritative position to spot errors. I spent more than two decades working closely with Ron’s son David, the target of the book. Thus, I had more first-hand experience with him than anyone who has left the Church of Scientology he leads.  My motivation in offering the fact-check was to protect Ron from publishing defamations against his own son, and the deleterious emotional and spiritual effects that would ultimately have upon Ron himself.

After Ron left the Church in 2012 I spent dozens of hours helping him to better understand David.  He had never been in a position to know much about what David did most of his days. He had a lot of questions about stories he was being told by disgruntled former members. I had a lot of answers. None of them appeared in Ruthless. Instead, Ron and Dan apparently favored tortured and recycled opinions and ‘facts’ attributed to others or no one at all.

Upon leaving the church, Ron told me of much peer pressure he received from the scientology disaffected crowd to spill the beans on his son. Ron wanted my opinion. I told him that for a father to write a scandalous tell-all (what the media and anti-scientologists wanted to see and the only thing an American publisher would pay for) would be ill-advised for several reasons. First, Ron had absolutely zero first-hand knowledge about the lurid rumor mill material the anti-scientologists and media yearned for. Second, I questioned the moral propriety of a father writing an expose’ on his son; regardless of who the father and son may be. Third, I noted that a father-son expose’ would contribute nothing to intelligent public discussion on scientology; in fact, it could only detract from it. Ron expressed agreement with my reasoning on the several occasions we spoke about the subject.

      Ron informed me during our 2012 and 2013 discussions that he had two critical objectives in life.  One was to receive some retirement compensation from the church of scientology. He told me he had sought counsel with the then go-to anti-Scientology lawyer and had been advised he had no legal basis to make such a demand or claim. I suggested that Ron phone directly to his son David to seek financial help.  The second target Ron disclosed was to remain connected with his scientologist and non-scientologist family irrespective of the financial demands he planned to pursue.  I told Ron that that was simple. Just don’t cavort with people who are actively attacking scientology.  I said that given the fact that the church of scientology considered that I was one of the more influential anti-scientologists, he might even want to consider not communicating with me so often and so openly.  I advised that to flaunt his anti-scientology allegiances would be tantamount to disconnecting from his scientologists family. Apparently, he took my advice on both scores.  At least until he achieved the objective of obtaining a healthy retirement fund from David.

Ron then drifted deeper into the anti-scientology camp and I did not hear from him for a couple of years.

Having now read Ruthless I have a better sense why Ron and St. Martin’s declined my volunteerism. By the time I handed over my work product, there would not have been a book. I do not believe I have ever read a book more chock-full of hearsay, double hearsay, and anonymous hearsay than this one. A remarkable feat for an alleged first-hand account by a father about his son. The majority of sources for Ron’s published rumors leave a lot to be desired in terms of accurate memory, truthfulness and objectivity toward Ron’s son. For purposes of the review I’ll save readers the catalogue – but it is a lengthy one.

Absent the scandalous material Ron was told about his son, there is no material upon which to hang the rest of the book, the slant of its narrative and its message. Take all the passages prefaced with “he told me…”, “she said…”, “I heard…”, “others have claimed…”, “people have told me”, etc. out of the book and all that would be left is a pathetic self-apologia. It would be a hundred pages or more of justifying why Ron as David’s father bears no responsibility for how his son turned out. Ron repeatedly trashes his deceased wife to create an alibi for himself while assigning David’s first negative trait (his son allegedly complains too much) to her.  Ron based that on an embarrassing and cowardly venting about his former wife’s alleged continuous fault-finding with Ron.

Nowhere does Ron even attempt to reconcile that indictment of David’s mother with his repeated references to her advising that David not be thrown headlong into scientology as Ron had insisted. That is important because David’s second unkindly trait (aggressiveness) according to Ron is passed off on scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Per Ron Miscavige, that was impressed upon David so indelibly because of his being an exceptionally devoted scientologist – something Ron admittedly encouraged and his wife purportedly warned against. Ron conveniently omits his role in consistently urging David’s path with the superior salesmanship abilities Ron claims to possess. These facts make Ruthless read like a bizarre, self-absorbed case of cognitive dissonance playing out with Ron. He condemns Hubbard for creating his son while devoting a lot of the book to defending Hubbard (a courtesy he does not deign to afford to his own son). His left hand types that Scientology made his son intimidating and aggressive, while his right hand types that a significant result Scientology had on himself was “I never again even had the urge to strike her” – speaking of his wife whom he habitually brutalized over the previous decade.

One particularly ruthless section of Ruthless serves to illustrate how the book is the worst possible realization of the three reasons I suggested (and Ron once agreed) for not writing it in the first place. That is where Ron performs a lengthy psychiatric evaluation to assert his son is a psychopath. He cites a book to support his theory, The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout. Clearly, it is a book Ron has not read – yet another case of being told by others, in this case not disclosing the lack of first-hand knowledge. Ron’s book claims an altruistic purpose in attacking his own son. That is, he seeks the abolishment of the so-called Scientology ‘disconnection’ policy. In short, the doctrine holds that the only way to protect oneself from the fallout of a sociopath or toxic personality in one’s life is to cease all connection with him or her.  Ironically, had Ron read The Sociopath Next Door he would have learned that such a policy is not only not unique to Scientology, it is the very same method of dealing with toxic types called for by Stout; a view she shares with most recognized experts on sociopathy. Specifically, “The best way to protect yourself from a sociopath is to avoid him, to refuse any kind of contact or communication.”

