Is Marty Rathbun Working for the Church of Scientology?

Marty Rathbun Former Scientologist

Stubborn & persistent speculation on Marty Rathbun continues to spread like a rash.

Even Academy Award winning writer/director Paul Haggis has gotten himself in on the speculation by giving us either/or scenarios which seem to prove for him that Marty Rathbun is working with David Miscavige to discredit critics of Scientology.

He even went so far as to come to the “inescapable” conclusion that “either Rathbun’s encrypted Hushmail account had been hacked and the emails stolen, or Rathbun had fed them voluntarily to the Church of Scientology.”

As we’ve shown here at AlanzosBlog, it’s not an either/or situation. And many other possibilities exist which prove it is a mistake to look at the Marty & Monique Rathbun situation in this way.

And as Marty Rathbun himself has shown, the person who Haggis says Marty “outed” (which further proves to Haggis that Marty is working for the Church) actually outed himself in Lawrence Wright’s book “Going Clear”, and is even listed as a source in the index.

Marty writes:

“The problem with Haggis’ latest panty-twist is that his personal biographer and fellow Anti-Scientology Cult member Lawrence Wright had already ‘outed’ his friend five years earlier. Where? In Paul Haggis’ biography. Hell, he was prominently featured; he even made it into the index unlike Backdoor Tony. So, Haggis in fact damned the conduct of Lawrence Wright. Actually, if Haggis had a single honest bone in his body he would have damned himself. How do you think Wright connected up with the 2012-Haggis-outed “friend” in the first place?”

Valued contributor DigThatGroove has also shown that this person was “outed’ before Marty Rathbun exposed that email.

These types of situations where competing hypotheses attempt to explain what we are seeing in Scientology-watching have been the source of huge fights among critics that generate feuds and continual recriminations for decades (I’m not kidding – literally for decades).

Factions of critics tend to gather around various competing pet theories and hypotheses, attacking each other over them. In fact, the Church has used these fights to divide and conquer their critics, leading critics themselves to energetically discredit each other – executing all the character assassinations on critics that the Church wants done.

Because this situation, and its very nature, is so important, we are going to engage in an exercise I learned about in a book by a former CIA analyst named Morgan Jones, titled “The Thinker’s Toolkit”. Here’s the introduction to one of the relevant tools in that book called “Hypothesis Testing”

“Do you believe in UFOs? That is, do you believe that unidentified flying objects are spacecraft controlled by aliens from another solar system or galaxy? Why?’

“Think about it for a moment. If you flat out don’t believe a word about UFOs being aliens from outer space, have you ever considered the alternative? Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong—that UFOs might actually be extraterrestrial vehicles?’

“If, on the other hand, you are a true believer in their extraterrestrial origin, have you ever given serious thought to the notion that UFOs may not exist at all, that they are, as some leading scientists argue, purely imaginings and illusions?’

“The study of the UFO phenomenon and public reactions to it illustrate how humans customarily analyze possible scenarios that would explain a given situation. In keeping with our troublesome instinctive mental traits, we first select the scenario we intuitively believe is most likely correct, say, “UFOs are from another solar system.”

“Next, we look for evidence to support that scenario. Because we tend to find what we look for, we begin to gather supporting evidence. As this evidence accumulates, we become more and more convinced of our hypothesis and more and more resistant to, and contemptuous of, contradictory evidence and the alternative scenarios such evidence supports.”

“When we come across contradictory evidence, we either ignore it, belittle it, or construe it in a way that renders it, if not supportive, at least neutral.”

“Some notable examples of this get-off-at-the-first-stop approach to analyzing problems have occurred in criminal investigations by law enforcement organizations. A major TV investigative news program reported a year ago on just such a case: A young man accused of rape was arrested by the police, tried, and convicted. He lived near the victim, was identified by her in a lineup as her assailant, and had no alibi. When the police apprehended him shortly after the rape, they halted their investigation and looked no further. A year or so later, the real rapist, who also lived in the victims neighborhood, confessed to the crime, and the first man arrested was released. Had the police continued their investigation, they would probably have discovered the look-alike.”

“What the police did is called “satisficing”—picking the first solution that seems satisfactory, rather than examining all of the alternative hypotheses to identify not simply one that fits the evidence but the one that fits best.’

