Skip to content

Nancy Many talks about Marty

August 13, 2010

My good friend Nancy Many asked me to post this on Leaving Scientology. Nancy, of course, was speaking out against the Church long before many of us got up the nerve. She experienced the evil of the Church up close and personal, as she details in her book, My Billion Year Contract. Her comments about Marty are relevant, particularly as the Church has singled Marty out for some particularly vile dirty tricks. I don’t think they have any idea how many friends and allies Marty really has. Here’s what Nancy has to say:

Re Marty Rathbun –

I have recently discovered that I have forwarded incorrect information regarding Marty.  It came from a person in RTC at the time, whom I trusted.  I have since discovered there were other falsehoods this person gave to me.

I trusted this person, but in doing that I have seen Marty through this false filter and have spread hearsay – that wasn’t even close to true.  Hearsay is not allowed in a trial due to this very problem. I am going to work at only relaying, especially to press and media outlets, only those things that I personally saw, read, over heard or directly heard it from the person.

I owe Marty this public apology for forwarding something regarding him that was completely not true.

I have seen several posts in which people “question” Marty’s real purpose or agenda.  I have to tell you I could care less if he has one or not.  And if he did have one, it would not be something that he should be sharing.  I have worked 5 years behind the doors of the Intelligence Bureau of Scientology.  Marty for much longer – as well as legal.  I doubt many of you truly understand the risk he has taken by standing up.  The risk to not only himself, but also to those he loves.  Many people in similar situations did not.  I have no judgments on those who did not, but I do have tremendous respect for both of the MR’s for coming forward.  I do know that they care about ending the physical and emotional abuse that has been going on in that group for some time.  And continues thru to today.  Which is the same agenda I have, and have been working on for years.  So what if he doesn’t have clean hands, he readily admits that, I don’t have clean hands either.  There were many apologies I had to make.  When you are in the environment that exists up in those areas of the organization it is woven into the very fabric of daily life.

What I do care about is that he has taken such risk, to join in the efforts I (and others) have been working on for at least 12 years, to get the physical and mental abuse to stop.  We completely agree on that, and that is not going to be done overnight.  For the risks he has taken, he should be commended.  When the physical and mental abuse is over, we will all decide what we want to do.  Maybe Marty would like to help clean up the 20 year old mess that DM has created, or maybe he will just want to go fishing.  It doesn’t matter, we are not there yet, and at that time we will all have our own choices to make.

So, my apologies to Marty.  Hearsay may be true, but if you don’t follow it down you really don’t know and speaking of it as if it was the truth can be damaging.

I was also given the hearsay that Marty was the “good guy” up lines.  But now that I have spoken with him and he has helped me in a couple of tough situations, it is no longer hearsay for me to say Marty is one of the Good Guys.  Few of you will (luckily) have any idea of what he risked and continues to risk by what he is doing.  I do, with personal knowledge, not hearsay.  And for that alone he will always have my respect and admiration.  It doesn’t matter, this is the most important one, and I know we agree.  That is what I care about.  And that is what the rest of us care about.  Those people who right now are suffering and trapped in many ways.

Nancy Many

  1. brendon permalink
    August 13, 2010 10:23 pm

    This would be more effective (and frankly be a bit more understandable) if you shared what information you had forwarded about Marty that you now believe was incorrect and false.

    And also, who told you. I don’t think someone who is spreading falsehoods should be protected because of some notion that it was told in confidence. And shouldn’t Marty know who is slandering him?

    Personally I keep waiting for those who worked behind the scenes with direct knowledge, and who intimate they know of serious matters – perhaps even crimes – share it. Hearsay is no use there, either.

    • Nomnom permalink
      August 14, 2010 2:13 am

      I agree – it would be better to know what was said and who said it.

    • lunamoth permalink
      August 14, 2010 4:01 am

      Really? You think it would be “more effective” for her to repeat the derogatory things she has just said she would not forward? I think you may have missed the point of what Nancy is saying. Or do you have an interest in forwarding damaging and false gossip? This is not a “Third Party” handling.
      Whatever the false allegations were, they’re not really of interest because they’re FALSE.

      I don’t think you need to worry about Marty’s rights, either. I’m sure Nancy knows how to deliver a personal communication to him.

      • Nomnom permalink
        August 14, 2010 5:23 pm

        “Whatever the false allegations were, they’re not really of interest because they’re FALSE.”
        Sounds like a Tommy Davis quote!
        By your reasoning, it is better to let a false rumor float out in the ether unchallenged than to say that “the following rumor is a made up statement started by so-and-so”.
        Which approach stops the falsehood?

      • lunamoth permalink
        August 14, 2010 6:39 pm

        LOL, I’m not taking the bait, Nomnom, but that you have equated my statement with Tommy Davis’ arrogant bullshit has been noted.

      • brendon permalink
        August 14, 2010 9:25 pm

        Lunamoth –

        Yes, Nancy’s mea culpa would be “more effective” if it had some substance beyond just the mea culpa. In the same post she talks about Marty’s great (yet mysterious) risks for stepping forward, with no specifics.

        You know what that’s like? It’s like when a bunch of Scientologists nod knowingly (and with as much information) at the intimated powers of OTs. We are just supposed agree there must be something to it and move on.

        That kind of approach just plain comes up short for me. Nancy can answer or not (I note she has already indicated she won’t); mine was a comment not an interrogation.

        As far as the advantage in knowing what the falsehoods were: if one stumbled across them in some conversation, one could say: “Actually, I heard that was false.” Without that I only hear the “this is true” side.

        Oh, and since I think the “Third Party Law” is crap, your suggestion I’m engaging in a Third Party handling is…well…

      • lunamoth permalink
        August 15, 2010 6:01 am


        I’m always amused by people who say “Well, that’s like… and then provide
        a comparative that makes the original statement look ridiculous, etc.
        That you think it’s LIKE something does not increase MY understanding of the situation;, it IS what IT is. I see it for what it is and don’t need an example of how you wish me to see it. I will now add “manipulative” to the list above.

        End of discussion. Thanks for playing.

      • Pvblivs permalink
        August 16, 2010 1:09 am

        First a note: I am speaking as a complete outsider.

        In general the decision of whether to repeat a known false rumor together with the fact it is
        false is a judgement call. It can result in people spreading the rumor as though it were true;
        but it can also result in people recognizing the falsity when someone later attempts to portray
        it as true. Nancy has made her judgement call. Brendon and Nomnom are free to disagree, and
        even to say why they disagree.

        To me, Brendon’s comparison does not look like an appeal to ridicule. An analogy can help
        clarify a perception, even if you don’t agree with it.

  2. AMY'S MOM permalink
    August 13, 2010 10:52 pm

    Thank you so much, Nancy. It means alot. We have all benefitted from Marty’s speaking out. It has sincerely helped the healing process after leaving the church and every day it’s freeing more.
    His and your bravery in the face of the heaviest suppression I have ever seen is so highly commendable.

    • Fidelio permalink
      August 14, 2010 10:40 am

      Thank yee both, Nancy and Amy, the brilliant and beautiful women you are!
      Having read your books, I am in awe and humbled by what you stood up against.

      My only hope is that there is nobody left at the hands of dm with the intelligence, expertise and power, the two MRs, you two and all that stellar people like Steve and Jeff and Dan and Jesse and… who have since left. My only hope is that the danger diminished despite all balled up evil and increased turmoil because the real powers, the real GOOD GUYS now blow the horn and are the beacons a long shore needs for those arriving from different directions.

      The intelligence and power, you and they do that with, is even bigger than ever as I perceive you and them.

      Love, Fidelio

    • Fidelio permalink
      August 14, 2010 10:45 am

      Amy’s Mom,

      thank you for supporting your daughter to be what I mentioned above. (Just realized that I identified you with Amy when writing my comment but be it!! You are part of it anyway, what I had to say – so thank you, too!! 🙂

  3. sherrymk permalink
    August 13, 2010 11:01 pm

    Thank you Nancy. It isn’t easy getting attacked and accused, libeled and slandered against, disconnected from and harassed by the self-serving arrogant C of S. Anyone who has spoken out has been subjected to rumor mongering, speculation, lies, me included. However, few of us have put our butts on the line like Marty, you, Jeff, Mike, Steve, Larry B. and the so very many others out there who continue to fight against the abuses that are part and parcel of the “church”, who continue to expose the true nature of what goes on behind the facade. It takes courage. A lot of it.

    Love you lots,

  4. Tony DePhillips permalink
    August 13, 2010 11:34 pm

    Dear Nancy,

    Thank you for being a person of integrity. I really enjoyed your book and appreciate all that you are doing to expose the dark side of the church. This is a story that has to be told. Actually, shouted from the rooftops!


  5. It's me again permalink
    August 13, 2010 11:52 pm

    Hi Nancy,

    I have been on these sites for a few months, so many be I am missing something here. What “risk” to Marty you are talking about? Is Marty’s at greater risk than you or others who are speaking out or as Sherry stated “puts their butts on the line”? If so, can you tell us?

    It sounds like there is a Hit out of Marty or something. Well, I know that it can’t be that bad, but at this point nothing would surprise me.