In light of the fact that Ron’s book repeatedly claims his motive is to abolish that same practice in Scientology, and that Ron understood that his continued association with the anti-scientology community would in itself result in disconnection from his scientologist family, the very heart of the work would appear to be insincere at best and more likely hypocritical if not fraudulent. Ron had a choice and he opted for disconnection, even after being counselled on how to avoid it.

Stout’s book undermines another fundamental premise preached throughout Ruthless. That is on the subject of where responsibility lies if in fact Ron’s son were the villain he paints him to be. The Sociopath Next Door examines several popular theories in currency about the causes of sociopathy (ranging from genetics to our economics system). The theory Stout gives most treatment to points the bony finger right between Ron Miscavige’s eyes. It lays responsibility at the absence of or abuse by parents or guardians. She cites the considerable viable evidence obtained during the 1980s and 90s flood of American adoptions of young Romanian children. Those children wound up having an extraordinarily large criminal and anti-social record. Studies determined the misfits all held only one thing in common.  As infants and small children they had been orphaned as a result of anachronistic state birth control laws.  None of the sociopathic children received the physical and emotional love and affection afforded most children in their early formative years by their parents. Most suffered privation and corporeal punishment.

Had Ron read the book that most definitely would have stood out to him for the following reason. In 1998 I coordinated locating a number of people particularly knowledgeable of David Miscavige. Reporters for the St Petersburg Times were working on a feature about his son and asked me to arrange those interviews.  Ron and I spoke at length then about David and his upbringing. During the course of those talks Ron told me that he sometimes felt guilty because he regularly ‘beat the hell’ out of David when he was a small child. However, he then said with a measure of pride that since David became who he did he no longer regretted it.  He was proud because he drew a connection to that habitual corporeal punishment to David later having survived Scientology’s most dire chapter possessing the toughness to lead the church through it and rise to the top.

Ron was doing what I witnessed him often do, take credit for the exemplary adult he asserted his son had become. When David’s resilience brought admiration Ron’s way, he sought to intensify it with such braggadocio. When the outside world was more recently piling on Scientology and his son for allegedly being too aggressive, Ron apparently contracted a case of selective amnesia. In either event, a fact check would have indicted Ron Miscavige, applying the very psychiatric standards he used to attempt to bury his own son.

On that same score, an anecdote is in order. In 1981 a then 19-year-old David, his wife Shelly and I drove from Los Angeles to New Orleans to watch his family’s beloved Philadelphia Eagles play in the Super Bowl. We met Ron, his other son Ron Jr, and David’s mother (the Ron-maligned Loretta) there.  After a disappointing Eagles’ loss we went to a large buffet restaurant downtown. A group of victorious Oakland Raider’s fans chided us, noting that we were wearing Eagles t-shirts. Ron Miscavige started shouting profanities at the group of Oakland fans and approached them hostilely. He threatened to break their heads. I put a hand on Ron’s shoulder to prevent a brawl. He hit my hand away with a violent full swim move and kept marching. Only one thing stood between Ron and a fisticuffs that by the looks of him could have wound him up in the penitentiary for aggravated assault. His son David ran in front of him and looked him straight in the eye. “Cool it”, he said firmly. And Ron did. It wouldn’t be the last time David saved his old man from doing hard time in the big house. And that is yet another story Ron truncated and altered in Ruthless to vindicate himself while convicting his now-deceased wife and his son.

Ron Miscavige and his co-writer Koon have clearly taken to the anti-scientology agenda with some enthusiasm. It has created a Kafkaesque reality where Scientology (and by extension Ron’s son) has become in the words of former Scientology PR man Mike Rinder, “Fair Game.”  He defined that in a podcast as meaning one “can do or say anything against Scientology” and get off scot free.  A prime example were the authors’ responses to the Church pointing to a scandal involving Ron’s other son Ron Jr.  The Church referred to law enforcement documents indicating Ron Jr. was a regular client of a human trafficking prostitution ring. Ron Sr.’s response was, “It’s a convoluted mind that comes up with this shit.”  Mr. Koon said, “Dave can’t bring his father down, so the closest target is his brother. Dave doesn’t give a rat’s ass about any collateral damage to Scientology so long as his brother is squashed like a bug.”

