Marty Rathbun’s Discussion of Paul Haggis Going Clear – In Context

In Paul Haggis’ guest posting to Tony Ortega’s blog this weekend, Paul Haggis writes:

“I barely skimmed Scientology’s latest ad hominem attack on me this week. The church, quite paradoxically, largely relied upon their “arch-enemy,” Marty Rathbun, to supposedly discredit me. No one will be shocked to learn it is full of lies and blatant misrepresentations. Mike Rinder already dissected their non-responsive response and Marty’s flip-flopping assertions. But one thing stuck out to me which you may find interesting, so I will give you a little background.

Marty now (emphasis mine) claims that he masterminded my resignation from beginning to end, suggesting that my outrage over the Church’s support of Prop 8 was a smokescreen. He ignores the fact that my months-long battle with Tommy Davis and the church began in October 2008, more than six months before Marty and I had any contact.”

The video above – a tweet that is presently pinned to the top of Freedom Media and Ethics Twitter profile – features an edited snippet, taken out of context, where Marty Rathbun is discussing what went on behind the scenes with Paul Haggis, Lawrence Wright, Alex Gibney and others in producing Going Clear, the book and the movie.

The video clip that the Church uses above is not a new accusation from Marty Rathbun, as Paul Haggis states in his letter above – which Tony Ortega published with no fact-checking. It is taken from this video which Marty published on June 16, 2017. Here is the whole video, so you can see what Marty says in context as he discusses Paul Haggis’ role in Going Clear – the book and the movie.

The clips are taken from comments beginning at around 3:54 in the video.

Partisan warriors have a hard time with intellectual honesty. They take things out of context, they shoot from the hip, and they oversimplify complex, nuanced, and multifaceted truths in order to shape them into weapons they can use to vanquish their enemies.

It has been very disappointing to see so many people such as Marty Rathbun, Leah Remini, Mike Rinder and now Paul Haggis Going Clear, who I have so much respect for, engaging in this kind of tribal warfare designed to assassinate their critics’ characters – just like Scientology does.

Well what do you expect from people who learned from the best – L Ron Hubbard – how to do this kind of warfare?

The problem is, this internecine spear-chucking used to go on with a few hundred people on the Internet. Now it is going out to millions of people. A little criticism and differing viewpoints is absolutely essential in this kind of scenario – especially since the beginning of Season 2 of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath where the rhetoric has gone distinctly tribal.

I think that ever since Leah Remini and Mike Rinder went to the attorneys at the end of Season 1 of Scientology and the Aftermath – and found conclusively that there was nothing that the government would do about Scientology because Scientology was not doing anything against the law – this group of now militarized critics all decided to go tribal on Scientology’s ass. I think they decided to simply try to make Scientology the most hated name on the planet. And they will even go so far as to lie about Scientology and Scientologists to get that done.

Believe me, I understand this urge. When you are trashed online like all these people have been trashed by Scientology – you want revenge. And you’ll say what needs to be said in order to get your product.

The reason to be a critic of Scientology is to tell the truth about it – both the good and the bad.

Not this.

35 thoughts on “Marty Rathbun’s Discussion of Paul Haggis Going Clear – In Context”

  1. “The video clip that the Church uses here is not a new accusation from Marty Rathbun, as Paul Haggis states in his letter above – which Tony Ortega published with no fact-checking. It is taken from this video which Marty published on June 16, 2017.”

    I don’t really see what’s the big problem with Haggis’ post. I could see the word “now” being reasonably interperted to mean as “in relatively recnet time (i.e three months ago)”, it does not have to mean “within the last coupe of days”. There may be some legit criticism on Haggis’ post (in fact I think that he’s a bit premature in concluding that his emails must a have been passed to the CoS by Marty) but your post deals with a non-issue.

    • “There may be some legit criticism on Haggis’ post (in fact I think that he’s a bit premature in concluding that his emails must a have been passed to the CoS by Marty) but your post deals with a non-issue.”

      I appreciate your open mind here regarding that critical issue about the emails.

