Scientology Is Not Happy With "Inside Scientology"

Categories: Scientology


Two interesting developments for Scientology watchers on this Saturday. Above, an instructive video from Marty Rathbun's blog, which shows that Rathbun's wife, Monique, is also a target of the strange intimidation tactics her husband experiences.

And also, after the jump, Scientology responds officially to Janet Reitman's book, Inside Scientology, and we wanted to make sure the church gets its say on this blog.

Rathbun identifies the "Anna" in the video as a woman from Austin. Rathbun's wife Monique filmed this while Rathbun himself was in Los Angeles a few weeks ago and was followed constantly by numerous private investigators and church operatives for several days. While Rathbun was away, "Anna" was sent to ask Monique questions.

If you're just catching up, keep this in mind as you watch the video: Rathbun was once one of the most powerful executives in Scientology before he left the church in 2004. He was not only a high-ranking official, but also one of the most highly trained "auditors" in Scientology, entrusted to personally handle the counseling of important members such as Tom Cruise and Jason Beghe. In the past two years, Rathbun has been publicly criticizing Scientology's leader, David Miscavige, while also encouraging members to leave the official church and come get counseling with him in Texas. This is what "Anna" is asking Monique about -- are the people who come to Marty getting "standard" Scientology auditing?

Monique has never been in Scientology -- something the church would know quite well -- so sending a member like Anna to ask her these questions is pointless on its face. It's hard not to conclude that this is just another attempt to intimidate. While Marty is away, the church is letting her know, they're aware she's on her own.

"I have no data on that," Anna repeatedly says when Monique points out that while they were talking, Rathbun was surrounded by church agents in Los Angeles, something the crew in Texas would know quite well. This just keeps getting more creepy.

Meanwhile, as Janet Reitman continues her reading tour (she'll be at BookHampton in Sag Harbor on July 22), Scientology has put out an official response to her book, Inside Scientology:

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY STATEMENT

Janet Reitman's book "Inside Scientology"

Ms. Reitman's book is filled with inaccuracies. It is neither scholarly nor well‐researched and bears no resemblance to an "inside" story. While preparing her book, Ms. Reitman never contacted the Church and never requested nor interviewed a single Church representative, let alone the ecclesiastical leader of the religion. Ms. Reitman chose to speak exclusively to people outside the Church. She and her publisher refused to accept the Church's offer to provide information. Her "report" is really no different than a view of, say, the Catholic Church told exclusively by lapsed Catholics or defrocked priests and should more accurately be called OUTSIDE SCIENTOLOGY. The book is a rehash of false and baseless allegations largely drawn from stories written by others that have long been disproved, many held inaccurate, by courts of law.

Despite her claim of "personal interviews and e‐mail exchanges with roughly one hundred former and current Scientologists," Ms. Reitman's book refers to an exchange with only one Scientologist--a single parishioner in five years. Her primary sources of information are a handful of apostates, previous external affairs officers who are admitted perjurers, dismissed and defrocked when their crimes were discovered. These sources have a documented history of making false and defamatory statements against the Church. Their anger and hostility toward the Church should give anyone serious pause.

Many of Ms. Reitman's sources are also members of or are affiliated with Anonymous, the cyberterrorist organization that has been the subject of federal investigations, arrests and convictions for engaging in hate crimes against the Church and its members. In the past few months Anonymous members have been the subject of intensified global law enforcement investigations involving criminal activities that include violating the privacy of countless innocent people while hacking into accounts at credit card companies, businesses and financial institutions.

If Ms. Reitman were truly "objective" she would have held these sources and their claims up to a harsh and penetrating light instead of putting them on a pedestal. She would have found, among other things, that they boast arrests, a conviction for pummeling an officer of the court, and a failed lawsuit that a federal judge not only tossed out, but also ordered the plaintiffs to reimburse the Church more than $40,000 in court costs.

Claims by Ms. Reitman to have engaged in extensive research for her book are laughable. Ms. Reitman has it wrong from the first page of chapter one, where she states, "When Hubbard died in 1985, the world took note..." Mr. Hubbard passed away January 24, 1986.