Both Koon and Ron Sr. ignore the fact that their book invited such a response in as overt a fashion as possible throughout. One of Ron Sr.’s prime arguments for exonerating himself for how his son David allegedly turned out was to ask his readership to compare his villainous descriptions of David to his other son, Ron Jr.  For example, after vilifying David’s supposed negative behavioral traits – including “perversions” (no particulars are supplied), he writes “Yet who can say for certain these tendencies were part of David’s makeup from birth or they were learned?  Because none of my other children expresses these traits, I am inclined to think they were latent in him from birth.” (Incidentally, the genetic theory is the least useful of several according to Stout). He goes on to describe Ronnie as “the most considerate and thoughtful person you ever would want to meet.” Again relying on hearsay Ron Sr. offers Ron Jr. as comparative bait, “I don’t think Ronnie ever gave anyone reason to dislike him, and I have been told that, as adults, Ronnie and David couldn’t be more different.”  The released documents that Ron and Dan wail about indicate that Ron was living with his son Ronnie when he was arrested for repeated solicitation of sexual favors from human chattel. The latter fact is conveniently omitted from the book, while Ron Sr. describes his visit to Ron Jr. and his wife as akin to boarding with Ozzie and Harriett.

Yet, the Church and Ron’s son David are vilified for accepting their comparative invitation. The anti-scientology camp Fair Game policy apparently holds that if you are a Scientologist you not only are deserving of being marginalized and defamed, but if you resist you commit yet another unforgiveable, heinous crime.  I am not a fan of ad hominem attacks or counter-attacks. But, I am contemptuous of those who wield double standards in an attempt to leave a class of people defenseless against scandal-mongering.

Ruthless has mud-slinging opportunism written throughout it as does the history of its rollout.  Ron Miscavige first hit the headlines with the LA Times’ revelation that a Scientology-hired private investigator had been instructed by David to let his father die if he observed him having a heart attack while on a stake out. Ron’s handlers milked the story for all it was worth while Ron and Koon got busy on manufacturing a hearsay-heavy manuscript. When Ron later told me that he was in the process of inking a deal with St Martins Press to publish a tell-all about his son, he went out of his way to inform me that his change of heart about attacking his son had nothing to do with the wide circulation of the scandalous PI story.  I told him that was a good thing for him. Since he had acknowledged to me that Mike Rinder was part of his advisory team, I told Ron that I assumed that Mike informed him that the accusation about David instructing the private investigator is in fact “provable bullshit.” I waited several seconds for Ron’s reply, but there was silence. So I continued, informing Ron that Mike or I could tell him that in a combined fifty years of experience in directing Scientology investigative work, David Miscavige never once spoke to a private investigator. It was something he never would do and was far less likely to ever start doing the older he became. More silence from Ron.

Until many months later when he published his book and went on a marathon marketing tour. The entire prologue is a come-on promotional tease for the rest of the book, relying primarily on that big lie. It concludes with Ron Sr.’s feigned, wide-eyed wonder “And for a son to say that about his own father – just to let him die!? This book is the story of how that came about.”  Well, what about a father profiting by writing this about his son and repeating it at countless media promotion stops, when the charge has been credibly debunked?

In summary, my view is that paradoxically Ruthless is an apropos title for the work of Ron Miscavige Sr.

The Danger of a Single Story

Reference: You May Be Right

The ASC (anti scientology community) leadership hunkered into their bunker to re-strategize after reading the above-referenced post. Apparently, my allusion to the inherent liability of adopting a single narrative in lock-step fashion was taken as a threat to their anti-scientology story-telling cottage industry.  For those who did not so viscerally react to the idea presented, the talk at the following link provides for a deeper understanding of what I intended by focusing attention on the narratives we have come to accept, build upon and cling to:

The Danger of a Single Story

Incidentally, labelling people as crazy and delusional is an age-old ‘solution’ for suppressing voices that might upset a single-story narrative that is profitable to some.

 

You May Be Right

The verdict is in from the anti-scientology community (ASC), Marty Rathbun is crazy.

You can read and hear all about it across several ASC forums.

I accept the diagnosis as it pertains to the scientology (pro and anti) universe.  Insanity is loosely defined as not seeing or accepting the world as it is generally seen and accepted by the majority of people.

I noted in one of my books that the most valuable thing I got from my scientology experience was the ability to disagree.  That is, freedom from the automatic subconscious acceptance of the way others might want me to see or think.  Today I value that faculty more than ever. Modern science has come to understand that people think in narratives.  They accept them and create them and then judge new experience and data against them – much of that narrative building occurring sub consciously.  I reject the anti-scientology narrative as being at least as inaccurate, exaggerated, partisan and hysterical as the official scientology narrative.  That rejection of the former in no way implies an endorsement of the latter.

I find ASC’s resort to the ‘he’s crazy’ defense/offense to be apropos for a perhaps-final teaching moment in this milieu. I will share it notwithstanding the wave of ‘he’s nuts’ that doing so will inevitably provoke.

Those who have observed me and my detractors for very long will recall that the church of scientology preceded ASC in invoking the insanity defense/offense against me.  Remember the words of the immortal Tommy Davis: “He’s a f____ing lunatic!” As truth slowly struggles to the surface as it sometimes is forced to do, I believe you will find that there were two reasons for the copycatting.