      The larger issue that I am addressing with Paul Haggis is the attempt to discredit everything Marty has to say in criticism of Going Clear and of Scientology and the Aftermath – two projects in which Haggis was intimately involved.

      Dispersed among his infuriating dismissals and denigration of people, Marty Rathbun has a lot of important factual information about the background of these Haggis projects which have been presented to the public as non-fiction. The information Marty presents as facts should be known and discussed for the purposes of critical thinking about these works.

      Going Clear and Scientology and the Aftermath are not sitcoms like “Walker Texas Ranger” and “King of Queens”. These are non-fictional works that name names and affect the lives of thousands of people – effecting especially the lives of run of the mill Scientologists who never put anyone into the Hole, or ever abused anyone. I have seen the river of hate and threats of violence here at my blog that Scientololgy and the Aftermath is generating – simply for posting Cathy Tweed’s video in response to their cruel and one-sided episode about her daughter’s suicide.

      I am telling you – there is much to criticize here about “Going Clear” and “Scientology and the Aftermath”, and it is a public service to do so.

      Marginalizing and attempting to discredit and silence Marty Rathbun – and anyone else who is not full-on tribal anti-Scientology – is not in anyone’s best interest if we are to have the truth be part of the public discourse on Scientology.

      • “Dispersed among his infuriating dismissals and denigration of people, Marty Rathbun has a lot of important factual information about the background of these Haggis projects which have been presented to the public as non-fiction.”

        To your knowledge, how much of his new info has been verified? The only new claim he made that I know to have been verified is that he did contact Haggis before the later’s resignation just he claimed in that video. However, there are times in which Rathbun’s 2017 vids contradict his earlier statement or even publicly available facts (for example, the video about Jefferson Hawkins falsley claims that Hawkins became a critic following Rathbun’s lead when in actuality Hawkins became a critic before Rathbun did). I did some fact-checking of Rathbun’s vids and often found them to be lacking, after a while I just grew tired of him.

        “Marginalizing and attempting to discredit and silence Marty Rathbun”

        See above, I feel that Rathbun is doing a fine job discrediting himself on his own, he doesn’t need no help from the Bunker, ESMB or Rinder.

        [note: This is my first attempt to put a hyperlink in a wordpress comment, sorry if I messed it up.]

        • Yes. It’s a very precarious thing to appear to support Marty Rathbun.

          I have seen that since 2013 when I saw that Marty had stopped being King of the Indies and started questioning and criticizing L Ron Hubbard and the tech directly. Prior to that, I was one of his biggest critics. As an Indie both he and Mike Rinder were revising history and doing all kinds of things which very definitely needed to be called out, questioned, and heavily criticized.

          I’ve been reading and watching Marty Rathbun since the summer of 2009, and I really do understand the patience a person has to have with him.

          He shoots himself in the foot, and ruins his own message continually.

          But he has still been one of the most effective critics of Scientology in its history. And that’s why I still see value there – even if no one else has the patience to see it. Marty has criticized Tony Ortega, Mike Rinder, Leah Remini, Paul Haggis, Alex Gibney, Louis Theroux, and every one else he has worked with. They all hate him now, after using everything they could get out of him.

          And so here we go: Oscar winner Paul Haggis uses a whole blog post on Tony Ortega’s blog to take down Marty Rathbun and do his best to discredit him and seal Marty’s fate as a turncoat spy.

          Someone should be thinking about this independently of the Anti-Scientology Mafia Network.

          So that’s what I’m doing. And that’s all I’m doing.

          It’s definitely an acquired taste, and not for the neophytes.

      • “Marginalizing and attempting to discredit and silence Marty Rathbun – and anyone else who is not full-on tribal anti-Scientology – is not in anyone’s best interest if we are to have the truth be part of the public discourse on Scientology.”