    • August 14, 2010 4:10 pm

      I’m sorry, but I am not going to repeat the hearsay I forwarded on Marty. He knows and I know and that’s what counts. To isolate it now will only give it more power and make a small mistake into a huge one.. As for the person spreading the falsities, he is also known and is isolated.

      • Karen#1 permalink
        August 14, 2010 9:01 pm

        I have very high respect for Nancy Many.
        In a private phone comm cycle, the subject of OSA auditor Joan Diskin came up and I mentioned to Nancy that Joan has been in the RPF for the last 7 years approx.

        Nancy expressed total compassion, empathy, postulates for Joan to graduate out and I saw and felt the goodness of Nancy Many.

        Even though Nancy had Joan audit her and subsequent fall out, she expressed absolute compassion and wanted only the best for Joan.

        Now that earns my respect.
        I tip my hat to you Nancy.


    • August 14, 2010 4:14 pm

      He knows much more than I do, so is a bigger target, and if you read his blog on how lowe they are going now – you will understand why it was a BIG thing that he and Mike stood up, knowing what was coming their way

  6. Rebecca-Tribecca permalink
    August 14, 2010 1:25 am

    Dear Nancy,
    I want to compliment you for the book you wrote because you had the guts to write into the details of your mental breakdown. This is very personal and many who have suffered such would hide it and not be upfront about it.

    It takes a lot of confront to share with the world your deepest private moments and I think that inspires great admiration.

    Not only do you share the mental breakdown but you go into great detail of how this was caused at Office of Special Affairs by Office of Special Affairs personnel.
    And how they would not lift a finger to repair the mental breakdown.

    Now you come out with an apology to Marty Rathbun which inspires double admiration.

    May I express the wish that you go a long ways in helping alleviate the abuses of the Church of Scientology?

    • August 14, 2010 4:17 pm

      We all have our different parts, I was in places during times when others weren’t. I owe that truth to be known. Especially when the knowledge I have contains the death of some Scientology. Who else i going to speak for them? Thanks for the compliment, but there truly is no “I” in team. As we all have our parts to play.

  7. Marta permalink
    August 14, 2010 1:32 am

    Thank you, Nancy. I agree with your abatements and reasons in support of Marty and anyone else who works to end the abuses. That’s the team I’m on and all the members of it are my teammates.

    I especially appreciated your statements about not having clean hands. I think that anyone who has been involved in Scientology has had/will have some apologies they could make. My few years in SO was the late 70s, before DMs reign of terror, but as you say the environment was woven into our fabric. Finding and reconnecting with people from that time has been, and will continue to be, important to me.

    It matters more what we do now and in the future. When Gandhi said “you must be the change you wish to see in the world” I doubt he meant us to assume “unless you’ve ever done anything in the past that was harmful”. I’m thinking he was talking about the future being created right now with our current actions.

    Marty’s actions speak for him. Yours for you. And so far what I’ve experienced leaves me honored, grateful and humbled to be even remotely associated with both of you, and all the others who are demonstrating their integrity and values in this common effort.

    • Marta permalink
      August 14, 2010 3:30 pm

      Of course, I meant “statements” not abatements. I think it’s so hysterical when attempting to write something meaningful and then leaving a big ol’ typo in it 🙂 LOL

  8. lunamoth permalink
    August 14, 2010 4:03 am


    You are such a class act. I hope I get to meet you one day.



    • August 14, 2010 4:21 pm

      you and your efforts are as important as any others. Grow where you are planted. Do what you can, and that will be enough. Thanks, nance

  9. Joe Howard permalink
    August 14, 2010 6:44 am

    Here’s a simple way to roll back something you’re heard about somebody that you want to verify:
    ask the person who told it to you who he/she heard if from. Contact THAT person and find out who he/she got it from. And so on. When you can’t track it back any further, that’s the person who either did it or originated it and you can verify the thing you heard better. That is the essence of Rollback Tech that LRH wrote about in 1982 to locate the external influences in the church. It is supposedly confidential tech but that’s the essence of it. If you’re tracing back something that a number of people have heard or are repeating, it’s good to keep a card file of each person and which “lines” they have forwarded or have received. You can even draw it up on a big chart and get a picture of an entire network and you can believe that that there are card files and big charts on the walls at OSA with all our names on them.

    • August 15, 2010 4:53 pm

      Thankyou Joe. I wish media came to you, for explanations of all things Scientology tech wise. I’ve long respected your grasp and clarity in explaining things. The people wishing to grasp history of Scientology, the journalists who like more in depth understanding, and the academics who ask the fundamental and detailed questions, you are in the true “expert” category Dan! If you don’t mind, I will be directing people your way to explain things.

      One whole aspect of Scientology’s current ongoing history is the OSA tactics.

      Dan, I know you were there when Trish Allen and Jacqueline Kevenar did the OSA Int Network Orders compilations project. You know in pretty rough behind the scenes detail what they did. How they went through all source references/despatches/old GO issues, etc, and compiled the OSA Network Orders.

      Those OSA Network Orders, how they were compiled by Jacqueline and Trish, I remember, because I came to do the OEC Checksheet update project, and my cubby space was in the same place that Trish was occupying at the very tail end of their (Trish and Jacqueline’s) OSA Network Orders project. I believe Jacqueline at that time went on to become WDC OSA Int, or had become WDC OSA during her work on that compilations project.

      That tiny little slice of history, all relates, to how unfortunately the dirty propaganda policy is entrenched into the defensive tactics of current Scientology.

      Dan, you can do SO MUCH, to help solid researchers, and there’s a University full professor, who I think I’ve already put you in touch with, but the OSA Network Orders, doing a scholarly paper on the history, and impact of those writings, on current Scientology’s impact on society, IS entirely relevant towards somehow stopping the harm that Scientology is doing.

      It is so easy to employ “black propaganda” when those using OSA Network Order 15, specifically, claim they are only doing “dirty propaganda.”

      The line between “dirty propaganda” and “black propaganda” is in they eye of the one applying the “dirty propaganda”, and almost universally the recipient of “dirty propaganda” will react that the “dirty propaganda” is “black.”

      Anyways Dan, I love your comments, and I seek them out.

      You know your stuff Dan! I hope you will help the Professor who is currently studying OSA and it’s history.


  10. R. Hill permalink
    August 14, 2010 4:21 pm

    Keep in mind I don’t have any insider knowledge, and this is all from my independent, outsider’s point of view.

    Hana Elthringham Whitfield was speaking out and helping people get out of Scientology way before most of us. I have newspieces from the early 90s (if I recall correctly) where her and Jerry Whitfield were helping young people getting out of the cult.

    Now, Marty treated Hana the same way he is treated today by the Church of Scientology:

    “John Richardson (‘Richardson’) of Premiere Magazine, wrote that Marty Rathbun, RTC Inspector General for Ethics, and Heber Jentzsch, CSI President, claimed I was an accomplice in the tragic murder of my father 30 years ago, attached hereto as Exhibit 52 of September 1993, page 91. This is blatantly and completely false.”

    From Affidavit of Hana Eltringham Whitfield (8 March 1994).

    Quite similar to Elliot Abelson’s is doing today. I suppose if one overlook all of their wrongdoings, most people can be said of being “good guy.”

    It’s nothing new when it comes to the Church of Scientology. In the past, it had tried to have Russel Miller (author of Bare-Face Messiah) “arrested for the murder of Dean Reed.” It had tried to frame Michael Flynn with an attempt to defraud L. Ron Hubbard by cashing a $2-million check. All false allegations.

    I am just for people doing the right thing, and in the case of the Church of Scientology, spilling it all is doing the right thing. There is a lot of rationalization out there that we should refrain from criticizing Marty or whoever for not doing so, on the ground that, unknown to outside observers like me, he is helping in bringing full accountability to the Church of Scientology and its current management.

    This doesn’t work for me: I can’t stand arguments rationalizing not doing the right thing. Marty admits that he went out of his way to not disclose personal knowledge of criminal activities re. Eliot Abelson. This is very wrong.

    From my point of view, the Church of Scientology must be exposed completely and fully, similar to how its ugly inners were exposed in 1977. Can you imagine if in 1977 most of all the dirty ops would have been swept under the rug? I will always be suspicious to ideas of not speaking out in a straightforward manner. Not doing so I see it as attempt to control.

    It doesn’t serve society to hide wrongdoings, and hiding the symptoms prevent from finding the right diagnosis, and debating of the best cure. I consider private apologies for wrongdoings carried out on behalf of the Church of Scientology as “sweeping things under the rug”: It prevent from adding to the historical track record of the Church of Scientology, and thus this serves the Church of Scientology very well all things considered.

    • It's me again permalink
      August 14, 2010 7:16 pm

      R. Hill,

      This is what I think is happening:

      As you may have noticed, there are a lot of people posting on these sites with all different opinions on just about everything that has to do with Scientology. Everyone who comes to these sites come on different Scientology tracks. Ex SO have actually seen or experienced the criminal behavior. Staff sees the watered down consequences and public only notices the outpoints from these consequences.