First, the folks running the ASC agenda and authoring its narrative (including the insanity defense/offense) are OSA (Office of Special Affairs) trained and bred.  They often boast of their OSA expertise.  One of them makes good money plying it; another dishes out good money lording it over people. They liberally use that acumen to attack those whom they brand as the attackers. They most spiritedly – overtly and covertly – attack the credibility of anyone who might spoil their pity party by spreading that horrible disinfectant called truth.

Second, the ASC agenda setters have not had an original thought sprout in their heads as long as I have known them (and that is a very long time).  They are and have been wholly unoriginal creatures of stimulus-response thought. I only say this after making extraordinary efforts with each to coax them to rise above such patterns – and only now that they’ve decided no good deed ought go unpunished.

And so, some of the conspiracy chatter on ESMB and Underground Bunker that OSA has infiltrated and seized the ASC conversation – requiring vigilant censorship measures by Tony Ortega and Madam ESMB – contains a grain of truth.

What remains to be seen is whether it is the old OSA or the new OSA and whether the former more effectively influences the latter or vice versa.  In either event, my guess is that the losers will be those who cling desperately to their rusting firearms (and narratives) failing to recognize that the war has been over for several years now.

Then again, both Scientology and ASC may be right, I may be crazy.

Has Your Mind Become Infected?

The following passage from The Four Agreements by Don Migel Ruiz was first published nearly twenty years ago. Consider the implications with the subsequent widespread proliferation of social media, online life, and “reality” culture.

Looking at everyday human interactions, imagine how many times we cast spells on each other with our word. Over time this interaction has become the worst form of black magic, and we call it gossip.

Gossip is black magic at its very worst because it is pure poison. We learned how to gossip by agreement.  When we were children, we heard the adults gossiping all the time, openly giving their opinions about other people. They even had opinions about people they didn’t know. Emotional poison was transferred along with the opinions, and we learned this as the normal way to communicate.

Gossiping has become the main form of communication in human society. It has become the way we feel close to each other, because it makes us feel better to see someone else feel as badly as we do. There is an old expression that says, ‘Misery likes company’, and people who are suffering in hell don’t want to be all alone. Fear and suffering are an important part of the dream of the planet; they are how the dream of the planet keeps us down.

Using the analogy of the human mind as a computer, gossip can be compared to a computer virus. A computer virus is a piece of computer language written in the same language all the other codes are written in, but with a harmful intent. This code is inserted into the program of your computer when you least expect it and most of the time without your awareness. After this code has been introduced, your computer doesn’t work quite right, or it doesn’t function at all because the codes get so mixed up with so many conflicting messages that it stops producing good results.

Human gossip works exactly the same way. For example, you are beginning a new class with a new teacher and you have looked forward to it for a long time. On the first day of class, you run into someone who took the class before, who tells you, ‘Oh that instructor was such a pompous jerk! He didn’t know what he was talking about, and he was a pervert too, so watch out!’

You are immediately imprinted with the word and the emotional code the person had when saying this, but what you are not aware of is his or her motivation in telling you. This person could be angry for failing the class or simply making an assumption based on fears and prejudices, but because you have learned to ingest information like a child, some part of you believes the gossip, and you go on to the class. As the teacher speaks, you feel the poison come up inside you and you don’t realize you see the teacher through the eyes of the person who gave you that gossip. Then you start talking to other people in the class about this, and they start to see the teacher in the same way: as a jerk and a pervert. You really hate the class, and soon you decide to drop out. You blame the teacher, but it is gossip that is to blame.

All of this mess can be caused by one little computer virus.  One little piece of misinformation can break down communication between people, causing every person it touches to become infected and contagious to others. Imagine that every single time others gossip to you, they insert a computer virus into your mind, causing you to think a little less clearly every time. Then imagine that in an effort to clean up your own confusion and get some relief from the poison, you gossip and spread these viruses to someone else.

Now imagine this pattern going on in a never-ending chain between all the humans of earth. The result is a world full of humans who can only read information through circuits that are clogged with a poisonous, contagious virus. Once again, this poisonous virus is what the Toltecs called the mitote, the chaos of a thousand different voices all trying to talk at once in the mind.

Even worse are the black magicians or ‘computer hackers’ who intentionally spread the virus. Think back to a time when you or someone you know was angry with someone else and desired revenge. In order to seek revenge you said something to or about that person with the intention of spreading poison and making that person feel bad about him- or herself.  As children we do this quite thoughtlessly, but as we grow older we become much more calculated in our efforts to bring other people down. Then we lie to ourselves and say that person received a just punishment for their wrongdoing.

When we see the world through a computer virus, it is easy to justify the cruelest behavior.  What we don’t see is that misuse of our word is putting us deeper into hell.