        Who is discrediting or silencing Marty? For God’s sake Alanzo, seeker of truth. Nobody really except Marty himself!!
        He is the one who is choosing total public silence and hiding. He does not take part in any normal human debate, he does not answer questions nor e mails, does not reply to serious allegations brought against him and does not relate to comments. Why? When he was fighting for truth as he truly saw it, even when a pioneer and alone, he was open and participating.
        Instead all he does now is these slick “CoS style” videos, doing exactly and exclusively what the CoS does: Totally denigrating anybody who says anything against them.
        Including and actually especially those who were once great friends. AND NOT ONE GOOD WORD ABOUT ANY FORMER LOVED FRIENDS. they are now just a pack of liars and crooks and conspirators against God and truth…!
        Who on this earth acts like this? All dark regimes, DM and his inhuman OSA soldiers, and now, so sad, Marty.
        Now before you start anything funny: I am not seeking revenge and I am a happy person for leaving the CoS years ago, I even practice daily the works of Ron Hubbard and appreciate much of his work as genius (not all).
        And I definitely don’t agree with many things the Aftermath does, (but agree and compliment others), and I think that Tony IS INDEED a hater of all spiritual practices, which is a big shame, and this blinds him and much of his judgment. OK?
        So, what I write here has no agenda and can’t be put under a cult name to discredit it. It is just what I see so plainly.
        All those ASC guys as you define them INCLUDING TONY, are ALSO saying good things about Marty. Every one of them. They expose what they see as wrong, but always mention the good in him. Always. Me too. I hate everything Marty does now, even if there is some truth in it, because of his heavy agenda. But I too appreciate his great work in the past, including his help to me which I will never forget. You see, because I don’t agree now, I will not change the past to suit that. Never. THIS IS INTEGRITY.
        Marty has NOT ONE GOOD, POSITIVE WORD to say about all his dear friends of yesterday. Nada. All is forgotten, they are all liars and bigots and…what have you. Now who acts like that? Who turns out angles or good people into horrible devils overnight? Using ugly smear words? We all know. Truly sad.
        To conclude on a happier note, and as I am a Sci-Fi/Fantasy lover and writer, I have this fantasy that explains it all, even to Ortega:
        Marty has gone back into the fold of the CoS, completely. And will continue for a while, with a secret and clever plan to then shatter and pull it all down from inside or reform it. That, after realizing it is the only way to do it fully!! Total fantasy, but could be fascinating.

        • Don’t know where to start with your overly emotional rant here, hemi, except to say I have never defined any one as being in the anti-Scientology Cult. That is Marty’s term and not mine.

          I should also recommend to you to sit down under a tree somewhere and have a cream soda. Listen to the wind. Look at things near and far.

        • “Don’t know where to start with your overly emotional rant here”
          Ha ha, I take it as a compliment, that I said it all fair and square and there’s nothin’ to add… 🙂
          Overly emotional? Don’t think so, but May be. I do have my buttons still…I like “sitting under a tree” but its too hot here so instead I will sit under the air condition and do a Solo session to check them… 🙂 A Solo session for me is like meditation, pure and deep. Doing it properly you can’t really cheat yourself or it won’t work at all. You should try it sometime… 🙂
          My apology on ASC use. You use “group”, not “cult” – which is much better. I think TC uses ASC term these days.
          By the way have you heard from Peter him lately? Puerto Rico has been badly devastated and I am worried and hope he is ok.

        • No I have not heard from Peter. He may well be without power and unable to post or get onto the internet at all. Category 4 Hurricanes are not something to take lightly.

          I hope he’s okay.

    • That letter is very disappointing. But it’s the kind of machinations I suspected happening behind the scenes at Aftermath.

      Leah’s rollout statement for Season 2 to the Hollywood Reporter that Scientologists believe in pedophilia were all probably discussed ahead of time and the decision was made to lie in order to inflame people because, legally, they’ve got nothing. And they are going to get their revenge no matter what.

      If I worked for the Hollywood Reporter, I would be pissed that Leah used them to lie to the public about Scientologists and what they believed.

      • Maybe I’ve been thoroughly brainwashed by the Anti-Scientology Mafia Network, but I’m not quite sure what is the daming conclusion that I’m supposed to reach from the email Rathbun has posted. Perhaps I do need about 3-400 hours of Scientology objective processes.