Perhaps the most significant illustration of how far outside Scientology her book lies is Ms. Reitman's ignorance of the Church's accomplishments. She could have seen our new Churches in Moscow or Melbourne or any of the dozens opened since 2006 in cities like London, Brussels, Rome, and Washington, D.C., all of them bursting with thousands of new members practicing their chosen faith. Anyone is welcome to experience the Church's practices and see its humanitarian works firsthand: Scientology's global human rights initiative has educated millions on human rights; its "Truth About Drugs" crusade teaches millions how to live drug‐free; and our global Volunteer Ministers disaster relief program has been hailed by the international community.

Contrary to Ms. Reitman's claims, there is nothing secretive about Scientology. Our Churches, located in major cities around the world, are open seven days a week, 365 days a year. Many have public display areas to answer all questions about Scientology beliefs and practices. Anyone who wants to know the true story of Scientology should find out for themselves by coming to our new Church of Scientology of Tampa, 1911 N 13th Street, Ybor Square, or go to the Churchʹs website, www.Scientology.org.

Well, we didn't expect the church to love the book. But I just wanted to make a couple of observations about Scientology's specific objections.

First, it's facetious to complain that Reitman didn't interview church representatives. Her book grew out of a lengthy Rolling Stone article that she researched and wrote in 2005 and 2006. During that time, she spent long days with church representatives, including an intense three-day trip to California with Scientology spokesman Mike Rinder.

Scientology is playing games by saying that her book contains no contact with the current church. Rinder left in 2007, after Reitman had worked with him. It's really not her fault that it took so long to get her book published. As she explained to me, there was a delay when her publisher merged with another company. It also takes a long time to edit and fact check a book like this. Scientology knows quite well that Reitman did her best to get Scientology's point of view when she was doing the bulk of her research in 2005 and 2006. It's not her fault that, as part of its dwindling fortunes, Scientology has lost the people that she talked to then.

Scientology's response spends a paragraph complaining that Reitman talked to people in Anonymous. Funny, but in her 369-page book, that's all she dedicates to the group as well -- one paragraph.

It is true that Reitman's book early on gets the year of Hubbard's death wrong. That's a mistake I myself pointed out in my review. Later in the book, however, she not only gets this date correct, but provides many details about Hubbard's death. So the mistake on page 3 is clearly just a typo and not proof that she didn't "engage in extensive research."

Finally, for the Church of Scientology to say that there's "nothing secretive" about itself is the kind of thing we love about this wacky group. We don't really need to point out that no other religion has filed so many lawsuits over the decades to keep its teachings secret, do we?

Before we go, a programming note: you'll notice fewer posts coming in the next week as we leave the underground bunker for some unrelated work elsewhere. Until then, watch the skies!



tortega@villagevoice.com | @VoiceTonyO

Click here to see all recent Scientology coverage at the Voice

Tony Ortega is the editor-in-chief of The Village Voice. Since 1995, he's been writing about Scientology at several publications. Among his other stories about L. Ron Hubbard's organization:

The Larry Wollersheim Saga -- Scientology Finally Pays For Its Fraud
The Tory Bezazian (Christman) Story -- How the Internet Saved A Scientologist From Herself
The Jason Beghe Defection -- A Scientology Celebrity Goes Rogue
The Robert Cipriano Case -- A Hellacious Example of Fair Game
The Paul Haggis Ultimatum -- The 'Crash' Director Tells Scientology to Shove It
The Marc Headley Escape -- 'Tom Cruise Told Me to Talk to a Bottle'
The Aaron Saxton Accusation -- Australia turns up the heat on Scientology
The Jefferson Hawkins Stipulation -- Scientology's former PR genius comes clean
The Daniel Montalvo Double-Cross -- Scientology lures a young defector into a trap
A Church Myth Debunked -- Scientology and Proposition 8
Daniel Montalvo Strikes Back -- Scientology Hit with Stunning Child-Labor Lawsuits
When Scientologists Attack -- The Marty Rathbun Intimidation
A Scientologist Excommunicated -- The Michael Fairman SP Declaration
The Richard Leiby Operation -- Investigating a reporter's divorce to shut him up
The Hugh Urban Investigation -- An academic takes a harsh look at Scientology's past
Giovanni Ribisi as David Koresh -- A precedent for a Scientology-Branch Davidian link
Janet Reitman's Inside Scientology -- A masterful telling of Scientology's history
The Western Spy Network Revealed? -- Marty Rathbun ups the ante on David Miscavige
Scientology's Enemies List -- Are You On It?
Inside Inside Scientology -- An interview with author Janet Reitman
Scientology and the Nation of Islam -- Holy Doctrinal Mashup, Batman!
Scientologists -- How Many of Them Are There, Anyway?
Roger Weller's Wild Ride -- Scientology When it was Hip
The Marc Headley Infiltration -- A Scientology Spying Operation Revealed
Placido Domingo Jr: Scientology's Retaliation is "Scary and Pathetic"