Scientology Floggers

Within 24 hours of posting Cyber Cults, the anti-scientology cyber-cult came unglued. If you haven’t read Cyber Cults and its links, I suggest you do so before reading on. The links are to three thoroughly unrelated people – also unrelated to me – who independently shared experiences of cult-like behavior from flogger (a blogger who flogs the alleged lives of others for money) Tony Ortega. Immediately, Ortega followers zealously rallied to his defense, characterizing the calmly-stated, fact-filled observations I linked to as evil-motivated “attacks” upon their dear leader. What was remarkable was the almost uniform application of an important characteristic of cult behavior.

That is taken from Steve Hassan whom the Ortega cult itself has promoted as quite the authority on cults.  It is, “Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s fault.”  Like so many hyenas, the anti-scientology cult members reactively rallied to attack in Ortega’s defense (ignoring the substance of the observations about his conduct) and viciously went after me and all three of those sharing independent experiences about their leader. We were accused of being Scientology operatives, mentally ill, and a plethora of derogatory epitaphs not fit for re-publication here.

One of Ortega’s more hysterical devotees called for censorship of myself and the other three, then targeted a facebook group (containing more than 400 members critical of scientology) as being fair game for having had the temerity to discuss the substance of my post Cyber Cults. Those pronunciamentos (and their avid acceptance and support by other cyber cultists) demonstrated most of the elements of the following additional Hassan cult characteristic:

Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth
a. Adopting the group’s ‘map of reality’ as reality
b. Instill black and white thinking
c. Decide between good vs. evil
d. Organize people into us vs. them (insiders vs. outsiders)

For any who doubt these characterizations of the reaction to Cyber Cults, they can verify them by reading the thread themselves (or as much as they can stomach) at ex-scientologist message board.  While you read their treatment of the three I linked to along with me, keep in mind another of Hassan’s critical characteristics of a cult:

Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness, such as
a. Identity guilt
b. You are not living up to your potential
c. Your family is deficient
d. Your past is suspect
e. Your affiliations are unwise
f. Your thoughts, feelings, actions are irrelevant or selfish
g. Social guilt
h. Historical guilt

This is an interesting study in extremism. As Robert Hughes aptly demonstrated in his book Culture of Complaint opposite extremes always seem to have a way of meeting (becoming almost indistinguishable in behavior). On that score, principal stars of the anti-scientology cult are warning people that it is “dangerous” to communicate with me. That’s right, it is dangerous to be exposed to ideas that don’t march lockstep with the cult’s doctrinal black and white, us vs. them mentality.  These include people being promoted by Ortega for working with him on tv specials on scientology disconnection. They apparently are so appalled by scientology’s notion of disconnect that they are actively advising people to disconnect from me.

What I have witnessed personally on the part of the anti-scientology community’s leading lights recently is behavior that makes the average dedicated scientologist seem extraordinarily open-minded and tolerant by comparison.

As a final side note, I noticed a lot of cyber-cultists characterizing my recent posts as some sort of ‘war’ on Tony Ortega and that I wish to engage him in some public debate.  That is another indication of their cult-like, insular belief that the real universe revolves around their play world.  As far as Ortega is concerned I am only preparing the ground to correct the public record he polluted for four months about my family.  He is merely one of thousands of click bait floggers plying his trade as floggers do. I have no intention of changing that – that is fundamentally who he is.  The vermin he carries water for might be another story.  It depends on how they continue to respond and not respond.

Bunkeroos vs. Scientologists

The cult of Tony Ortega has recently surpassed the church of Scientology in dysfunctionally partisan behavior.  I have obtained documentary evidence that Bunkeroos (slavish believers and followers of the word of The Underground Bunker) have been soliciting donations to hire private investigators.  The Bunkeroos are promoting the fulfillment of Tony Ortega’s published suggestions on behalf of Ray Jeffrey that the home of Monique Rathbun and her two-year-old child be put under surveillance.

What is so surreal about this situation is that had Monique Rathbun not selflessly endured similar treatment in the past, Tony Ortega and Ray Jeffrey would have long ago become Scientology road kill.  The same is true for the cluster of vermin who have partnered in the Ortega/Jeffrey campaign against Monique Rathbun.

 

Regressive Thinking

I covered a Corpus Christi city council proceeding recently for a local newspaper and a grassroots community organization. The experience seemed to me a microcosm for a regressive political trend evident in American politics. The council debated what to do about the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) finding dangerously low disinfectant levels in the city water mains for the second time in as many years. The mayor and two council members utilized all of their time attempting to target the TCEQ for allegedly overreacting to Corpus’ repeated failures to measure up to state water standards.  A fourth council member began her like-minded comments as follows, “I am not trusting of government.”

Think about that for a moment. In essence, she said to voters, “I, your elected government official do not trust the process you entrusted me to direct on your behalf.”  It is a common sentiment often expressed in myriad, if covert, ways at all levels of politics in Texas and the United States. It got me to thinking about where we are heading collectively and the kind of thinking that is leading the way.

Government is the act of governing.  Govern is defined as follows by Merriam Webster: “to control or guide the actions of (someone or something).”  You obviously govern your own body.  When you share space and resources with another or others, you establish agreements as to how that space and those resources will be shared. Roles, duties and responsibilities are assumed or assigned as means of assuring those agreements are kept. It applies to families. It applies to clans. It applies to tribes. It applies to interaction between tribes that share space and resources.