        I’ve read Rathbun’s recent post but haven’t yet delved too deeply into the claims he makes in it. However, I do feel confident in saying that Rathbun does himself no favor by failling to properly address Haggis’ most damning accusation. Haggis believes that an email he sent to Rathbun has made its way into the hands of the CoS and that this is a proof of Rathbun and Miscavige working together. I’m not fully convinced of this idea but it is a reasonable suspicion. After all, one of the CoS’s lawyers explicitly said that Rathbun has provided his client with an email that was sent to Rathbun by Independent Scientologist Dani Lemberger.

        Rathbun only provides further credence to Haggis’ suspicion by failing to either affirm or deny it. Was Haggis’ email forwarded to the CoS by Rathbun? Was Dani Lemberger’s email forwarded to the CoS by Rathbun? Why can’t he answer these question with simple yes or no answers?

        • I think your questions are fully valid, DTG.

          And I would like to know the answers to them, too.

          Here’s the link to the video that Haggis is referring to on the Freedom Magazine website:

          http://progmedia.edgesuite.net/videos/freedom/en/the-new-yorker-lawrence-wright-paul-haggis_640_en.mp4

          At around 9 minutes in, you’ll see that they tear in to Marty Rathbun as well. This is something that Tony Ortega constantly omits from his running theme that “Marty’s videos are being used in Scientology’s attack pieces – therefore Marty is working with OSA”.

          Ortega never also says that Scientology is continuing to attack Marty. Or that all of Marty’s anti-Scientology and Anti-DM writings and media appearances – including CNN’s 5 night series with Anderson Cooper “Scientology a History of Violence” are still up at Marty’s site.

          This kind of cherry picking of the information to continually prop up his hypotheses is not the work of a real journalist. It is biased and hackneyed and not credible.

          Tribal “truth” is never the truth. Tribalists always omit the information from the other “side”.

          The truth has no sides.

        • I have been reading Marty’s blog for awhile, I have not seen the level of anger he displayed in today’s post. I think you have your answer it would be simple to just say no I didn’t give them the emails, instead we are treated to a tantrum.

          I have attempted to ask Marty some questions on his blog but they never post, I wonder why?

        • Allison wrote:

          “I think you have your answer”

          I don’t have an answer. And neither does anyone else right now.

          It’s uncomfortable to not have an answer, but it’s important to remember that you do not have an answer when you do not have one.

        • While it’s true that you shouldn’t answer something when you don’t have the answer, the email thing is pretty cut and dry. He either have them to the CoS or he didn’t. It’s a yes or no question.

        • Yes, it is a yes or no question, but there is something else to consider here that no one seems to be seeing: If Marty Rathbun is actually working for the Church of Scientology why would they destroy his credibility by showing an email from him in court, in Danny Lemberger’s trial, and now putting the “Collero and Lightening” email reference into an attack video?

          If Marty was really working for the Church he would be WAY more valuable to them as a trusted insider of other critics so they could use him as a mole. Destroying his credibility with other critics would only benefit them if he was NOT working with them and was still considered their enemy.

          When you know the OSA Network Orders (pdf from Arnie Lerma’s website), you know that the reference from Sun Tzu regarding “Dead Agents” applies here. These two emails could also very well be an OSA program to destroy Marty’s credibility with critics of Scientology and deny him resources and friends – all part of Hubbard’s standard orders to do to critics.

          I wrote about this when the email ended up in Dani Lemberger’s trial.

          Things are not cut and dry at all here. So don’t be taken in by simple appearances. OSA has been playing this game against critics for decades. It’s amazing how often it works.

        • Or they could be using Marty , arguably the most outspoken and visible pre leah anti scientologist, to try to fracture the fight.

        • Yep. These are all possible explanations for what we are seeing here.

          Usually, factions of critics develop around each of these possible explanations, and each faction fights each other – sometimes ripping each other to shreds – over their particular pet hypothesis. Decades-long feuds are born in these kinds of warring hypotheses battles.

          It’s really stupid. The best thing, and really the only thing to do is to recognize that we don’t have the answer and to keep in mind ALL possible scenarios, assigning a particular level of likelihood to each one.