      Like any group, there is a Goal and Purpose. No matter how each person got here, they all have the same Goal, exposing the crimes of DM and the Purpose, to get justice for the group. (This is probably not the exact wording, but you get the idea).

      Now for some reason, most of the group thinks that Marty is their best bet for accomplishing that Goal and Purpose and since these sites are being watch, you can’t give you plans away to the enemy. So I am assuming that there are secrets that are not being published. This is part of winning any battle or war.

      What you or myself may think about Marty, is of no interest to the rest of the group. It looks to me like there is group agreement that Marty’s The One (opinion only). And he may have enough information and know how to be The One. If he does that’s great! Of course he could never do this alone and he has the help of a lot of other people. There are also a lot of others, over many years, who set the stage for what is happening now.

      I think you will have to wait it out and hope that Marty can achieve the goals of the group and then we can go from there.

      R. Hill, we usually don’t agree much on Scientology, but I do agree with you on this one. I think we just have to take one step at a time and hope there is a plan 2, just in case.

      Disclaimer: This is only my opinion and in no way takes away from all the hard work that others have done before Marty and are still doing.

      • Jeff permalink*
        August 14, 2010 9:10 pm

        It’s Me: I wouldn’t say there is group agreement that Marty is The One, whatever that might mean. I consider Marty to be a friend and a courageous individual. We don’t always agree on everything, but then, who says we all have to agree on everything? I think he is in a unique position to expose Miscavige and potentially bring justice, and he appears to be going about it in a very intelligent manner.

      • August 15, 2010 5:42 pm

        The Conway and Barnett “Snapping” book has a relevant point, and I’m sure trained psychologists and actually sociologists are open to the variety of reactions that ex members of any “intense” group will react.

        I see all of us who were in the intense religious order life of Hubbard’s Sea Organization as having a learning curve phenomenon also.

        Certain people hold to the Scientology/Hubbard principles despite all the negative Hubbard/Scientology principles, which they either dispense with, or deny mentally, skip over mentally, whatever the proper way of describing how current and ex members fail to look in detail at Hubbard’s/Scientology’s wrongs, and they focus on the “positive” that has produced lifechanging “wins” for them.

        You can’t knock their “wins” away from their life history.

        They are increasingly technically violating MORE of Hubbard’s “SP” “High Crimes” by continuing to speak publicly about the details of their lives.

        Marty and the top ex Sea Org crew members continuing to dialogue publicly are doing non stop suppressive acts, technically, EACH time they give another piece of history and explain things. They are giving verbal data galore.

        From a completely fanatical viewpoint, grading Marty and Mike Rinder and all the others who are still believers in Scientology tech, they are violating left right and center about a dozen key Hubbard “High Crimes” and even the Code of a Scientologist, specifically in the way they are going public about what is wrong with Scientology.

        Marty and Mike will NOT be turning into a Jesse Prince nor Hana Eltringham.

        But, honestly, if you step back and look at Marty and Mike Rinder, they are increasingly telling more of their misdeeds, confirming more.

        There are only so many minutes in the day, and these senior ex Scientologists are still Scientologists, and they are doing actually what official Scientology should be doing, is how I see it.

        Hubbard’s Scientology is a therapy religion, with a shitload of totalitarian bureaucratic self problem causing policies than ensnare all parishioners and staff.

        The ex Scientologists like Marty are trying to steer an honorable human path OUT of that totalitarian mindset.

        Their learning curve and their help to law enforcment, their explaining things to officials, like Mike Rinder meeting with Senator Xenophon, you just can’t underestimate that.

        That Mike and Marty and helping officials get what Scientology does, that is important.

        It takes time for the dirty stuff to get into officials’ hands, and they are helping that job.

        And in time, I’m sure all the dirty stuff Scientology has done that Mike and Marty know about, it will all become public knowledge.

        Miscavige is a key figure, unfortunately, in current history, for continuing the dirty Scientology irreligious and illegal stuff.

        There’s no denying Marty and Mike are helping stop Miscavige.

        And others, like Joe Howard, who wrote VERY IMPORTANTLY, my god, Mr. Hill, PLEASE privately email Joe Howard, and plumb his incredible amount of firsthand history. Joe is committing non stop “Suppressive Acts” by doing the honest act of simply explaining Hubbard’s technical procedures, like he did on this thread when Joe explained what “Roll Back” is.

        I wish I had a gob of money, and 3-5 years to summarize and write what all the operative harmful Hubbard policies that need to be retired, because those policies are only applied to cause harm.

        Scientology’s reputation I think is improving due to the internet allowing the ex members to so freely discuss, and chew over these issues.

        I greatly appreciated ALL your postings over the years on ARS Mr. Hill.

        These people are all going through their own learning curves, and to us ex members who know the full lineup of “Suppressive Acts” that these ex senior members are rising up in principled ways to simply violate those basic Hubbard “High Crimes”, left right and center, I see them all absolutely returning to normal citizen higher principled viewpoints, day by day, as they each write more and more details about their lives in the Sea Org, and ongoing history, which they write about and share publicly the significance in Scientological terms.

        This is an unprecedented period, again, I think, only due to the freedom for people to share their views so quickly and from such widely physically separated locations, because of the internet.

        There’s too many people to thank.

        Again, if Hubbard hadn’t made so many constraining policies to ensnare the Scientology participants into all the bad behavior to each other, we’d not have so much to discuss.

        Which to me, is where blame ultimately has to go.

        Which is why I want smarter journalists and academics to learn of the Hubbard administrative scriptures that underlie and is the internal basis for a lot of bad behavior.

        When we’re all dead and gone, Hubbard’s writings will be still there for whomever still makes up the Sea Org.

        Hill, are you up to doing any type of writing about Hubbard policy?

        I’m trying to get, and one professor is planning to write on OSA history and it’s impact on Scientology today.

        I think, personally, a scholar needs to be helped in writing Sea Org history, and Sea Org impact on Scientology.

        What I see, in general, of the whole Marty Independent movement, is that the trend to reject Hubbard’s overwhelming administrative setups, since I think history shows so far, that NONE of the two top councils that Hubbard last left with Scientology, namely the Watchdog Committee nor the International Executive Strata, was ever built up sufficiently to stand on their own two feet, and withstand ANY domination from the other “top” administrative structure, namely RTC, which was dominated by Miscavige, whom everyone agrees is the bully sociopathic bad guy.

        But there are so many ways to interpret history.

        The whole administrative structures of Scientology, Hubbard wrote in policy that admin is to help get the tech in, and at various points Hubbard put admin secondary.

        The Marty independents are wholesale rejecting the admin structures, and the messy situation is whether to blame Miscavige these last 30 years for the messed up admin structures, or to blame LRH.

        There’s not even anyone for me to discuss this with.

        Because the news coming out of the Marty and Mike Rinder experiences, is gonna take the headlines for a while.

        With the dominating headline being David Miscavige and whether he’ll fail or succeed in keeping the admin totalitarian setup that he’s ursurped, going or whether it will all somehow collapse.

        I disagree with people thinking everyone has to have an agenda.

        Some are just spectators, and wondering which way this all will go.

        I’d minimally like to see the worst cease, within official Scientology.

        That accomplished, then whatever is next worst, will stick out, and need to be addressed, as history rolls forward.

        That’s what I see happening.

        Collapses of all the Scientology corporations is unlikely.

        DM going, and the money grubbing phase ending, maybe then Mitoff will cancel GAT, and they go back to the OEC Vol 4 basic tech strategies, like Joe Howard spoke about is one option.

        Whether there’ll be a steady flow of defections out of the Miscavige dominated Scientology into the free Scientology loose “field” therapist (auditors are therapists, spiritual therapists and spiritual exorcism therapists) positions, is the growing/continuing pattern.

        Hubbard’s rules made life as unofficial Scientology field therapists a harsh existence.

        It’s been hard to blame Hubbard for this, but that is unfortately where the blame should fall.

        Even Roy Wallis wrote that this blame fell to Hubbard, and this was claimed by the “independent” Scientologists who defected from Hubbard all the way back to the Dianetics days.

        The learning curve point of recognizing it is LRH’s policies, and NOT the executors of his policies, no matter how easy it is to blame the executors of his policies as the “bad” guys, that learning curve seems something NOT fully ever achieved mentally by the steadfast pro Hubbardites. They look for all manner of general Hubbard principles to justify them not blaming Hubbard for Hubbard’s actual harsh strict admin policies, policies that actually when strictly applied would target those very supporters of Hubbard.

        It’s part of the ironies and paradoxes and predicaments of Hubbard’s own policies.

        I see Marty and Mike fending through that rather dismissing any criticism of Hubbard, and focusing on the dominant “present time problem” which is David Miscavige, who to me exemplifies, like one other senior member privately over 8 years ago, along the same lines that a “fully healed” ex member like Hana Eltringham and other senior leaders from the Apollo veteran days also concluded, which is that Miscavige exemplifies very successfully the worst in Hubbard.

        I think this is also just Hubbard getting his way, setting up totalitarian rules in his setup, which anyone who wants to be an extremist about it, and can use the handy Hubbard totalitarian policies to dominate.