Quite obviously the more people occupying a given space and sharing a given amount of resources, the more agreements – read, governing – is required in order to maintain peace and order. Any fool – even an inbred hillbilly confined to interacting with his growing clan on an acre of land – understands that natural equation. The more people and the consequent less space and resources, the more agreement is required and the less self-centeredness is afforded. Or, the more people occupying a given space, naturally the less individual freedom of choice to ‘do as thou wilt.’

It has been observed and thoroughly documented clinically that early stages of infantile thinking begin with the assumption that the child is the center of the universe. Developing awareness of others and the fact that they share space and resources – and cooperating with others in that regard – is incident to the process of maturation. The math becomes intuitive as intelligence evolves.

It is an interesting and potentially enlightening exercise to contemplate the above-offered equation against one’s own experience and values. Think about the political ideas you have accepted or synthesized against that equation. Do some of your cherished ideas make an awful lot of sense after all? Think about the role models, ideals, and dreams you look to and harbor and how you came to accept them and where they are leading you. Do they make you – and those you share space and resources with – feel happier or more fulfilled? Were they influenced by interests, factions or ideologues working at odds to the simple, natural math? What were the purposes of those (educators, politicians, film makers, media, employers, mentors, etc.) seeding such ideation?

Think about the firmly-set ideas you may have developed over the years about certain classes of people (political, social, philosophical, religious, national, racial). Are they fair? Or are they expedient? Are they healthy for you and those with whom you share space and resources?  Have they led to evolution or have they had a regressive effect?

This essay is not a promotion for nor condemnation of any particular political faction. If you engage in the suggested exercise above earnestly, and follow up with some objective homework, I think it will become evident that political extremes – on either side of the aisle – fueled by greed are the most abundant feeders of the sort of regressive thinking addressed.

 

Cyber Cults

 

The New York Times recently covered some interesting phenomena that is happening online, see Frank Bruni – How Facebook Warps Our Worlds. Bruni observes that our newfound abilities to facilely pick villains, jump to judgments and duck/cluster with like-opinionated people (all without showing our faces or even necessarily identifying ourselves) has led to some creepy results. You can see how some of that has played out in the world of scientology – where kettles and pots are becoming increasingly indistinguishable – at the following links:

Goodbye to all that…

Alanzo on Ortega and his Underground Bunker

Tony Ortega and Carmen Llywelyn

 

Arrogance and Ignorance

The following passage is taken from the novel Texas Tropics.

When I arrived Amerigo was as relaxed and content as the last time I interrupted his little fisherman’s paradise.  As I pulled Lucille ashore, Amerigo grabbed my pole and turned to his shrimp bucket to bait up my line. He handed back the pole.  He looked at me knowingly and said, “You’ve been busy, no?”

I took the invitation to fill him in on my adventures. Amerigo did not show the kind of surprise or shock or wonderment you would expect any other human to exhibit in reaction to my story. When I finished, his only comment seemed to come randomly out of the blue, “Your father is wise beyond his years.”

I wanted to say, ‘What about me almost getting killed? What about me standing up to Ramos?  What about me being set up like a bowling pin? What about me standing trial with my life in the balance?’  Instead, the thing he found most interesting was the last thing I cared about at the moment. I took a deep breath. I looked out across the cove.  I let my emotions settle and then calmly asked, “Oh, you mean teaching me about Zapata?”

Amerigo smiled and shook his head in the negative.

“Then what?”, I asked.

Amerigo said, “He has discovered the secret of arrogance and ignorance.”

“What do you mean?”, I asked.

“Well, you asked him what drove him to do what you have told me most people characterize as evil, right?”, he asked.

“Right.”

“And his answer was?”

“He was too proud and too stupid”, I said. “Right, okay, too arrogant and too ignorant. And that – well, it does resonate with me.”

“Why?”, he asked.

“Because you can do something with it”, I said. “If he says instead, ‘it was evil’ it is like saying ‘I am evil.’  Where does that lead?”

He asked, “Where do you think?”

I thought out loud, “Isolation, imprisonment…  Hell, I don’t know. It leads to labeling and distancing so you don’t catch any of that disease called ‘evil.’”

“Out of sight and out of mind?”, he asked.

“Maybe out of sight – which, I guess, is ignorance itself…and – come to think of it, arrogance too.  But, I don’t think entirely out of mind.”

Amerigo’s seemed pleased with my working it over.  He continued fishing, his invitation for me to think it through some more.  And I did.

“Ok, Amerigo”, I said.  “So, now I am thinking about judgment – like we talked about last time.  When you judge, you use convenient labels like ‘evil’, hoping to put something or someone you don’t like out of sight and out of mind – or, at least, waaay over there.”  I motioned toward the mainland with my hand for emphasis.

Amerigo smiled.  Then he carried on fishing.

A few minutes later I added, “But the act of judging itself is an exercise in arrogance and ignorance.”