          When you don’t have all these data – as we almost never do in Scientology-watching – the worst thing you can do is to take on a hypothesis as your pet.

          Hypotheses make TERRIBLE pets!

          There’s a really great book by a former CIA Analyst called “The Thinker’s ToolKit“. And one of the tools is called “Hypothesis testing”. That tool would really be useful right about now.

        • “If Marty was really working for the Church he would be WAY more valuable to them as a trusted insider of other critics so they could use him as a mole. Destroying his credibility with other critics would only benefit them if he was NOT working with them and was still considered their enemy.”

          Is it really Miscavige’s modus operandi to turn defeated critics into undercover agents? The critics that I know of who have been defeated by Miscavige are Bob Minton, Stacy Brooks and Vicki Aznaran. Minton and Aznaran would eventually turn publicly against other critics. I’m not sure if Brooks did the same but she did turn silent after her defeat. None of those were turned into undercover critics. From these limited set of examples it seems as if Miscavige prefers to have defeated critics shut up or publicly turn against other critics rather than have them become Donnie Brascos. Do you have any counter examples?

        • So your argument is that the use of Dani Lemberger’s email in court was meant to isolate Marty from other critics and discredit him in their eyes. I’m not sure if the “isolation” part would have been a very strong incentive for the CoS to do what they did. It was February this year when the CoS’ lawyer claimed that Marty had forwarded Lemberger’s email to the church. I get the impression that at that point Marty was not on good terms with most other critics. I’m not sure if by then Marty had a lot of relationships that the CoS could destroy.

          The “discrediting” part though could have been a stronger motive for what they did. Making Marty look treacherous could have deterred (and probably did deter) other critics from further citing his blg posts and statements when speaking out against the church.

          With that having been said, just because the CoS engages in acts that discredit a particular critic does not have to mean that said critic hasn’t already bent the knee to Miscavige. Wasn’t Bob Minton discrediting himself when the CoS made him call the Ken Dandar (attorney for the McPherson family) a “lying thief”? And yet this clearly hapened after Minton was subdued Mike and Marty. Speaking of Mike, here’s what he wrote his affidavit for Monique Rathbun:

          “Vicki Aznaran, like Mark Rathbun, was previously the “Inspector General” of Religious Technology Center. She was ousted by Miscavige and left the church and she and her husband filed suit against a number of church entities in 1988. […] In 1994 the Aznaran’s called the church and said they wanted to engage in settlement discussions to resolve their lawsuit. […] As has now become standard practice in all Scientology settlements, we were required to get the Aznarans to sign declarations that could be used to counter statements they had earlier made in the course of their lawsuit.”

          When the CoS causes a critic to capitulate it does not put an end to the proces of discrediting them. Rather, they make the critic a partner in the proces.

        • You see how the goal-posts change.

          “how much of his new info has been verified?”

          Marty posts verification.

          “That doesn’t matter, what about this OTHER question that I just raised?”

          Once you’ve decided that attacking Marty is the goal, questions don’t actually require any answers; you just need to make another accusation if one is answered.

          BTW, I am pretty much behind Alanzo’s analysis. Marty’s conduct can and should be challenged. But Tony Ortega is pushing a binary us-and-them media narrative in which people who question the official narrative get smeared, shunned, and witch-hunted. I do not believe Marty is working “for” OSA/Miscavige at all. Working WITH, behind the scenes? Possible.

  2. The quality and integrity of the information disseminated by TO, Leah, Mike, Marty, Chris and The Church, sucks.

    Each have done either part to thoroughly pollute the information pool. So, why do we spend time debating about their data, when we know the source is prone to mislead, distort, and in many cases, LIE?

    Each one values tribal instincts over the Truth.

    The “Truth” they disseminate is designed to inflict harm on the enemy. It’s not the Truth I’m looking for.

    The whole Scn/Anti-Scn landscape is like a puzzle: you can have it all laid out; which players are in which camp; what did or didn’t happen, and so on – but, there are pieces missing, or pieces we thought fit, but were forced to fit.

    Marty’s “turn” was like dropping the puzzle on the floor.

    It is interesting to note that Marty’s videos are a one-way communication flow. He is not open to debate. He will not respond to obvious discrepancies in his own statements. So why is he doing this? My best guess…his actions are designed to fracture the Anti camp, to destablize it.

    He is attempting to change the “question”.

    The question used to be squarely focused on the church and the abuses, now it’s about personality against personality, and in-fighting and radicalization.

    Marty created that.

    • Well, I’ve been around as a critic of Scientology on the Internet for a long time. There has always been factional fighting, raucous disagreements, differing priorities and shotgun feuds among Scientology’s critics.

      Now it’s just happening on a much bigger stage by people who are not documentary film makers or even objective journalists. It’s just one big glorious Alt.Religion.Scientology Shit Show again – this time for millions to see.

  3. Here’s the “Collero and Lightening” email from Marty’s post. It looks like it has been printed out, marked up with a writing utensil and scanned as a pdf file.

    Lightening and Collero Email

      • Yes, that post was written four months after Marty and “collero’s” email exchanges. And if Marty’s wordpress.com blog was hacked, that means they got his password for his wordpress account. And if they got that password, what other passwords did they get?

        All you need to read Marty’s encrypted emails is the password to Marty’s hushmail account. And if Paul was not using encrypted email, or any of the other recipients to that email exchange, then there is no protection of encryption for those emails.

        Paul Haggis this morning only gave 2 possibilities for how this email ended up in a Church video – Marty was hacked or Marty handed it over to them.

        But that’s wrong – there aren’t just those two possibilities. Paul could have been hacked, Jason Beghe could have been hacked (a known, self-confessed technological Luddite who had a probable OSA plant living with him) and any other recipient on that email could have been hacked as possibilities, as well.

        The Church of Scientology has had a dedicated and well financed team of hackers since at least the time I left around 1999. I knew two of them from that time. One of them was Tim Crowley, a fellow mission staff member from Peoria, brother of Suzanne Crowley, whose specialty was intercepting emails from peoples email traffic. Mike Rinder hired him at OSA Int in the early 2000s. Another was Jesus Gimenez, a former Scientology friend of mine from LA who worked directly with former GO honcho Craig Jensen’s hacking unit at Executive Software.

        Even Mike Rinder and Tony Ortega’s emails have been hacked and the guy who hacked them went to prison, as Tony wrote about here:

        On June 25, former Scientology spokesman Mike Rinder and I went public with the information that the two of us had been notified by the US Attorney that we had been victimized in Saldarriaga’s hacking attacks for hire. Besides both being victims of Saldarriaga, Rinder and I both appeared in Alex Gibney’s recent film on Scientology, Going Clear, and we have each experienced harassment we attribute to the church and its private investigators. We pointed out to Judge Sullivan in our “victim impact statements” that the only organization that would want illegal access to our email accounts was Rinder’s former employer. Any other scenario strained credulity, we pointed out.

        Hell, I’ve been attempted to be hacked by the Church of Scientology beginning back on Christmas Day 2001, and I must presume, all the way up to now.

        Unlike Tony Ortega, and now Paul Haggis it seems, I’m not saying that I KNOW anything about Marty Rathbun and what the hell he is doing. I am simply pointing out that if you are targeted by the Church of Scientology’s sophisticated team of hackers, you have to have expert level knowledge of computer security to be confident that you have not been hacked. And anyone who is an expert at computer security is NEVER confident that they have not been hacked.

        No critic of the Church of Scientology that I know is an expert at computer security. And after the false choices that Tony Ortega and Paul Haggis are giving us on the subject – they are no experts at computer security, either.

  4. surely Marty, Mike Rinder, Leah, Paul Haggis, Tony O, and anybody and their Uncle’s have seen the famous 2 hour interview by Mark Bunker of Jason Beghe

    Show me a muther fuck’in Clear? Even Heinlein asked the question of John Campbell before the publication of Dianetics back in 1949/50!

    Why can’t we stay focused, “stay on target” famous Star Wars quote?

    LOL

    back to vacation. LOL

Comments are closed.