        What I fear though, an am unfortunately less positive about, is DM slipping by, untouched by law enforcement, at this stage, and that this sets up a molasses long sort of ex members versus current members standoff.

        That seems to be MORE like other religions in history.

        Totalitarian “voluntary” religions, splintering, and the LONG term bitter divides and backbiting between the main church and the splinter church(es).

        That’s what I see.

        I’ve seen nothing out of Marty’s or Mike’s mouths or writings that they want to go put the two top councils of Scientology back into place, and let those councils do what is those two councils’ responsibilities.

        Top leadership, above all the multi layered Sea Org echelons, the Class 5 orgs, the Missions, the groups, the IHELP field auditors, all those structures are based on LRH writings, and are still a challenge sitting there, for Scientologists to attempt to make those echelons work.

        Scientology isn’t just the bad boy and bad girl personalities doing bad things that harm Scientology’s reputation.

        It’s a lot of people going through this Hubbard writings learning curve, and learning how that all fits to the world, and whether that really works or not, and going through being hit and trashed by the Hubbard scriptures that blame them for failing to make the admin structures work to keep the technical show on the road.

        Anyways, Hill, I’ve loved reading your writings for years!


    • brendon permalink
      August 14, 2010 9:12 pm

      R. Hill –

      I think I was saying the same thing but I think you said it better.

      Marty intimates (there’s that word again) that it will all come in due time. In response to a question about making things more public in his ‘open letter to Abelson’ thread he says simply “Everything has its season.”

      It could be there are problems of his personal complicity or the complicity of others he is aligned with. Or maybe he doesn’t really have that much in his back pocket. Or maybe he is trying to unseat DM with the minimum amount of damage to the COS (a post-DM COS that is still tax exempt is better than a for-profit COS). I don’t know.

    • August 15, 2010 4:16 am

      I agree.

  11. It's me again permalink
    August 15, 2010 12:16 am


    The One means exactly what you said. I think that the majority of the group thinks he is in a unique position to expose Miscavige. He is The One who can do it because of his training in this type of area and his personal knowledge of David Miscavige crimes.

    • Jeff permalink*
      August 15, 2010 5:20 pm

      My own view is that exposing Church crimes and abuses will not be achieved by “one” person, but by the work and efforts of many, many people.

      • It's me again permalink
        August 15, 2010 10:42 pm

        Jeff, You are right!

  12. MajorWynn permalink
    August 15, 2010 11:01 am

    I don’t see why a “public apology” is in order when no one seems to know what the rumor was in the first place. This kind of thing raises more questions than it answers anything. It makes people curious about the rumor itself, but Nancy is not willing to say what it was. If Nancy really owes Marty an apology, why not just do it in private rather than involve everyone who reads these sort of blogs?

  13. August 15, 2010 4:08 pm

    Nancy –

    Your apology and your show of solidarity to Marty is a poignant one, and I genuinely appreciate your sincerity.

    However, I believe that the primary mistake we made when we adopted an ideology to do our thinking for us was to invest too much loyalty into the founder of that ideology, and to trust him so much that we let him define our own self-interests for us.

    He abused that trust and he eventually developed a system that sought to destroy anyone who chose not to stop questioning him, and who refused to let him use us for his own gain.

    Those who continue to question MartyRathbun, the principal enforcer of Fair Game for the Church of Scientology for over 20 years, do so for legitimate reasons. To demonize or marginalize those people who choose to continue to question him – which he calls “haters” on their “natterboards” – is falling for the same mistake, and the same tactics, we fell for originally.

    Questioning Marty Rathbun is a vital activity. I disagree that we should allow anyone to revise history, to define what proper speech is, and to decide which questions to ask and which not to, and about whom.

    Amy Scobee, on Marty’s blog recently, said “In my opinion, anyone who would harass a whistle-blower that’s making information known to prevent others from getting hurt is just as nasty as the creep committing the crimes – and no friend of mine.”

    It could be that questioning is seen as “harassment” when the answers to those questions would reveal things not wished to be known.

    So a person who sees the vital importance of continuing to question will have to forfeit the friendship of some people.

    Oh well.

    Such is life, if one wishes to remain free and outside the clutches of a cult.

    • August 16, 2010 12:23 pm

      Well said, Allen.

      So many of us failed to question and speak up when we should have. We allowed bullies to silence us. Never again.

  14. Jeff permalink*
    August 15, 2010 5:44 pm

    I think its important to keep some sense of balance and not see things in a black and white, all or nothing framework. That someone defends Marty – or anyone else for that matter – does not equate to unquestioning allegiance. That someone questions Marty – or anyone else – does not mean they “hate” him. There are not two mutually exclusive “camps” as some would have you think. I try to see people’s good points, while also maintaining a healthy skepticism. I give my friends a lot of latitude, but I will speak up if I disagree. I dislike entering personal, ad hominem attacks into any discussion. If you have to resort to personal insults, you’ve already lost the argument. So I try to keep them off this board as much as possible and stick to the issues. I allow a broad spectrum of viewpoints on any issue, whether I agree or not. Some people think that because I allow a comment, I “agree” with it. Not so. Some people dislike this blog because people post here that they don’t agree with. Well, if you can’t tolerate a free flow of opinion, if you must only be exposed to people who agree with you on everything, if you see everyone who disagrees with you as an “enemy,” then this probably isn’t the place for you.

    • August 15, 2010 7:04 pm

      Well said.


    • lunamoth permalink
      August 15, 2010 9:05 pm


      Thanks for this forum. I agree with your willingness to air all viewpoints and entertain all comers, even when I don’t enjoy the “climate” those viewpoints may create on any given day. It’s interesting to me how the tone of this site varies so dramatically on some days. I wonder what to attribute it to. Could it reflect what is currently going on with Marty, do you think? It seems that when the heat is being turned up on him, it shows up on this site, too. We get “company.” Do you notice this, too?

      I support the right of Nancy and any other whistle-blower to decide for themselves what they will communicate and what they will not. These people do not have any special obligation to us, and are already going so far beyond what one has the right to expect, that the make-wrong, disparaging remarks and disrespectful communications about them, especially on a site where they are hosting or posting themselves, is the height of bad manners.

    • August 17, 2010 3:51 pm

      It’s a good point, Jeff: if someone defends Marty, it does not equate to unquestioning allegiance.

      My uncomfortable question: Does their one-time defense of him thereafter require quiet and non-public questioning?

      When I joined Scientology – now nobody laugh here – I actually thought I was joining a group that valued the free exchange of ideas and spirited debate. I’m not kidding. Certainly the Creed of the Church can give you that impression, as well as many of LRH’s early writings. And when people TELL you this who are trying to recruit you, it is not unthinkable that you would have that impression about Scientology.

      When I found out that Scientology was NOT that kind of group, at first I was really shocked and dismayed. But I still tried to “fit in”. I became silent about so many things. I suppressed myself horribly for years.

      The idea that questioning something – especially publicly – is a sign of disloyalty is part of the Scientology culture.

      Is that culture healthy?

      Is that the culture you joined when you first got into Scientology?

      Maybe it’s just me. Maybe I had so many MUs about Scientology when I joined that I should have never joined.

      Or maybe I was lied to about it.

      Either way, I think that if Scientology is a town, then that town needs an enema.

      And I will continue to administer those enemas for its own health, for the health of society, and for the health of individuals who might also get lied to about what Scientology really is.

      Sorry. I got carried away there.

      What was my question again?

  15. August 15, 2010 6:22 pm

    I agree that it’s brave of Marty to speak out, but what is he really doing? He says he wants to end the abuses of the Church, and yet he blames these abuses on David Miscavige and attempts to whitewash L. Ron Hubbard, when in fact the abuses of the Church are codified in LRH policy.

    Marty is going after a symptom, but he isn’t trying to solve the problem. Maybe he’s getting people out of the Church – maybe – but he’s NOT getting people out of Scientology. And Scientology is the true culprit.

    It’s important to speak out against people like Marty who are trying to direct the public’s anger at the wrong target. Luckily, the public isn’t buying it. We know that Marty censors comments that cast him or LRH in a bad light, and from what I hear from fellow protesters, he’s having to work harder and harder at that. More and more people are speaking out against him, and not just the obvious OSA patsies and Church members, but real protesters who want to see and end to the abuses of Scientology.


    • Jeff permalink*
      August 15, 2010 8:48 pm

      Caliwog, you are welcome to your opinion about Marty, about LRH, or about Scientology. But I don’t think you speak for “the public,” or some vast army of “fellow protesters” or “real protesters.” I think you speak for yourself. Good for speaking out and making your opinions known, even if anonymously. But don’t pretend you speak for a group. It’s called an argumentum ad populum.