“How so?”, he asked.

“Arrogance…the act of judging gives one a feeling of superiority to whatever, or whoever, is being judged.”

“And ignorance?”, he asked.

“Judging, puts it out of sight”, I said. “Makes it no longer worthy of inspection or consideration.  One makes oneself ignorant.”

Amerigo winked at me.  And in the micro second it took his eyelid to shut and open again it all came to me.  I said, “And all this opens the door to resolution.”

“Of what?”, he asked.

“The vicious circle”, I said. “It is a dwindling process toward, well – really…evil, I guess.  The more ignorance we demonstrate, the more arrogance we produce. The more arrogant we become, the more ignorant too. Finally, the arrogance is so great we feel just fine sitting in judgment of those we consider lesser than ourselves.  And the ignorance is so great we resort to labeling, stereotyping and condemning so that we don’t need to exercise intelligence.  We are unaware of, and – so, we don’t care about the consequences of our judgment.  You know, the consequences to those we judge. “

Amerigo was looking at me with interest.

I said, “And so, judgment tends to create evil…out of arrogance and ignorance.  Do you see, it all becomes a self-feeding circle?”

“Yes”, he said. “And so, the resolution you spoke of?”

“Well, what is the reverse activity of exercising arrogance and ignorance?”, I asked.

Amerigo rolled his eyes and gave an impish smile, indicating he was going to consider the question.  I was pleased. I thought maybe I had earned enough respect to ask deep questions of him and have him answer me for a change.

“Humility and curiosity?”, he asked.

“Right”, I said. “I had the concept but I couldn’t find the words.  But, you are right on the money. And so when we feel compelled to judge, I mean in the judgmental sense – when we feel the compulsion arise to judge, label and reject…instead, maybe we hold off for a moment.  Maybe we gather our wits.  Maybe we exercise a little humility and a little curiosity.”

Censorship and Hypocrisy

Tony Ortega’s blogging campaign against my wife Monique and me over the past three months has resulted in the largest wave of hate we have experienced in several years. We even saw that an erstwhile friend published an unsolicited psychiatric evaluation (including still more falsehoods) to explain our behavior as characterized by Ortega. The following descriptions of Monique (some referred to both her and me) written by Bunker regulars and published by Ortega pretty much sum up the sentiments Ortega has fueled:

  • “Sympathy? I has none.
  • Monique, no respect.  NONE. Sympathy? Nope. I never want to hear from these losers again
  • subservience , irrationality, and paranoia
  • Marty and Miscavige are cut from the same cloth. And Monique? Well, she did marry the guy.
  • I wouldn’t be surprised if the Rathbuns name would surface somewhere in the future when some stuff like the “Panama-papers” are leaked again.
  • classless and nasty (both)
  • Mosey has fallen under thrall of whatever fixed delusion he is living under.
  • Somehow they were turned, Whether from threats or payoffs or some combination of the two.
  • I hope like hell the next Rathbun post will be how Mosey blew the ranch and escaped from Marty.
  • Either Monique is drinking Marty’s kool aid or I think the next thing we will hear about is a divorce.
  • The Rathbuns are as mentally ill as Scientology.
  • I’m very much afraid that the one who is going to end up rueing the day is Monique.
  • Well, she does heve to wake up next to Mr Scilon Warrior every day… I don’t envy her that..
  • I find it hard to maintain any respect or trust for them at this point.”

For those Bunkeroos already sold on Tony’s sexist pitch that Monique is incapable of making decisions of her own, the comments describing me included: “a burning train wreck, a fictional Nazi, a hanging judge, a mini-Hubbard, callous and unrepentant, boy, He’s nuts!, an asshole, FUCKIN DELUSIONAL, Marty doesn’t seem stable, an old alter ego who now embraces Hubbard’s paranoia even worse than before, He may or may not be a sociopath…He is certainly narcissistic and has other qualities that are borderline at the very least, I really think Marty has gone off the deep end too, a little mental illness, he is still “living in his head,”MR loves MR alright – but both stand for Mark Rathbun…He has never stopped playing footsie with his ex-boyfriend, He’s a sack of shit, an asshat selfish prick, some serious fuckery, Marty went nuts, My opinion is that Marty has gone over the edge and is behaving very self-destructively (unfortunately now with people to drag down with him), This appears to be a battle of two narcissists, I believe his hands got very dirty.”  And finally, “I don’t think Marty is stable and that is not an environment to raise a child in.”

In this whirlwind of hysteria that became the Bunker comments section a few days ago, a singularly dissident voice interrupted, briefly.  It was not rude. It was not assertive.  It merely posed a question.  The comment was not made by a friend or ally of ours. It was made by Alanzo, a long-time scientology critic who has unloaded quite a bit of criticism on me over the years.  I thought it was interesting how quickly Bunkeroos sought to label him a troll and dismiss his apparently dangerous, if simple, thought. I re-publish it below for two reasons. I believe that standing alone it serves as a textbook study in phenomena we have explored in-depth on this blog (see e.g., Culture of Complaint, Good vs. Evil, Vortex of Hate, etc).  The second reason for re-publishing, which serves to reinforce the first reason, is that Tony Ortega took it upon himself to censor this thread. He left in the plethora of ill-mannered demands for Monique’s and my necks.  But, he deleted and censored Alanzo.