My Voice Nation Help
266 comments
zenda
zenda

What are these people so afraid of?

 Scientologists are digging a big hole for themselves, one day will drop in it, by continuing  to Fair Game people.

danielhaszard
danielhaszard

A cult does not require any set number of leaders, only the inerrant belief that they are the ONLY TRUE RELIGION. Nothing else matters once that ego kicks in and messes with their heads. Once that engages, it usually takes a life-changing event or change of circumstances to get them to reconsider their beliefs  The definition of a destructive religious cult is like alcoholism-if booze controls you instead of the other way around you are an alcoholic.

Religion can be benign then there are hard core Fundy groups that want to rule & control you like hard core alcoholism.The Watchtower society Jehovah's Witnesses as an example is not benevolent and won't let you leave their organization in peace.If they try to ruin your reputation and break up your family for trying to get out then they are a cult! Whenever you surrender your logic and reason to anyone who asks you to believe something on "faith" and to trust them because they know better and to please donate generously, it's a cult. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck....--Danny Haszard born 3rd generation JW 1957 dannyhaszard (dot) com 

Mmex
Mmex

Danny, don't minimize the gravity of Scientology corruption dude.  Shunning is done by religions and families and friends and lovers, sure...it's kinda human. But ONLY Scientology crawls on its bellies and spends mega money on private investigators, stalkers, steals and bribes phone records, cheats, pretends to be friends, spies, harasses, tries to scare and make go insane,  calumniates, breaches its sacred tenet of confidentiality, blackmails,  murders (Rex Fowler), suicides, gets indicted on murder attempts and twisted plans to frame other by blowing up its own building (Gur Finkelwad er stein), set children against their parents with lies, launch slander campaigns that curdle with evil malice.  Naw dude.

NO, Scientology Corporation is NOT "just like any other religion", they try to plant that buzz.  Wrong.

Old OT7
Old OT7

Danny, I know the JWs are certainly a cult.  Your point is valid.  But, as to what Mmex posted, he/she is absolutely right.  If you've never been in scientology, you just have no idea how vicious, evil and militant they are.  They make the JWs look like Sunday school teachers.  Be thankful you were never involved!  It is a nightmare to gruesome to get your mind around.  I know.  I was there.  

Gary Lee-Nova
Gary Lee-Nova

A cult is a cult is a cult, Danny.

Cults are typically nests of moonbats, and moonbats are typically batshit crazy.

Is this your point?

Scilonschools
Scilonschools

As Scientology’s statement said Anonymous Targeted by Uk’s anti-terror police"Now phone-hacking topples Britain's top policeman: Sir Paul Stephenson resigns after allegations he took free spa break”Scotland Yard and 'anti-terror operations' in the UK come under the Met Police, I amsure some Anonymous will find that 'Interesting' :)

Guest
Guest

Hey, I just had a great idea.

I think all the scientology critics should start saying they are scientologists, but that they are "outside the church." 

We could say "I'm a scientologist, but... I don't pay for it, never took any courses, and I practice my own version of it.  And you can't do anything about it since it's freedom of relgion."  

Kind of the opposite of when OSA bots say, "I'm not a scientologist, but...."

Joe Lynn
Joe Lynn

Well, there are so many definitions, from Ron even, that that's not nearly as outrageous as you might think.  In fact, for many Scientology apologists, who are rationalizing 'picking and choosing among Scientology policies, so that they can explain to Wogs that 'well, I don't do that one, and Ron says I don't have to if I don't agree with it.. bla bla...' the favorite one seems to be 'A Scientologist is someone who uses Scientology Technology to better his life and his environment...' (paraphrase)

So, anybody who's ever used a dictionary or, for that matter, used newspaper to wash windows, is a Scientologist.  Or any of a hundred thousand other things, since Ron had a 'Tech' for everything (except, as far as I've been able to discern, for whether to fold or scrunch toilet paper.  Which may be explained by the signature lack of toilet paper in Orgs..)