      • August 16, 2010 7:00 am

        Hi Jeff, with all due respect – and I mean that sincerely; I really appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion, even though you may not agree – I don’t mean to speak in generalizations. My opinions about what the public is and isn’t buying, and the people speaking out against him, are based on what I’ve read and observed. That said, “the public” is a bit of a generalization. I’ll watch that next time. 🙂


    • Doc "Smith" permalink
      August 16, 2010 8:56 pm

      Calliwog, I wanted to weigh in here. When I was “In” there seemed to be a pretty black and white differentiation between scientologists and non- or anti-scientologists. Now with all the comm. here and elsewhere on the net there seems to be a very wide range of viewpoints.
      I have had success using some of LRH technology myself and with others. I don’t neccesarily buy everything Ron said, but feel that throwing out the whole subject will leave a poorer civilization. It is important as a first immediate step to end the physical and mental abuses, and remove the sociopath who is instigating them, and any of his followers who would continue them.
      It also appears to me that Marty showing the truth he and others have seen causes many to change their minds about Scn. I know of some people who want Scn to continue without DM, but others who want nothing more to do with the subject at all. I don’t see marty’s blog as leaning either way at this point, but just working to end abuse and uncover lies. What happens to the organization is anyones guess at this point.

      • Freetothink permalink
        August 18, 2010 4:33 am

        “I have had success using some of LRH technology myself and with others. I don’t neccesarily buy everything Ron said, but feel that throwing out the whole subject will leave a poorer civilization.”

        I totally agree with you on this point Doc. Although I don’t buy everything Ron says either, I do believe that society would be better off if several people would know some of Scientology tools & use them. I’ve help many non-Scientologists with Scientology tools (ARC, Study Tech, communication drills, finance policies, Tone Scale,…) Some might argue that these tools existed before Scientology. Maybe they did. The point is that several of these tools althought not infallible are very practical & can rapidly turn someones life around or for the least improve it to a degree where a person is happier.

        I don’t care about the Church itself. As a matter of fact I think the Church IS DEAD. But I do care very much that the several tools I’ve learned in Scientology be accessible to many. It is my hope that society does not reject the tools because it wants to reject the Church.


      • August 18, 2010 9:41 am

        >I know of some people who want Scn to continue without DM, but others who want nothing more to do with the subject at all. I don’t see marty’s blog as leaning either way at this point


        If you honestly don’t see it, then I can tell you: Marty is *totally* leaning towards Scientology without DM. He firmly believes in the principles and policies of LRH, and he’s been strangely silent on one of the biggest protest issues, which is tax exemption. I’m guessing that’s because he sees Scn as a legitimate religion and would like that status to continue even after DM is deposed.


  16. windhorse permalink
    August 15, 2010 8:32 pm

    While the analogy isn’t perfect — I suggest Mr. Hill, Mr. Stanfield et al read Nelson Mandela’s autobiography: A Long Walk to Freedom.

    Mandela spent 27 years in prison. He was no angel but when he was released he worked tiredlessly and peacefully working towards the betterment of people and his country.

    Marty was surely no saint while IN the church. He felt he was doing what was best at that time. Not unlike Mandela’s earlier years.

    Marty has left the church lead by Miscavige. He has worked to reconcile with those he might have harmed. He has spoken out against Miscavige and exposed many of his crimes.

    He continues to do this.

    To point out his PRIOR actions, when he himself admits to them as a REASON he should not be listened to is simply admitting that you don’t believe a person can change. Moreover, to me it feels as if the intention is just to keep arguments alive.

    Going back to the non-perfect analogy of Mandela — those who might say — BUT BUT he was involved with violent measures in the past therefore apartheid with Mandela is a sham …

    Hmmmm —

    To me – the important thing is what someone is doing NOW while acknowledging the wrongs he/she did in the past and atoning as best as possible.

    I admire Nancy Many for righting what she perceives as a wrong impression of Marty and withdrawing her earlier forwarded gossip. It’s obvious to me that she wrote this to someone in particular who we do NOT need to know, nor what the rumor was.


    • lunamoth permalink
      August 15, 2010 9:08 pm

      Thank you, Windhorse. This room needed a little disinfecting.

    • Marta permalink
      August 15, 2010 9:27 pm

      WH- You’ve spoken my thoughts again, but better 🙂

  17. It's me again permalink
    August 16, 2010 12:31 am

    Chuck, Allen, Caliwog,

    You are never going to get “everyone” to agree with you. There are too many people who have had experiences in Scientology that are their own and no amount of LRH bashing is ever going to change that.

    You can’t honestly blame David Miscavige’s current criminal actions on LRH. Please! Ron did not use the “Technology” to destroy. He did not create an IAS for a personal cash fund.
    Did he ever violated his own Polices? I don’t know. Would it surprise me that “any” person sometimes in life dramatizes or violates their own code? No. By trying to prove LRH wasn’t a saint, you are spinning your wheels, most people don’t believe he was perfect and don’t equate his personal faults with Scientology. If you are now trying to tell us that Scientology was set up as a totalitarian operation, please, I think that was always pretty obvious. Businesses don’t run as a democracy. How a policy is written and how it is twisted and abused are two different things.

    You are certainly within your right to try and tear down the image of the Scientology Technology as some type of evil but for those of us who “understand” it, know how it is supposed to be applied and have seen the good it has done, we have the right to defend it.

    I don’t know who Marty is, never heard of him before coming to these sites. I understand what you are saying about his site and how he responds sometimes or just censors. I have made some personal observations and decisions regarding this…. but on the other hand, I can also see he is very cleaver in his thinking. People do own things and it is Marty’s site and he can do or say whatever he wants.

    As you may already know, if you want to be able to communicate , Jeff is “very sane” on the communication line which makes his site more diverse and interesting, but it is still Jeff’s site and he has the last say of what gets posted and what doesn’t. These sites are not run as a democracy, they are run by the person who owns them.

    Besides your viewpoints of Scientology I do have some agreements with each of you in your comments. It seems to me that there is some tone arm action happening right now and we should wait and see what happens then go from there.

    • August 18, 2010 9:49 am

      >Jeff is “very sane” on the communication line… it is still Jeff’s site and he has the last say of what gets posted and what doesn’t.

      This is very true, and I appreciate that Jeff allows all viewpoints to be aired and answered. Marty does not do this. Again, as you said – it’s his sandbox and he gets to choose who plays and who doesn’t. But people who censor comments generally have something to hide, and that makes me suspicious. It’s one thing to censor abuse or vitriol, but we’re talking about censorship of opposition viewpoints — “entheta.”

      I already have a deep respect for this site because he allows “entheta” comments. Clearly, Jeff knows that you are smart enough to read opposing viewpoints and decide for yourself what rings true. That’s one of the reasons I don’t trust Marty – he censors entheta, ** just like the Church of Scientology **. And if you compare the dialogue here to Marty’s site, you’ll see a huge difference. Thoughtful, respectful, and thought-provoking exchanges here, and primarily mindless ass-kissing on Marty’s site.


  18. Freetothink permalink
    August 17, 2010 5:27 am

    Nancy I really appreciate your apologies. I don’t need to know what it’s about. In my opinion that’s between you & Marty. Despite that it makes a difference for me to know that you can change your mind about someone & are willing to admit publicly that you might have been wrong.

    I really appreciate you sharing with us in your book your experience with Scientology. Your willingness to share very private information despite the risks for yourself & your family is very commendable. This information needs to be broadly communicated.

    Anybody attacking any whistleblower is only encouraging current & potential whistleblowers into silence. I’m not saying that being a whistleblower should automatically erase all of one’s crimes but being willing to blow the whistle despite the dangers of doing so is a step in the right direction & should be commended & supported.

    Thank you Nancy & all who have spoken & will speak against the abuses.


  19. August 17, 2010 3:31 pm

    I’m going to say something here that is probably going to be controversial, but it is something that I believe needs to be said: Marty does not allow questioning of the tech or LRH on his board.

    To me, this is not healthy, nor is it even the “Scientology” I thought I was joining when I first joined up. It is certainly the Scientology I left, however, when I found out what Scientology really was.

    Is it “harassment” to disagree with this and to say so publicly?

    Marty also re-writes history and remains silent on vital information he has about a lot of things, refusing to answer questions people have about ops that were run against them and their families, and the capabilities that the Church presently has to run ops on people. There is a LOT more Marty is very silent about, and his silence is not helpful to a lot of people.

    He also tried to stop the inquiry in Australia, as well as telling his followers that law enforcement should not be used in dealing with the Church. Marty dissuades his followers from frequenting “the natterboards” because those people are all “victims” and are “low-toned”.

    These are all things I strongly disagree with, for many reasons which I feel are valid.

    Should I just shut up and be a good “group member”?

    Am I in a “condition of enemy” for disagreeing publicly with these things?

    I invite your opinions to mine.

    • brendon permalink
      August 17, 2010 5:28 pm

      The short answer, of course, is: it’s his blog! There have been posts of mine that didn’t make it through his moderation; the same is true on this board. But I know they are moderated going in.

      Without going into the specifics you raise (I’m not personally aware of some of them anyway) I think you just have to accept it is the nature of the medium. You can always make your point on other boards that have far less moderation. Perhaps not reaching your ideal audience, but the audience for any given board has basically made a tacit pact with the moderator to let the moderator filter things for them.

      Over time we develop a sense of any given blog. On Marty’s I think we all know you won’t get far if, say, you slam LRH. You have to figure that what he possibly really wants is Scientology just sans the DM touches — which leaves room for a lot of the stuff a lot of people find abhorrent. On this board, Jeff is more willing to engage both sides of a topic, but will cut off the discussion if it gets a little too, er, intense. His threshold of when a discussion is over is a lot lower than mine. Oh well, his board.