The deleted/censored thread:

Alanzo

Tony wrote: “In a bizarre document, Monique makes accusations that her former attorneys — Ray Jeffrey, Marc Wiegand, Elliott Cappuccio, and Leslie Hyman — had made it “abundantly clear” that the lawsuit was “not worth it financially,” and that the attorneys had filed defective paperwork that allowed Scientology’s attorneys to file appeals that caused delay.

Note Tony’s word “bizarre” used above to describe the document.

Is this Tony’s bias, or is he just reporting the facts?

Alanzo

chukicita  Alanzo • 29 minutes ago

Perhaps it’s a bit of both. Certainly it’s not a typical document, and the accusations are unexpected and unusual. What word would you have used to describe it?

This is a blog, not a newspaper, and I think Tony does an excellent job of bringing the facts to light and keeping his opinions in check at times, even though he doesn’t have to.

Alanzo  chukicita • 4 minutes ago

I think that the document has to perform an abrupt change in a course of action, and that it should be allowed to speak for itself.

Because this is a blog, and not a newspaper which is supposed to be more objective, I think it is even more important to question Tony’s opinions and to be on the look out for his bias on things and to remember that he has no corner on the truth. Other viewpoints and other opinions exist besides Tony Ortega’s, and sometimes those differing opinions shed more light on the truth, and on Scientology, than Tony Ortega could ever muster.

Everyone is biased in favor of Ray Jeffrey here, and his team of lawyers. And we even have another lawyer as an “expert” giving his opinion about the criticisms of Ray Jeffrey, which, unsurprisingly, are very “pro-lawyer”.

Maybe Monique presented a document to the court which was true, and the criticisms of her former attorneys were justified. Why else would such abrupt action need to be taken? Perhaps we should ask Mr Occam, too?

Do clients normally never disagree with the course of actions taken by their attorneys unless they are insane as Tony and Texas Lawyer have both intimated? Do Tony, or even Texas Lawyer, know the particular situation with her lawyers better than Monique?

No.

So I think this is exactly where Tony, and Texas Lawyer, should keep their biases to themselves. And if they are unable to do that, those biases should be highlighted, and questioned by the “commenting community” here.

That is, if the commenting community here cares about the truth.

Alanzo

L Wrong Hubturd Alanzo • 14 minutes ago

5 comments, 6 votes. I do not think you are the real “Alanzo”

Alanzo  L. Wrong Hubturd • 5 minutes ago

Yes. I am the Real Alanzo. I went into retirement last year when I got news that my best friend had cancer, and I could not imagine wasting my time on anything related to Scientology ever again. So I whacked all my accounts.

But my friend has gotten radiation and chemotherapy and it has lengthened the amount of life he has left to live, and so I felt I could afford a little more Scientology in my life.

chukicita  • 15 minutes ago

Additionally, I think the knee-jerk reaction that somehow Monique was being called insane was not useful at all.

The *behavior* of firing successful lawyers was, in the absence of other information, being called out as inconsistent with the original goals of the lawsuit. Reading over the original blog post, no one called *Monique* insane.

chukicita  • 19 minutes ago

I think it’s important to look at the pattern of behavior that at least on the surface seems to be a thread of cohesion in some litigation that involves Scientology. Perhaps Dr. Occam could call up Bob Minton and Ken Dandar.

If you have facts that contradict, why not offer them up?

L Wrong Hubturd chukicita • 12 minutes ago

I do not think think this is the Alonzo you think it is. I think we have an impostor, here to stir the pot.

Alanzo  L. Wrong Hubturd • 3 minutes ago

Oh, make no mistake: I am here to stir the pot.

Obviously you don’t know the Real Alanzo.

Alanzo

ze moo  • 29 minutes ago

No the word bizarre does fit the situation. This filing shows some no longer pent up anger and distrust of the lawyers involved. The client is not always right, but they do have approve what their lawyers do. It seems that a simmering disagreement has boiled over and this is the result.

It is bizarre to fire your lawyers when they are on a roll. All of the delays and appeals were foreseeable and should have been planed on.

While the legal work is over in this case, the story is not over yet.

Alanzo  ze moo • 15 minutes ago

The pay out of this suit was never going to be unlimited. If you look at Monique’s document as a statement of non-viability of the economics of the lawsuit, I do not think it is bizarre at all.

And I think your description of a “simmering disagreement has boiled over and this is the result.” is pretty accurate. I think Marty has pretty good experience with how Church lawyers operate, and Marty and Monique might not have been listened to as closely as they should have been.

And since Monique stated that they were able to achieve outside of the court what the lawsuit sought to achieve in the court, she dropped the suit.

Sorry. This, if true, is not bizarre.

That is only Tony’s bias showing.

Alanzo