“The problem is that most evidence is consistent with several hypotheses. That my cat’s fur is wet is consistent with the cat having been outside in the rain, having fallen into a water-filled sink, having been sprayed by one of the children, and so on. Thus, the wet fur, as evidence, is of no value whatever in determining which of these hypotheses is true.”

So to begin this process of hypothesis testing, let’s put our beanies on and first identify all the hypotheses that have been offered to explain what we are seeing with Marty Rathbun’s behavior over the last 2 years or so.

I have identified 3 competing hypotheses. If you have any other hypotheses, or if you have corrections to my wording of these hypotheses, or corrections to my wording of the issue itself, please submit them in the comments.

Here are the 3 hypotheses I have identified to the question:

Why has Marty Rathbun been criticizing critics of Scientology since Monique dropped her lawsuit against the Church in April of 2016?

  1. Marty is working for the Church of Scientology
  2. Marty is done with both Scientology and Anti-Scientology
  3. Marty became a double agent in order to bring down DM

Personal note: I really hate having to be anything less than supportive of everything Paul Haggis does, who is one of my heroes in both screenwriting and Scientology criticism. But after getting out of Scientology, I have learned that I must be loyal to the truth, and not to any person or group if I am going to continue to seek to live with the truth, and to stay out of another cult.

– Alanzo

30 thoughts on “Is Marty Rathbun Working for the Church of Scientology?”

  1. I should have waited and posted my last comment on the previous topic here – lol

    hypothesis #4) Marty is earning a living as a Critic of Scientology Critics.

    • I criticize Scientology critics all the time and have since at least around 2009 when I was one of the most vociferous critics of Marty and Mike when they were Indies and fierce critics of David Miscavige.

      Does that mean I’m earning a living as a Critic of Scientology Critics?

      I can tell you that it is the height of arrogance as a critic of Scientology to think that the points you make are so solid that no one but a Church of Scientologist or an OSA Agent, or paid agent of either of them, would ever criticize or question what you had to say. And yet Leah and Mike and Karen De La Carrierre all make that claim whenever they are criticized.

      Why do you think that is?

      • Marty is is more or less defending the CoS from current media accusations while you aren’t, just the right for people to practice scn. At least the way I see it. Some whales might be willing to support Marty financially. He had enough money to pay a fancy lawyer to fend off Jeffries, at least temporarily.

        If I was a practicing scn-ist I might be wondering why Miscavige doesn’t get off his ass and sue A&E over The Aftermath. At least fight back and save some face, even if “we” lose. What a wimp.

      • Just last week I watched Marty’s show on discovery id channel. It’s clear to any observer that he is a changed man. There could be a million different reasons and we will probably never know. Although I am curious I can’t imagine how his friends are feeling it has been one awful betrayal after another.

  2. I agree and support your search for truth, questioning our most firmly held beliefs is so important.
    We are working with a limited amount of information, and I am sure there is information we don’t have. However, we do have people’s recent statements. From this I have a couple of direct observations.
    Based on observing Marty in the summer 17 videos a couple of things are clear:
    – He is not psychotic or “crazy” in any way. He is in control of his behavior.
    – Although he is not crazy, he is definitely disturbed. His logical process is entirely serving some main point he is trying to prove. Small details are piled on other small details, trying to build some kind of case against everyone who was a former ally. He is like the police (in your post) who found someone to convict and got busy doing it. There is no balance to his thinking.
    – The editing of the videos indicates that he is doing multiple takes, he looks off camera and says “OK?” Then he restates or rewords his point. He is getting this right for someone.
    – The Louis Theroux film captured something that really disturbed me. Near the end, when the two scientologists show up, some sort of highly coded interaction takes place between them and Marty. I think Theroux may have used it in the film without knowing what “it” was, Theroux is a gifted observer. I know when I saw it I thought “he (Rathbun) just broke.” My guess (just a guess) is that it had nothing to do with Rathbun’s child or any apparent content, it was a code word. It was naked brutality and Rathbun just crumbled.
    Only observations, I don’t have a hypothesis to go with them.

    • I think your comment here is great, Eileen, but I am a video editor, and it is clear to me that multiple takes are not being edited in Marty’s videos, but two cameras. One has a close up view and the other has a wider shot. When the editor and Marty want a particular point to be stressed, they take the shot from the closer camera.

      I’ve shot many single headed videos like this, and it is clear to me that Marty had a pad of notes and he prompted himself with his own handwritten notes and they just went straight through – never stopping.

      I do agree that he found someone to convict, like you say, and he is cherry picking and satisficing his way through the points he makes.

      Instead of reading lots of logic and critical thinking after Marty got out of Scn, and ending up in lots of online debates where his beliefs and arguments were challenged, Marty surrounded himself with supporters and used those people to fight against those who challenged his beliefs. I know. I was one of them who challenged him and got the “spanking machine treatment” on his blog.

      I think he did a lot of reading after Scientology and he definitely evolved out of a full-on cult mindset, but he never experienced the hard ass-pounding and challenging necessary to check yourself and question your own assumptions after Scientology.

      He had too much “altitude” for that. And I think it hurt him.

  3. Once again, I have to bring up the question raised by the photo attached to this article on the front page – it’s very easy for Ortega et al. to argue to people who never liked Marty anyway that “he’s gone back to Scientology”. But then you have to argue that MONIQUE Rathbun, a never in who is the daughter of a psych, has gone with him – after having lived through the Squirrel Busters persecution. Here are some competing hypthoses to explain that:

    1) Monique has become a dedicated Scientologist, even though the Church spent years threatening both of them and threatened the future of their child;
    2) Monique is an abused spouse who is just looking for a chance to “blow the ranch” (I have heard this several times in the Bunker);
    3) Marty is such a Big Fish in the Church now that Monique gets special “Nicole Kidman” treatment and is allowed to continue her wog ways.

    I prefer 4): Alanzo’s hypothesis 2 is correct, Marty is just settling scores with people how pissed him off in Anti-Scientology, he is not a Churchie and neither is Monique.

    • Hypothesis 1 (Marty is working for the Church of Scientology) does not have to mean that Marty has once again became a CoS member in good standing. It could also mean that Marty (and Monique) have decided to go along with Miscavige’s demands due to: A) being offered some kind of a financial incentive. B) having been intimidated by Miscavgie into compliance. C) a combination of A and B. Let’s look at Bob Minton for example. Nobody has suggested that his decision to turn against fellow critics was motivated by a change of heart that led him to adopt Scientology. Rather, he was . blackmailed by the CoS into compliance. In my impression, most people who adpot Hypothesis 1 don’t think Marty has become a CoS member again, but merely that he is going through the same path Minton went.

      PS – thank you Alanzo for the mention in the OP!

      • Yes. I don’t think hypothesis 1 requires that Marty is a Scientologist again, only that he is being paid to criticize critics of Scientology.

        Even Ray Jeffrey believes that, and amazingly, presented that hypothesis in court citing evidence that Marty and Monique bought a house.

  4. Of the three hypotheses posted, the one that makes the most sense to me, by far, is this one:

    “Marty is done with both Scientology and Anti-Scientology”

    Marty’s sphere of interest went from Scientology to society in general many months ago, if not a year or more. This includes the last blog post he wrote before he began the video series criticizing the “Anti-Scientology Cult.”

    That last blog post was in January, six months before the video series started in June. It was titled “Information Anarchy Relief” and was about “the post-fact era of information anarchy.” He also referenced three other posts of his, none of concern Scn or anti-Scn:

    “Has Your Mind Become Infected?” posted on July 17, 2016

    “When Distraction Becomes Catastrophic” posted on December 17, 2016

    “Lulz Rules” posted on December 29, 2016

    All of these posts are about “Moving on up a Little Higher” – but in a much wider sphere than Scientology, pro or con. It’s clear to me that in PT, even though Marty has taken on the subject of the “ASC” he is basically pointing it out as an example of what is going on in the world at large.

    In other words, it’s similar to what you are doing, Alanzo, when you point out that the tribe impulses we see in anti-Scientologists are universal.

  5. SO Here’s the next part of data gathering:

    Pick your least favorite hypothesis and list the evidence you believe that contradicts, or is inconsistent with it

    For instance: Hypothesis 1 Marty is NOT working for the Church because:

    – Marty is still being discredited by the Church, even in the latest video they released discrediting Paul Haggis.

    – Releasing emails in court and in videos “dead agents” Marty Rathbun rather than builds up his credibility so that his criticisms of other critics are less credible than they would be if they did not reveal these emails

    – Marty still has all his criticisms of Scientology on his blog, including links to the Truth Rundown which revealed DM’s beatings of staff

    – Exactly as Doloras noted – Monique Rathbun would need to go along with all these things and having never been in scn this seems extremely unlikely, especially after all they have put her through.

    See?

    So here we are looking to list out as much evidence that is INCONSISTENT with each hypothesis.

    Start!

    • My least favorite is hypothesis 3. I’m not sure if I have any directly observable fact to contradict it but I do have some arguments against its plausibility. If one accepts hypothesis 3 – that “Marty became a double agent in order to bring down DM” – then one would need to accept that Marty does give a convincing appearance of being on DM’s side (he has to do that in order to be a double agent). If one accepts that Marty does appear to be working for DM, why not accept that he acutlally works for DM (hypothesis 1)? How exactly does giving DM the impression that he’s on his side will help Marty take him down? By being given from DM some kind of a position of power by which Marty will have the power to harm Miscavige? Does Marty actually believe that DM will do that? If so, is this belief justified?

    • I know that you’re asking us to provide evidence against various hypotheses rather than defend our preferred hypotheses but I’m an unruly person so…

      “Marty still has all his criticisms of Scientology on his blog, including links to the Truth Rundown which revealed DM’s beatings of staff”

      The CoS would be unwise if it were to make Marty to delete his old blog posts as such a move would likely trigger the Streisand Effect. It’s often the case that attempts at censorship end up drawing more attention to the information they were supposed to suppress. Besides, what would deleting those posts accomplish in term of getting rid of entheta? Marty’s blog was not the only platform from which he criticized Miscavige/Scientology. He also made various statements critical of DM/Scn when speaking to various media outlets and documentary filmmakers. Deleting his past posts might get rid of some specific accusations that were made only there, but it won’t delete the mostly identical entheta Marty produced outside of his blog.

      In addition to that, it’s often been said that you can’t really delete anything on the internet. Take a look at Encyclopedia Dramatica for example. It was taken down by its owner in 2011 but the community which formed around that site had different plans. Within a matter of days they managed to recover all the content that was deleted and resurrect ED on a different domain. The same could happen if Marty’s blog was deleted.

      To sum it up, deleting the old posts might draw more attention to them than what they’re currently recieving and at best would get rid of relatively little entheta.

      “Marty is still being discredited by the Church, even in the latest video they released discrediting Paul Haggis.”

      All of the entheta Marty produced still exists, much of it is undeletable, and the and the CoS needs to discredit it even if Marty had flipped. Ergo, I believe that the continuning existence of the various attack websites against Marty is not inconsistent with hypothesis 1.

      “Releasing emails in court and in videos “dead agents” Marty Rathbun rather than builds up his credibility so that his criticisms of other critics are less credible than they would be if they did not reveal these emails”

      This argument has some merit but I also find a problem with it. If the CoS has an interest in portraying Marty as its collaborator, why have they done so little to advance that purpose? Tony Ortega reports that the incident with Dani Lemberger’s email happened on February 20 this year. This means that the CoS had possession of some of Marty’s online correspondence for at least seven months. They had plenty of time to try to portray Marty’s as a snitch by releasing all kinds of emails, yet since February they have done such thing only at the end of the previous month. If your assumption was correct I would have expected that emails from and to Marty would be released by the CoS far more frequently.

      Also, if the CoS is interested in portraying Marty as a collaborator, why haven’t they taken down their attack website against him? If they had done so most of the critics currently hostile to Marty would have regarded this as proof of Marty’s betrayel.

      “Exactly as Doloras noted – Monique Rathbun would need to go along with all these things and having never been in scn this seems extremely unlikely, especially after all they have put her through.”