      On the other hand, on Ask The Scientologist you can pretty much denigrate Scientology to your heart’s content and it will get through, (provided you are actually adding to the discussion/questioning).

      I read them all, but I know Scientologists who limit themselves to Marty’s board (and the like: Friends of LRH, Scientology-cult). People have varying degrees of how much information, and how critical, they want. The blog moderators help them in that regard, even if in our opinion they may be doing their audience a disservice.

      Finally, I think information seeps from blog to blog. There are no doubt those Marty followers who also read here even if they won’t go as far as Ask the Scientologist. So make your points where you can. You may never know when something you say will have an impact on someone.

      • August 18, 2010 9:53 am

        >The short answer, of course, is: it’s his blog!

        True, and as I said above, it’s his right. The problem is that Marty claims to be spreading “the truth”. But he’s not presenting the truth, he’s presenting his version of the truth, and a lot of it just ain’t true.

        There’s an MP3 floating around of him talking to some Anon fool, and Marty paraphrases “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Sounds very gallant… too bad it’s not true, either.

        Allen, I agree 100% with what you said. Well put.


    • Freetothink permalink
      August 18, 2010 2:52 am

      The way I see it is that you have the right to think whatever you want & you have the right to communicate also but other have the right to accept or refuse your communication.

      You can have your own blog to communicate what you want & others will be free to go on it if they wish. If what you say is of enough interest to people they will go to your blog & discuss it with you.

      Personnally I don’t have time (or maybe I choose not to take the time) to read every blog & every single comments. So I go to blogs that most interest me like Marty’s, Jeff’s & Scientology-cult. Other blogs might be very interesting but there’s more than enough on the blogs I mentioned that interest me so I don’t feel I have time to spare to go to other blogs. Heck I can’t even keep up with these blogs.

      I’m happy with Marty, Jeff & Steve’s blogs. I have no ideas which comments have been presented to them that they have chosen to block. It’s their rights, it’s their blog. I enjoy their blogs very much & the day I don’t I will search others blogs that interest me more. As I’m sure you know there is not a lack of blogs discussing Scientology out there.

      When I go to a gathering I tend to listen & participate in conversations that interest me. I would certaintly not want anyone to force me to listen or discuss subjects that don’t interest me. I don’t have that much interest at this time to question/research/analyse everything single thing that has to do with the Tech & LRH.

      Just my 2 cents. Marie-Joe

  20. lunamoth permalink
    August 17, 2010 5:04 pm


    I’m wondering if there is another book to be written about the experience of being a whistle blower?

  21. August 17, 2010 5:38 pm

    There just may be another book, but currenty there is a Bear in the Kitchen and he’s trying to burn the entire house down..

    I know we have many “factions” and people who landed in different places for their futures, but I think we ALL agree, we have GOT to get that bear out of the kitchen….

    Let’s concentrate on what we agree on…. and pretty soon there will be no more bear, and we can all sit down and write our memoirts…

    • Freetothink permalink
      August 18, 2010 4:37 am

      I love it Nancy! Let’s get rid of that bear!

  22. It's me again permalink
    August 17, 2010 5:45 pm


    I understand what you are saying, but try to look at this viewpoint. Marty is not Source. It doesn’t seem to me that Marty’s site is set up to get into debates about the Technology or Policy regarding Scientology.

    He is also not going to give reasons for some things because he is being watched and if a person is smart enough who is watching, they can pretty much figure out his game plan and he knows that.

    Marty’s site is not a communication site to voice disagreements regarding Scientology technology or get into debates about things that are not relevant to his cause. It is his site and he has his own purpose for it. Can you leave it at that? Must you enforce your believes or questions on someone who doesn’t want to communicate about them?

    As for your condition, I have no idea what condition you are in. Ethics is a personal thing and I don’t believe that you can assign anyone a condition that they disagree with. If you did, then forcing that condition on a person would keep the person in the real condition that they are in or in some cases put them in a lower condition. So, that is for you and you alone to figure out.

    Should you shut up and be a good member? Do you really need to ask that. Do you not notice that your comment has been posted by Jeff? Is Jeff shutting you up? Jeff’s site is set up for open debate as long as you follow his rules of conduct. You can thank your lucky stars that Jeff lets people, he personally may or may not agree with, communicate. A rarity on planet earth.

    I would like to suggest to you that you step back and look at things for what they are and what the purpose is of each site you post on. I am not saying this to make you wrong or to invalidate you in anyway. I am just suggesting that maybe at times you have a misunderstanding of the persons viewpoint and purpose on the sites you are posting on.

    I hope my opinions helped.

  23. August 17, 2010 5:51 pm

    dear free to think,
    thank you for truly understanding my public communication to Marty, but it wasn’t only meant for him, it was meant for those of us who really don’t have a clue how far they are going to go after Marty and Mike, as evidenced by the attempted murder charges that arrived the same day I was writing my E Mail. Let’s not concentrate on all our differences, there are plenty and there will plenty of time in the future to do that — But Right Now he Bear is in our kitchen, creating maybem and attempting to burn the entire house down. Let’s concentrate on our points of agreement and forward those. Whereever you are what ever you have been through, you can do something to throw the bear out of the house.
    Make public what happened to you, or to your close friends. Write to your government — and not those stupid letters that all look the same that Scn PR used to have us all write.. Just write from your heart.
    As Senator Xenaphon stated in his opening statement, They can be a church, many groups can be a church — but that does NOT mean that they can committ heinous crimes behind that curtain.
    Let’s pull back that curtain….

  24. Jeff permalink*
    August 17, 2010 7:38 pm

    Allan – imagine going onto the blog of a born-again Christian and questioning the Bible and Jesus. The blog’s owner would probably not allow your comments, and even if he did, those that read his blog would probably shout you down and call you bad names. One could complain about the injustice of it all, one could complain that one was being censored, one could call them brainwashed Bible-bots and so on.

    But one could also ask, “what the hell did you expect?” And one could also ask, “why are you posting there in the first place? It’s a Christian blog. You’re not a Christian. So why are you there?” You might say, “well, I believe Christianity is evil and I’m trying to wake them up.” Well, OK, if that’s your mission. But if that’s really your mission, why don’t you go to a Christian Church, interrupt their service, and give them a lecture on the evils of Christianity? Why wouldn’t you do that? Well, you might say, “that would be presumptuous, rude and impolite.”


    • lunamoth permalink
      August 17, 2010 8:07 pm




    • Just Me permalink
      August 17, 2010 9:28 pm



      Just Me

    • August 17, 2010 10:37 pm

      To brand people pointing out at the ongoing censorship as “complaining” is a straw man argument.

      I personally never argued he has no the right to censor his blog. Of course he has.

      What seem to get lost, is that people have the right to point out at the ongoing censorship and control/suppression of information, which happens to be a core feature of Scientology, an ideology which led to a rather thick ugly historical track record.

      “Pointing out” is not “complaining.”

      Sorry but your Christianity example doesn’t work: Marty has allowed some critical comments on his blog. So given this, of course people will try to express their own critical views, especially those who have tried Scientology, just like Marty, and who have left the Church, just like Marty.

      What is allowed as valid criticism seems completely arbitrary thought, in effect sending a confusing and puzzling message to readers. What is allowed? What is not? Impossible to say.

      Some people suspect he hand-picked the critical comments, as yet another mean of controlling those who have unfailing faith in him, and frankly I think they have a point.

      • lunamoth permalink
        August 18, 2010 12:57 am


        Not to imply that you are not up to it (because I have nothing but respect for your intellect and your ability to spot and dispatch a specious argument), but I would
        like to make the observation that you appear to be getting “ganged up on” today.


      • August 18, 2010 2:19 am


        Someone is defending an asshole like me?

        Gee, thanks, RHill!

      • It's me again permalink
        August 18, 2010 3:23 am

        I am confussed R. Hill. Do you also post under Allen Stanfield or are you just defending him?

        Either way, I don’t understand your upset with Marty. Who cares? It is his site and he makes the rules and can pick and choose what he wants posted. You don’t get a vote. You get to post your disagreements here, so what is the problem? Are you just venting? Really, I am baffled. Are you trying to be the Thought Police on another person’s site?

      • Just Me permalink
        August 18, 2010 3:35 am

        Rhill, I like the stats you keep of Marty’s blog. Very nice stuff.

        Just Me

      • Jeff permalink*
        August 18, 2010 4:23 am

        RHill – If Marty were running a newspaper or cable network, one could claim “censorship” for failing to present or allow an opposing viewpoint. Because a newspaper or news network is supposed to be unbiased. Blogs are not expected to be unbiased, in fact, they are known to be VERY biased. So the term “censorship” isn’t relevant. Anyone running any blog is not under any obligation to allow opposing viewpoints. The point of a blog is to present one’s own viewpoint, like I do here. People can comment or not, and I can post the comments or not. Up to me.

        Maybe you have blog mixed up with chat group or online forum? Different things.