Earl Grey
Earl Grey

Hm. See your point. I find that Hubbard having a "tech" for everything is charming and best reflects the man ... he was an observer who genuinely enjoyed finding the most efficient ways of obtaining results, and he wrote about it.

My personal understanding of that definition was that it is making a distinction between "believing a dogma" and "applying a procedure" ---   quite the thing that attracted many people to Scientology before it became a rabid cult of robotic zealots.    An application of steps (technology) one finds useful is quite a different thing (and a relief) from shouting "I believe I believe I believe."

That's about it on that one.

Old OT7
Old OT7

Go to: www.xenu.net.  Scroll down to the very bottom where it says, "Always Remember to Laugh."  Click on "South Park Takes On Scientology."  Let it ramp up and you will see OT3.  I know your group told you that seeing this information before you're ready (read handed over enough cash) you could die.  Don't worry, you won't.  Although you may die of laughter.

Earl Grey
Earl Grey

And BTW, I would put the Church of Scientology in the class of Christians who Murder  and Methodists who persecute others.  The Scientology Church evidenced practice of  violating priest-penitent privilege and violations of The Auditors Code would have Hubbard stringing them up by their short hairs and damn it, in such a case, anger is justified.  They have some major karma  coming to them for that travesty.

Earl Grey
Earl Grey

xenusad,  if it were a requisite to being a Methodist that one pray every single day...then if you don't are you being one?  Maybe theoretically, a wannabe.  But that's a belief "pray every day for faith" --- as opposed to "fixing" a life issue or achieving insight.

is a Christian a Christian when committing murder?  Not the way I see it.  Therein lies the bug with most religions, and its also why one can't assume what a person is based on a label.  

Scientology is not as nebulous a "praying" or "Belief" -- it gives a battery of what is called "Processes" or Steps (procedures) to assist given conditions in life. Some are done with the help of another, others a person does.  

Maybe it's closer to meditating. When you mediate, you're doing it.  It doesn't make a non Yogi or non seeker of enlightenment when you are not meditating.

Xenusad
Xenusad

 So does a Methodist stop being a Methodist on Thursday, after having gone since Sunday without praying?   How much Tech do I have to use to meet your definition of being a scientologist?  Am I less of a scientologist if I use dianetics but can't afford OT3? 

JustCallMeMary
JustCallMeMary

OMG! I am so glad I left Scientology.  There are many members like Anna, who hound and hound and push for money, for submission to the knock on the door or answer to the call. Dealing with these people is like dealing with a huckster who won't take no for an answer. Kudos to Monique for keeping her composure, despite her limited experience with this group.

On Scientology's response to Reitman's book, well, it's so predictable. Except I don't think Reitman expected this kind of response from it. Her kid gloves (unbiased,noncommittal ) approach in writing the book has backfired. The church would have attacked her anyway because this is what Scientology does to anyone majorly forwarding critical information about it. It would have been better to just admit in the book that Scientology a cult as the research states. Admit that internet posting & protesting exmembers and critics, and later the Anonymous movement, have been instrumental in helping expose Scientology for what it is. This response by the church is a Welcome to Scientology's Fair Game Tactics notice, where the goal is to ruin a career, a life, a family, a livelihood. This could have been prevented by writing the whole truth.

Earl Grey
Earl Grey

Mary, I tend to agree with this.  ---> "This response by the church is a Welcome to Scientology's Fair Game Tactics notice, where the goal is to ruin a career, a life, a family, a livelihood. This could have been prevented by writing the whole truth."