      Why? I’m assuming that Marty has a strong sway over Monique’s Scientology-related decisions since he can always use the “I’m an expert on this” card whenver he wants to justify whichever course of action he’s for. He’s the one who’s been a Scientologist for something like three decades, two of which were spent working directly with Miscavige. He’ll always be able to come up with credible-sounding justification for whatever it is that he wants to justify and Monique wouldn’t be unreasonable to listen to him. If he think that cutting a secret deal with Miscavgie is a beneficial move I don’t see why it would be particularly difficult to sell that idea to Monique.

    • A counter to my #4 hypothesis above is that Marty would only be “useful” to wealthy public Scientologists contributing to his blog as long as he continues to post counter arguments to entheta about the CoS. This could be a lifetime job for Marty if he wants to stay at it, or at least as long as scn is in the news. (What a rabbit hole to spend time thinking about – lol – I wonder how many ex scn-ists are even thinking about it at all. Which brings up the question as to how many ex scn-ists are still alive and kicking. 100,000, 150,000?)

  6. Or, both the Cherch of $cientology and Marty are so crap at basic psychology, just like you, that they’re not quite sure what they’re doing. They are nervous and waiting to take up a position – just like you.

    • Hi Mary –

      Welcome to AlanzosBlog.

      Who were you referring to in your comment? Your idea of “nervous and waiting to take up a position” is interesting. Can you expand on that?

    • Given recent trends I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be Mark Bunker. OSA gossip has it that in spite of appearances, behind the scenes Bunker has been having serious problems with Tony O, Jeff Augustine and Karen ever since Mike Rinder joined the anti-scn racket for fame & profit. The same gossip channel also suggests Bunker was a silent backer of a strange and now obscure gossip blog called “Scientology Celebrities & Human Rights”. This blog claimed it was secretly authored by active Sea Org staff fed up with their cultic life but unable to blow because they had no money and no family or friends on the outside to turn to. Tony O went into a jealous rage because he wanted to be the only game in town and in his mind the blog was stealing his traffic. Trying to calm him down, Bunker revealed his involvement and the names of the blog authors to Tony O, who then used Karen to backchannel the names to OSA. Afterward, the blog ceased to exist and Bunker has been developing serious health issues since then.

      Truth or disinformation? You be the judge.

      • Tales of Information Control in anti-Scientology.

        Examining the contradictions in Scientology was always the most therapeutic part.

        Examining the contradictions in anti-Scientology can be just as therapeutic.

        • “Examining the contradictions in anti-Scientology can be just as therapeutic.”

          I’m sure that a comment citing uncorroborated rumors that are attributed to OSA (a very trustworthy and reliable source) is just the right foundation for this therapeutic endeavour. Unfortunately, the theory of Mark Bunker secretly colluding with Marty runs into some problems when a comment made by Marty in one of his videos is taken into account:

          “There’s hours and hours of footage of Mark Bunker taking great pains to try to crash Scientologist events, trying crash Scientologists in events that have nothing to do with Scientology, saying the most demeaning, denigrating things they can and embarrassing things they can to them on camera, with an ambush camera, I mean literally phsycial trolling.” (Source, skip to 1:53 for the relevant part.)

          Somehow I’m having a hard time believing that Marty is denigrating Bunker in such a way and speaking about him as if he’s not the room when in fact he’s right there behind the camera.

        • Ha! Good point. But who knows? Maybe that was just cover.

          Misdirection.

          Prestidigitation.

          Have you ever noticed that all speculation follows existing belief patterns and hardly ever goes against them?

          So it seems to me that even investigation of the truth is tribal. It’s why a Scientologist could never find a real why if his life depended on it. If the why called into question any part of the tech or a Scientology belief, then it would be thrown out.

          It’s the same for anti-Scientologists.

          That’s why it’s good to have people from both, or all, tribes as part of your team for why finding – as long as they value the truth over their own tribal beliefs.

          I think this is Paul Haggis’ and Leah Remini’s mistake. They have hunkered down with Tony Ortega and the anti-cult movement’s belief system after Scientology and must see all information through that prism. Any data points which call the anti-cult movement’s belief system into question are thrown out.

          Probably the most insidious and destructive assumption for an Ex is “I’m not in Scientology any more, therefore my belief system now is true”.

        • I’m not sure what to make of a blogger like Tony O who mockingly, shamelessly harasses and trolls singer Joy Villa as a “wannabe celebrity” simply because she’s been doing what any singer trying to establish herself has been doing, a little something called self-promotion, which I’m quite sure is a concept Tony O is very much familiar with and proficient in.