      • R. Hill permalink
        August 18, 2010 12:12 pm

        Forget “censorship.” Let’s stick to “suppression of dissent.” “Censorship” is one way to suppress dissent.

        Again, just pointing out that “suppression of dissent” is what led Scientology to pile up crimes/wrongs throughout the decades. So if I see an ex engaging in the same behavior, I sure think people should point it out, whether it’s on a blog or not.

        Suppression of dissent led to “suppressive person” doctrines, which led to “fair game” (still very active as we can see), dead agent, sec check. etc. Scientology might have the “religion” label, but it sure can’t be compared to contemporary Christianity, since at its core doctrines if has suppression of dissent, and fraud.

        Whether inside or outside the Church of Scientology, the doctrines are all still there, and it needs to be pointed out when they manifest themselves through the proponents.

        I don’t know why, I just feel I owe it to the many people who have been deeply wronged — like Paulette Cooper, Gerry Armstrong, etc. — by the Church of Scientology, in the name of Scientology ideology to keep pointing it out the noxious doctrines of Scientology, and more so with attempts at revisionism.

        I can’t help it, that’s just how my personality was installed.

      • brendon permalink
        August 18, 2010 3:25 pm

        It’s Me Again –

        I had the same pause. I was almost going to post “Your slip is showing.” It’s only a possibe giveaway though, not a sure thing. Could have just been clumsy wording.

        But, to the point I made earlier about ideas spreading between blogs, if one couldn’t get an idea posted on Marty’s blog, one way to possibly get to it would be through here.

        No biggie for me. They are always just ideas to consider.

      • R. Hill permalink
        August 18, 2010 7:13 pm

        Just Me: “Rhill, I like the stats you keep of Marty’s blog. Very nice stuff.”

        Thanks. From your post on Marty’s blog I figure you like to play with numbers too. If you wish, I can send you the database, just contact me at rhill at xenu-directory dot net. (It’s an SQLite3 db).

    • Freetothink permalink
      August 18, 2010 4:39 am

      Jeff, I love the analogy

  25. It's me again permalink
    August 18, 2010 11:29 pm

    R. Hill,

    Ok, I will agree with you on “suppression of dissent”.

    The rest of the stuff is unreal to me. Example: When I was an auditor back in 1987, I never used sec checking the way I hear it being used now. I was on staff and audited public and in 2 1/2 years, I can count on one hand how many times I used a sec check.

    When PTS handlings were done, it stated that the “person decided” if he wanted to disconnect in the HCOBs, not that they were “forced” to disconnect. It would of never crossed my mind to tell someone that had to disconnect when doing a PTS handling. Also, not all PTS conditions come from an actual SP, the apparent SP requires a different handling altogether.

    It sounds like to me that you are talking about HCOPL’s because I never have seen any of the stuff I am hearing about in the technology. I think I have told you this before, I never had any interest in the admin part of Scientology so I am in no position to get into a debate about it.

    If what you are saying it true, I can only say that I think that policy has been used to control and is conflict with the technology of Scientology as I learned it, especially in the SO. Even now, the new Micavige technology is in conflict with the technology I studied.

    I understand your upset, I really do, but you have to realize that some people who understood the technology, applied it to help and experienced the good from it, has a different viewpoint than yourself. People like myself are not going to throw out the good because of the insanities of people who used policy and altered tech to destroy.

    If Marty doesn’t want to hear what you have to say, then so be it. You have the right to your viewpoint and he has the right to his. Maybe he is just not interested in trying to change your viewpoint. That’s all.

    • August 20, 2010 1:36 pm

      >It sounds like to me that you are talking about HCOPL’s because I never have seen any of the stuff I am hearing about in the technology. I think I have told you this before, I never had any interest in the admin part of Scientology so I am in no position to get into a debate about it.

      So why not read the admin PLs? They are available through Wikileaks. You might find them rather eye-opening.


  26. lunamoth permalink
    August 20, 2010 4:48 pm


    My 2 cents:

    Like Jeff, Marty Rathbun has built himself a “bully pulpit.” It’s his. The real power of that pulpit comes from how many people he can influence with it. The power is not really in the pulpit itself, but in Marty’s relationship with his readers.

    After a year or so of existence, this pulpit has some real power behind it, and you want to use it for your own communications, knowing that your own agenda undermines Marty’s (agendas to which you both have every right) You are obviously of above-average intelligence, so I know you’re aware that the viewpoints you are asserting are, for the most part, completely disrespectful to him, his purpose and the things he says he values and respects. Given that, why would he NOT consider you an enemy at worst and an annoyance at best?

    Anybody with any manners, anyone who doesn’t arrive at parties empty-handed, can see that is not going to fly. And whine as you might, NOBODY sees this as Marty’s shortcoming, EXCEPT those who have or show no respect for Marty’s viewpoints, his ownership of the comm lines he has created, and his right to have some control over them.

    Similarly, Jeff is the acknowledged arbiter of what gets posted on this blog because IT’S HIS. And while he will post most any civil communication, I for one get weary of threads being hijacked by the (frankly boring, at this point) agenda of carping criticism, character assasination,
    blah blah blah. It’s a One-Note-Samba, Allen.

    Many of your points are valid, but they’re lost to me because that seems to be the ONLY thing you know anything about or are willing to talk about, or that you are INSISTENT to talk about. I apologize to you here for the rudeness of this comm. My need to get this duplicated by you seems to have outweighed my willingness to sit here and find a more diplomatic way to say these things.

    I hope you will be willing to expand your repertoire, Allen. Otherwise, I see only more of what you are calling “suppression of dissent” in your future, and I will certainly be scanning down past your comments in the future.

  27. It's me again permalink
    August 20, 2010 8:14 pm


    “So why not read the admin PLs? They are available through Wikileaks. You might find them rather eye-opening.”

    No interest for the last 25 years plus, no interest now. Didn’t come into Scientology to join a group and live by group rules. Did it for 2 1/2 years on staff and that was fun experience to add to my book of life but I never fill one chapter of my book with the same experiences over and over…Life times are too short.

    I observed the tech workable and it added to my life. I observed the Admin as rules to run an organization which did not add to my life. Even thought a lot of the admin is basic policies and rules for running any business and businesses have been using these basics for many years, most of it didn’t apply to how I ran my business. I had my own way of doing things that worked for me and I use the laws of the land when it comes to my employees.

    • lunamoth permalink
      August 21, 2010 12:04 am


      I agree with you on the policy. Whatever tech you can apply to a good outcome is useful, whether the tech of handling upsets or the tech of keeping statistics. But it’s not holy. It’s not foolproof. And it’s certainly not the best or only way to do any of the things it is supposed to do.

      That there is something “divine” about admin tech is one of those fallacies that are accepted UNPROVED by members, because they saw one piece of it work or because one part of it answered
      a question for them early on.

      But that acceptance of the whole without first examining it in it’s entirety is one of those things that comes back to bite one in the ass. If it is infallible, perfect, or even just the best way to accomplish a good purpose, then it becomes an ETHICS matter that one must use it. That attitude is part of a trap.

      • August 21, 2010 3:01 am

        >That there is something “divine” about admin tech is one of those fallacies that are accepted UNPROVED by members, because they saw one piece of it work

        No, no, Lunamoth, that’s not true! Scientologists are not stupid. Most of the Scns I know (Church-affiliated or not) are intelligent people – too intelligent to accept that LRH tech is divine based on one datum.

        The concept that the Tech is infallible was CAREFULLY PLANNED by LRH. It’s hard-coded into the tech. The gradient scale, the progression of courses on the Bridge, the use of psychotherapudic techniques already proven to work in the early part of the Dianetics experience — these were all part of the plan. Okay, I don’t know that LRH had the whole thing laid out when he wrote Dianetics; Dn was basically a repackaging of already-known techniques, written with a salesman’s zeal. But they provided an excellent launching ground, and the rest of Scientology was built around that.

        Most Scientologists believe in the tech because they have seen it themselves. But this is no different than a person believing a woman can be levitated because watched it happen with their own eyes. Just as the levitation was an illusion carefully laid out by the magician beforehand – one that relies heavily on what people naturally see, observe and believe – so the concept that “the tech works” was carefully laid out by LRH.

        I wrote a blog entry about this. Might not be up your alley, but take a chance and give it a read – I’d love to hear your feedback. (I don’t censor comments *G*)


  28. lunamoth permalink
    August 21, 2010 12:05 am

    Sorry – that last comm was for It’s Me Again, not Caliwog.

  29. It's me again permalink
    August 21, 2010 3:57 am

    Thanks lumamoth, I got that your comm was for me.

    One more thing. When doing Staff Status One or Two in the 80″s and reading HCOPLs, I remember reading that policy was there to forward the purposes of the group and if it didn’t do that then it was bad policy (something along those lines). I think I also remember something about some people will use policy to stop things.

    I agree with this in any group. If the rule, policy or regulation is destroying the group, simple… throw the G Damn thing out!

    • lunamoth permalink
      August 21, 2010 5:39 pm

      Yes, I remember that policy, too.

      Too bad you need autonomous beings and a climate of rational civility and tolerance for that one to be expressed.

      Throw it out indeed!