This is a KEY absolutely Gone Haywire point of social blight that must be cleaned up, that is the Fair Game practices of the Scientology secret offices.    And it would have been beneficial if Ms. Reitman spoke with some of the people who have knowledge but are less clamoring for attention and who are more stable (didn't go wacko from their "experience" with Scientology), a person  who understands the doctrine of Fair Game (tally ho! get out the hounds!) and who perhaps is educated and had benefits but is not in grandstand fighting or "recovery" mode.   Such persons would be able to provide an equilibrated view  ---

The "church" of Scientology is MISAPPLYING "Fair Game" -- thousands of the persons they spends untold thou$ands to attack could have been friends or recovered, at the very least not turned into enemies, had the "Church" applied its real wares: Communication, and other policies.

The FAIR GAME we see now is the work of a vicious little petty mind stuck in some mental incident thinking "all are out to get us."  Paranoia.  So they are blasting with the bazookas and scud missiles at EVERYTHING.  Because4 to the "Church", which reflects the leadership, EVERYTHING that MOVES without its permission is an enemy.  Quite sick.

Placido Domingo Jr. is one case in point, as are so many others they are throwing out with the bathwater.

JustCallMeMary
JustCallMeMary

Well, I should point out that the people Ms. Reitman interviewed or obtained information from about their experiences were far from unstable nor were they clamoring for attention. She chose the most humble of exes with credible experiences, & strong histories and background People like Jeff Hawkins, Amy Scobee, Astra Woodcraft, Larry Brennan, Matt Henderson and his wife Donna Shannon, among others.

It's what she omitted, it's who she omitted and why that is my contention.

You need to read the book.

MarkStark
MarkStark

While there is still time for Reitman's book to pick up steam, I still think about the title being terrible. It is too bland, and it could even be mistaken by the public (Walmart shoppers) for being a book for people who are interested in becoming Scientologists, and there just aren't a lot of those around.

I hope Wright is going to introduce a new angle in his book, like portraying a kid who grew up in this, and contrast that with Haggis. That would be smashing, and really knock the cult for a loop.

Wright could also do it by presenting a more in-depth and scathing account of individual events in Hubbard's life. Probably, that is what he'll do.

The NY Times gave  Reitman's book a somewhat odd review, bundled with another book. I don't like thinking about it, since I was so looking forward to what it would say.

Can you imagine what Reitman's book would have done, if it had been introduced a week after Tom Cruise's couch jumping and Lauer appearance?

Earl Grey
Earl Grey

Yes.  "Behind the Public Facade"  or  Scientology: Behind the Gloss

Old OT7
Old OT7

A downfall of epic proportions?  We can only hope.

Truthseeker
Truthseeker

L Ron hubbard did not cure himself with Dianetics, he was a fraud and a Liar

Earl Grey
Earl Grey

Those are pretty general labels.   Easy to spit out and we all want answers and all want the heinous travesties to cease.   Since every human being lies at some point(s) in his or her or her life, does that make all human beings patently "liars."

No, Hubbard is a mixed bag, like any human being.  If you seek the truth, suspend those little labels that keep us from getting all the facts, many polar and contradictory.  It doesn't make us wrong or lessen the urgency to totally get society on the same page about removing the unethical scum "mispracticing" Scientology if we concede that Hubbard had some amazing talents and qualities.

Xenusad
Xenusad

You have to admit Hubbard had a pretty big problem with lying.  More than most, by far.  He was far from honest when he exaggerated how much "research" he did.  Like when he said he created an atomic explosion with gamma rays.  I think it's healthier if we just admit Hubbards problem with truth-telling and move forward.

Guest
Guest

That is disingenuous 

Earl Grey
Earl Grey

Telling tall tales is also "lying" --- All authors are liars.

Gary Lee-Nova
Gary Lee-Nova

And what would some of those "... amazing talents and qualities...." be, Earl?

I'm not being facetious with you. I'm really curious about learning as much as possible about the entity known as L. Ron Hubbard.

Joe Lynn
Joe Lynn

The sheer volume of Hubbard's outflow is enough to confound a dozen teams of rent-a-maids.  And, I have to admit, I'm strangely fascinated by the intricacy of a sketch produced by a tweaker left alone with a sharp pencil and a half ounce of meth.

But, when he begins buggering the cat it's time to look beyond 'art'.

Old OT7
Old OT7

I understand your post, Earl.  I felt the same way too for many years.  The comm cycle is brilliant.  But, in the upper indocs you are being trained to control others as well as being controlled by the group.  He was a good science fiction writer and probably a genius too.  But there's a very fine line between genius and insanity.  His own policies show him to be very vindictive and cruel.  Maybe he started believing that he was the greatest human on the planet, I don't know.  But in my book, the negative attributes far out weigh the positive.  Earl, I'm old OT7.  There are not super powers!  There is no nothing!  You still get sick.  You can still get cancer.  I'm sorry but way too many people have been hurt by what Hubbard created! 

Earl Grey
Earl Grey

Fair enough. I don't really pursue the admiration.  I don't regard Hubbard an as entity nor a deity...any less that I regard most cool people as deities in their own right (from our ability to create and affect good change).  He was a human being.  Discussing what a human being is would be another fascinating arena. But I appreciate you tolerance of my personal opinion and observations, at least the right to consider them as possible.   It isn't easy being green;) or a human being, so that any of us do remarkable things is not to be discounted in my opinion.  You've been fair and I appreciate that. (and  admire you too btw)

Gary Lee-Nova
Gary Lee-Nova

I have no 'feeling' for Hubbard one way or the other. I neither like or dislike the entity.

Emotionally, I'm utterly indifferent, but admit that I am pleased that he's dead. And, in 100 years, he'll still be dead.

I regard Mr. Hubbard as an example of a human being afflicted with an extraordinary form of psychopathy.

For me, his personality and accomplishments are like bugs under a microscope - hideous shit - but quite interesting, given the circumstances.

One is free to admire anything in this world, and I support your right to find merit in your measure of Mr. Hubbard's "accomplishments." 

I don't share the admiration but I respect and admire your pursuit of it.

Earl Grey
Earl Grey

Hello Gary. I've enjoyed a lot of your posts.  I understand you don't like the man Hubbard, and have confidence you came to that conclusion with information --- so please don't be angry if I happen to perceive and admire some qualities of Hubbard that I find outstanding and if there be a debate it probably should belong in another forum than Mr. Oretga's.1) the sheer volume of output as a writer (maybe not 100% batting average).   It's immense.   Anyone who has ever written can admire just what goes into achieving that -- discipline, continuity, reason, logic etc2) he dared think outside the box 3) he lived larger than life, boat, crew and all4) he was very pro artists and human creativity5) he produced writings that were used productively (for inspiration or to change conditions) by many many people6) he managed to win the genuine enduring affection (and not counting the robots here)  of more people than it would take the ordinary person to inspire in 20 lifetimes --- even in the face of intense public malignment (some factual, some not)7) I believe his work was genuine and that he wanted to help people.  He didn't have to produce so much if it was just a scam  to get money8) he was generous --- many accounts of that exist9) he was sort of wild10) he seemed to keep his own counsel --- torpedoes be damned sort of thing11) he was a loyal friend to some people he knew12) he acknowledged the men who came before him upon whose research he relied (despite complaints to the contrary)13) he did develop some original procedures that are relevant to human consciousness

There's more but I think these things are remarkable. And btw, I am probably on the Scientology "most hated enemies" list --- possibly because I do have genuine regard for the man.   Of course I concede other elements in his life, but some balance is due.  After all, Galileo was a wretch and a criminal and an apostate for over a century ...public "masses" bought into that.

Jonathan van der Berg
Jonathan van der Berg

What a weird "church". My friends were around my place when I first saw this vid (above). They saw it too. Its so creepy. Don't they realise how much damage they are doing to scientology's reputation?

Old OT7
Old OT7

Let's hope not!  Let 'em hang themselves!

Gary Lee-Nova
Gary Lee-Nova

"Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."  -Napoleon Bonaparte

Old OT7
Old OT7

So beautiful and so right regarding the cult...

MarkStark
MarkStark

Monique did exactly the right thing. She filmed this woman and let her talk on, showing the cult mindset, and what the cult makes their members do. If one day we get the full back story, that she's doing this to get her daughter out of the RPF labor camp, it just makes it all the worse.

I was just thinking about how twenty years ago, if someone like "Anna" did something like this, they would probably wouldn't think much about it. But what about having it filmed and seen by thousands like this?

I'm glad it was obvious to your friends, what was going on.

One video I would like to see is when they have cult members go to another member's house and spend an hour breaking them down, so they will do a $60,000 course package at Flag.

Another good video would be convincing a kid they should join the Sea Org.

Lady Squash
Lady Squash

The Church isn't secretive?  Really? "Secretive" is too kind a word.

Barbara
Barbara

The church uses untrained people as auditors which has no clue on what to do in many situations and then the person crashes.  They are practicing without the proper education themselves on how to handle situations with the people they work with.  Their solutions to the problem is to toss the person they work with and keep the one that has the most money.

The church is in no way trained in handling people in counseling.  They toss any intern at you while the big money gets what they feel they should have.  They are still not trained social workers unless they trained on their own determination away from the church which a few did.  Otherwise you get uneducated and young kids counseling older people who are smarter and better educated them them and that crashes.

That happened to me and I hit the wall at warp speed and wound up awake after 10 years of deprogramming over time in the freezone.

I Had my own story written up but have not put it out to the public.  I probably will not because was just plain a stupid sheep at that time.

zenda
zenda

 Barbara we are all sheep in a sense, and you were decieved, like many others, thank God no longer, you woke up.  Im sure your story would help others.  )

Old OT7
Old OT7

Barbara, I do understand your reluctance to put your story out.  But, at least think about it.  I'm writing my own book on the subject.  It could be a very cathartic experience for you.  That's what I'm hoping from my book.  Whatever you decide, thanks so much for posting!  May your life be fantastic from here on out! 

MarkStark
MarkStark

Since Dianetics was originally something EVERYBODY was supposed to be able to do in the parlor, this argument about unsupervised training and unadjusted e-meters is pretty far fetched.

Going by the cult's argument -- "Everybody has to have their tech inspected" -- Hubbard endangered the lives of millions of people just by publishing Dianetics and telling people it was something they could do at home, without even using an emeter.

If Marty were selected to audit Tom Cruise, it is obvious he had to be one of the best auditors they had. Monique is learning from Marty so she's probably becoming good at it too.  From the top-level auditors who have left, we know all the cult did for them was put restrictions on them that hampered their effectiveness.

Hubbard designed it as a trap. Both DM and Marty are stuck with the contradictions in the system, it is just that DM is stuck with the monster the cult became when it got super rich. Marty and the other squirrels (Capt. Bill, Mayo etc.) get to try to fashion something out of it, that they think is the most beneficial.

Marty is stuck with the fact Hubbard fair gamed his enemies and wanted squirrels stomped out. Scientology could have belly flopped after Hubbard's death. It didn't because DM took strong and total control.

Gary Lee-Nova
Gary Lee-Nova

Thank you for all the fine work on this file, Tony.

Awesome reports, one after the other. I understand and accept the pending hiatus, but I will miss you, and look forward eagerly to more and more outstanding articles!

Vivat!

Old OT7
Old OT7

Say what?  Hiatus?  Tony, are you leaving for a short time or what?  I will anxiously await your return!  Your articles are the fuel that makes us do what we do and that is post here as is our right!  Thanks for everything, Tony.  We ALL look forward to your next article! 

SFF
SFF

In terms of Reitman using members of Anonymous as sources, I believe Scientology has claimed that Larry Brennan is the leader of Anonymous at one stage so this may be a repeat of that silly notion.

As to the crazy person at the Rathburn's door, she points out one of the key crazy Scientology contradictions -- Scientology processing is allegedly something that requires a high level of specialized training equivalent to a post-graduate degree and if the tech is not applied properly it can harm people yet the Church of Scientology doesn't want the practice to be subject to any kind of oversight when it is done within the church.

TheGuest
TheGuest

Shhhh, you've stirred up that Silent Secret Seque, the Invisible Inevitable Invocation, the Unspoken Unequivacable Unopened ...  Command  of all things scientology:

"Do Not confuse the issue with facts"

Cliff158
Cliff158

No contest. Monique certainly got the better of that slimeball Anna. I doubt that Anna was her real name. A great video ,just shows to evryone how desperate the church of scientology is.

MarkStark
MarkStark

So, Anna drove 218 miles for this mission. Wonder what she would have done if Monique just told her to "shove it" and shut the door in her face. 

sven34
sven34

Yes this is Anna Paddock. I read it she lives in Austin Texas USA Her name before was Anna Stilo  but this was discovered by people researching her.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...