          I’m not sure what to make of a blogger who repeatedly trolls certain actors and actresses solely on the basis of their affiliation with an unpopular minority group, such as Elisabeth Moss, who he loves to trash any chance he gets. As others have related at Gawker, Gothamist and elsewhere, Tony O hates women and during his brief tenure, fired more women from the Village Voice than any previous EIC, or even any other EIC at any other local publication.

          I’m not sure what to make of a blogger who time and again relishes in his nonstop trolling of Tom Cruise, who he most recently called a “deadbeat dad”. Not even the worst, most self-loathing writers at TMZ and Daily Mail are so filled with such hatred and vitriol as has been demonstrated by Tony O.

          As Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, Nick Denton and the Gawker crew, as well as the Gothamist crew and just about every other local writer and blogger in NYC can attest, Tony O has a toxic personality. He is, without a shadow of a doubt, an out-and-out troll who is a “wannabe journalist” who happens to be failing miserably.

          And I am personally disgusted with his anonymous sources and uncorroborated gossip mongering about Scientologists in Hollywood that Gossip Cop routinely debunks.

          Shame on anyone who defends such a cowardly bully and trolling ruffian as Tony O.

        • It is very clear to me that Tony Ortega is the most biased person writing on the topic of Scientology right now, and it is mind-blowing how many people fall right in line with his bias and never question it. It’s good to know that other journalists recognize his bias, at least, if not enough others in Scientology-watching, such as Paul Haggis and Leah Remini.

        • Tony harasses Joy Villa? How? By making a couple of jabs at her on twitter and his blog? What’s next, are you going to say that talk show hosts and stand up comics are harassing the celebs they’re poking fun at? Also, I just love it that you cite fucking Nick Denton and Gawker as some kind of authorities on the subject of who is a toxic person. Gawker media posted a private sex tape not meant for distribution, is that shit not toxic? And lets not get started about what one of their editors (AJ Daulerio) said when he was grilled in court about this matter:

          http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-of-a-4-year-old/

          This was not the first ime Daulerio found himself in court:

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3488027/Gawker-editor-AJ-Daulerio-refused-college-girl-s-pleas-possible-rape-video.html

          Here’s a chellange for you, show me a journalistic lapse by Tony that is as ugly as this thing Gawker did:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gawker-conde-nast-david-geithner_us_55a90c56e4b0c5f0322d0b2c

          I do think there’s some legit criticism of Tony’s work but saying that Denton doesn’t like him ain’t it. If Tony really has a feud with Gakwer than that just means he earned a little bit of my respect.

  7. OK, so here’s where we’re headed with the next step of hypothesis testing. It’s a matrix where we list out the hypotheses and the evidence we’ve got, and label whether the evidence is CONSISTENT or INCONSISTENT with each hypothesis.

    Like this:

    Hypothesis matrix

    Here are some more points of evidence:

    f Marty is not psycho, in control of his behavior
    g. Satisficing: trying to build some case against each former ally
    H. Appears to be getting things right for someone in videos
    I Marty and Monique bought a house in the high $200s
    J. In addition to his criticizing critics vids, Marty continues to post “Movin on up a little higher” subject matter
    K. Church continues to discredit Marty in their attack videos
    L. Marty still has all his videos and criticism of the Church up on his own blog
    M. Marty reported being hacked in Dec 2009
    N. Marty refuses to answer about how emails ended up in Church hands
    O. Marty refuses to name who is behind the camera in videos

    See where we are heading?

    What do you think so far?

    • P. The recent videos are not characteristic of Marty’s typical style.

      To elaborate, in the past he wouldn’t put that much effort into the production of a video (the video quality was not as good, he wouldn’t use make up, his clothes were more shabby). Likewise, he usually wouldn’t use videos to communicate his ideas and thoughts. Rather, he would use videos to document noteworthy occurences (squirellbusters, the encounter with Jenny Linson at LAX). There are some exceptions, but usually Marty would use the written form when he wanted to express a thought or an idea. This point is used to argue for that an agent of Scientology is the perosn who’s deciding how will Marty’s current videos will be shot.

Comments are closed.