  30. It's me again permalink
    August 21, 2010 6:26 pm


    “The concept that the Tech is infallible was CAREFULLY PLANNED by LRH.”

    Ok, I guess we are talking about the Technology now and not Policy, right?

    Ok, I read your blog. There is one thing you missed. Maybe there are people like me who already knew and had experience upper level stuff to some degree before even hearing about Scientology. I walked into Scientology for one reason, not do do a test or because some else told me about it. I was looking for an explanation for things I remembered and strange things I experienced. I tried Life Spring and The I am Presence with no answers. I read books like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Siddhartha, H.P. Blavatsky, The Mind’s I and much more looking for answers to the parts of my memory that I could not remember.

    Maybe I came into Scientology on a different path than you and I see things different than you. I don’t see the Tech as something that LRH invented. I see it as parts of life that are obviously there and he researched it and broke in down into understandable technology. No one really thinks that LRH invented the ARC triangle, Overts, Ser Facs, Problems, ARCX’s, etc. They are right there in front of you every day, most religions talk about these things in their own terms and have their own handlings. All Ron did was research. He broke these things down into understandable definitions and handlings. What research and experience he did in his personal life to come up with the technology are not of interest to me. This is how I saw it.

    The upper levels are either something that is real to you or not. I, myself, came into Scientology for the upper Bridge data, it unlocked for me the missing pieces to my memories that I had searched for way before I knew of Scientology. My previous research did not address exactly what I was looking for but I never threw it all out the window because of Scientology.

    Your viewpoints comes from your own experiences as do mine. Maybe your track is different than mine and we are not looking at Scientology with the same viewpoints, who is to say? What ever the reason, can you at least have that someone else has a different viewpoint?

    • lunamoth permalink
      August 21, 2010 9:53 pm

      It’s Me Again, you make some very good points. Thanks for being willing to take that on.

      When I hear LRH-haters or haters of any kind, I really stop listening. They seem to me to define themselves solely by what they oppose, and that is so limiting and ultimately not very interesting. I feel that people spouting vitriol are stuck in something, that being stuck necessitates a life of opposing, trying to stop others, and essentially Being Right for eternity with an unchanging viewpoint.

      It is strangely scientological. I love irony, don’t you?

      I have 30 years of widely varying experiences as a scientologist, as a student, a preclear, an auditor. Those are real experiences, from which I have drawn conclusions about what works, what doesn’t, and what has value. When I hear ranting and carping about how it’s all a conspiracy by a madman to enslave mankind, I yawn. Whatever. Different experiences, different conclusions, as you say.

      The significant difference I see in the viewpoints between those with a “hate” agenda and most of the usual posters on this blog is this: One group seeks to ram down the throats of others their own evaluations and conclusions and seeks to destroy the personal certainty of others, and ridicules or nullifies something for which another has any degree of respect.

      One viewpoint takes into account that we are all different, that experience is subjective, and that while our viewpoints can vary widely, we can discuss those viewpoints and their differences
      respectfully. No rage, no hate, no rabid arguments, no flying spittle.

    • Jeff permalink*
      August 21, 2010 11:42 pm

      I dislike the term “hater” in much the same way that I dislike the term “SP.” It is used by some (not you, lunamoth!!) as a pejorative term to designate people who question or challenge their beliefs. If someone challenges the person’s beliefs (or heroes), the person assumes that other person is an enemy and assumes, often incorrectly, that they are motivated by hate.

      I’ve spoken out publicly about Miscavige’s beatings. I guess that makes me a “Miscavige-hater” in the eyes of the Church. I’m a “hater.”

      I’ve heard the term “LRH hater” applied to people who have simply challenged the veracity of LRH’s life story or questioned his conclusions. Well, just because one challenges or questions someone doesn’t mean they “hate” that person. No one is above being challenged.

      The minute we say “no one can question the facts of LRH’s life” or “no one can question LRH’s conclusions,” and brand anyone who does so a “hater,” then we’ve lost any semblance of objectivity and we’re back into cult-think. “Anyone who doesn’t think like us is an enemy who hates us.”

      • lunamoth permalink
        August 22, 2010 12:23 am

        Ok, Jeff, I agree with the point you make. Is there a better word to describe what I’m talking about? Granted, the word “hater” comes with nuances of meaning that I probably don’t even know about, and many will think of others and not themselves when they read that world. So …. do we have a better word for this? Perhaps we should just refer to them as the “rabidly anti-.”

    • August 22, 2010 1:39 am

      >Ok, I guess we are talking about the Technology now and not Policy, right?

      They are one and the same. I had a post here that didn’t make it (too many in one day, Jeff? 🙂 but I don’t see a differentiation between policy and tech; HCO PLs make up the admin tech (which explains a lot of why the Church does what it does) and other bits of tech. LRH refers to those policies as part of the tech, so I do the same.

      > I don’t see the Tech as something that LRH invented.

      Our viewpoints are similar. LRH repackaged a lot of existing ideas, and I have a problem with the fact that he claimed many to be his own.

      >No one really thinks that LRH invented the ARC triangle, Overts, Ser Facs, Problems, ARCX’s, etc.

      Unfortunately, this is not true. I’ve met many people who credit LRH with all sorts of things, even those he didn’t give his own names to. Once, in admin training, a course sup asked “What is money?” I said, “Money is an idea backed by confidence.” He looked surprised – “You’ve studied LRH tech before?” “No,” I said, “that’s a common definition found in several textbooks.” I had several experiences similar to this, by the way.

      > What ever the reason, can you at least have that someone else has a different viewpoint?

      Totally. Life would be boring if we all had the same viewpoints. My problem with LRH, DM and Scientology is that it does harm. In my experience, the Scientologists I have met do not believe as you do. They believe in the totality of the Tech, that Ron was Source, and that Scientology is the only answer to spiritual freedom. Fine. The problem is that Ron also taught that they must invest their lives, their money, their families and their futures in Scientology. It sounds like that is not the reality of Scientology for you, which is excellent, but it is the reality of Scientology for nearly all of the Scientologists I know.

      In a way, I’m applying LRH tech. In the doubt formula, LRH said “Decide on the basis of the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics whether or not [the group] should be attacked, harmed or supressed or helped.” I think you know where I stand. 🙂


  31. It's me again permalink
    August 21, 2010 11:38 pm


    “One viewpoint takes into account that we are all different, that experience is subjective, and that while our viewpoints can vary widely, we can discuss those viewpoints and their differences

    Thank you for that breath of sanity!

  32. It's me again permalink
    August 22, 2010 1:48 am


    Maybe I am wrong, but I think the term hater was used as the slang definition:

    “a person who disapproves of something. To disagree, disapprove, or doubt.
    Don’t be a hater.”

    Looking at Caliwog’s site, I think the slang term is appropriate in regards to Caliwog’s postings of LRH and Marty both.

    • lunamoth permalink
      August 22, 2010 2:00 pm

      Me Again

      That definition would work for me if the intent is intensified an little. I’m not talking about people who simply disagree or disapprove; I’m talking about people who have actual hate for a
      subject/ individual, and who’s hate is palpable in their communication. I’m sure you know what
      I mean.

      • It's me again permalink
        August 22, 2010 5:28 pm

        Yes, I know what you mean. Thanks lumamoth.

      • August 23, 2010 1:31 am

        Lunamoth, how about “extreme critic”?

        I don’t actually hate Marty or LRH, but I do feel strongly negative about the things that they do. There is a difference. LRH, obviously, is not going to change, since he’s dead. If Marty changed his game plan, I might well stop my criticism. Regardless, I’d happily sit down with Marty and have a chat, which is something I wouldn’t do with someone I hate. (Although I doubt Marty would be interested.)


  33. It's me again permalink
    August 22, 2010 3:19 pm


    If I have a Plumbing business, the admin tech for running that businesses has nothing to do with how to fix a pipe or any other plumbing technology. They are two completely different technologies and I have never read anywhere that Ron thought that HCOPL,s and HCOB technology are the same thing.

    The people I have known in Scientology, mostly auditors and C/S’s, never expressed to me that they thought LRH invented the things we discussed above. In a lot of the tapes and in the old tech vols, Ron gave credit to other people for developing some of the technology. The first Dianetic Book has chapters written by other people other than Ron.

    Regarding your Blog:

    Your explanation of why a person gets involved into Scientology and the steps one goes through does not apply to me. I am not sure if this just your opinion or if you are using statistics.

    Your” Censored by Marty” section, giving instructions to copy and paste a comment made to Marty, just in case it gets censored, and then post it on your blog is odd to me. The unkind options, by you and your following, about Marty, Karen #1 and others that post on Marty’s site seem to me to be opinion based with little or no facts.

    I am not defending Marty or others on his site, I know none of these people. When dealing with unkind remarks that are damaging to a person’s reputation in an open and public communication, I would like to be given hard core facts. I see none on your site.

    Since you and others on your blog have given opinions that cannot be backed up (IMO) or are in conflict with my experiences, I don’t want to keep debating opinions with you so I see no reason to continue this conversation because it seems pointless from were I stand.



  1. Tweets that mention Nancy Many talks about Marty « Leaving Scientology --

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: