Is Marty Rathbun Working for the Church of Scientology?

Marty Rathbun Former ScientologistStubborn & 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

Share AlanzosBlog Far and Wide


Leave a Reply

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
8 Comment threads
22 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
AtomicalMedia Lushmary watsonDigThatGroovemarildi Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest
Notify of

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 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.

Doloras LaPicho

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!


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.

mary watson
mary watson

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.

Media Lush

I think another question that might go towards explaining this whole palaver is exactly who was behind the camera filming him and/or who exactly was he speaking to?


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.