Rathbun-Armstrong: The Debate is On

Marty Rathbun blogged today:

What Folks Are Saying about ‘Scientology Warrior’

The following are comments from a number of people of diverse Scientology-related demographic backgrounds who have read, or allegedly read, Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (also available on Kindle):

Whistleblower:

It is an invaluable record of a remarkable history and contains many insights that were revelatory to me.

Anti Scientologist:

Your lies, whether you know it or not (and I do not consider that you are unaware), serve the Scientology cult head’s command intention.

Former Scientology insider:

I’ve read a lot of books and there are some writers that I struggle reading. They don’t flow or keep you interested. This book is not just interesting but it flows and is easy to read… Marty answers just about everything in this book. It is much more accurate and interesting than the Wright book. Nothing is taken out of context.

Critical analyst of Scientology:

It’s a fascinating book, and there is a lot there that will contribute to the growing archive.

Former Scientologist:

Buy and read if you are an expert, or just curious, and you’re in the ex Scientologist community and know who Marty is.

Independent Scientologist:

Overall, Marty, your book was both a vindication of the workability of the subject of Scientology and also a poignant and honest representation of the failed organization and the brilliant imperfect man who started it all. And you’re right — the extremists in both camps will hate it. But I reckon that those who can hew to the middle path will love it.

Scientology Hater:

As in his first book, Rathbun once again feels compelled to tell us that the genius of L. Ron Hubbard’s notion of a “clear” is a human being who simply knows his or her “basic personality.” Rathbun is supremely satisfied that this is what Hubbard gave him all along. Rathbun knows himself, and that is enough. But after getting through this book’s 326 pages, it’s even clearer to us that Marty Rathbun hasn’t even begun to understand himself or what he did in the name of Scientology.

Church of Scientology blogger Vince Fletcher:

Marty Rathbun was electric shocked – he says so.

I wrote the comment Rathbun identified as coming from an “Anti-Scientologist.” This label is a specific hate term in Scientology that makes a person like me fair game. See, HCOB 27 September 1966 “THE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY – THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST.” http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/224

I was not really talking about Scientology Warrior when I wrote that Rathbun’s lies – the ones relevant to the Scientology v. Armstrong war – served the cult head’s command intention. I was talking about Rathbun’s lies wherever and whenever he told them.

When I wrote the subject comment, I had neither read Rathbun’s book nor alleged I’d read it. I had done a quick search that confirmed he had lied in the book, but I still have not read it, and wouldn’t think of alleging I’d read it.

Here’s our email exchange from which Rathbun took the comment. The exchange I thought was very productive because he agreed to a public debate with me about issues between us. It would be like Bernie Madoff debating one of his biggest victims about the wins, gains and pro-survivalness of Ponzi schemes. The details have to be worked out, but really Rathbun’s imprimatur on this project is huge. I just hope that his publicly classifying me as an “Anti-Scientologist” now doesn’t mean he’s getting cold warrior feet.

___________________

From: Gerry Armstrong
To: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 9:35 am
Subject: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Dear Marty:

Tony Ortega blogged today a review of your book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior and claims it contains an attack on Michael Flynn and me. Please send me an e-copy of your book right away.

Thank you.

Gerry Armstrong

From: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 9:50 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

You’ve never been treated better in a serious piece of writing. Buy it and find out.

From: Gerry Armstrong
To: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 12:24 pm
Subject: RE: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Thank you. For my understanding, what other serious pieces of writing are you referring to?

Gerry

From: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:00 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Wright, Reitman, etc.

From: Gerry Armstrong
To: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 4:34 pm
Subject: RE: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Thank you. I assume the “etc.” include Miller, Atack and Corydon.

Do you mean by treating me better that you give me more space on your pages or words in your text? At first I thought you meant by better treatment that what you were saying was more factual or true than other serious pieces of writing. All I’ve been saying, and all I’ve been seeking are facts and truth, and the best treatment is factual and true. But I can see that you could have meant that by saying more about me, even if it continued a 30+ year black PR campaign, you were treating me better. What I will be looking for when I read your book will be facts and truth, not space or spin.

Wright and Reitman don’t even have Mike Flynn or Omar Garrison in their indexes. I don’t think either book has one word about your years of ops, lawfare and black PR on me.

Wright got what he wrote about me mainly right. He didn’t in The New Yorker, but that’s another story. In Going Clear, he gave some pages to Hubbard’s affirmations. I am looking forward to your treatment of these materials in your book.

Wright quoted the most famous words from Breckenridge. I do hope space-wise you do even better.

Wright really has nothing in Going Clear about the Scientology v. Armstrong war, or my life, except for Tommy Davis’s 2010 naked black PR to The New Yorker personnel, and Wright’s note about me wearing shorts. Wright mentions that the 1984 LA Superior Court trial happened, but really nothing about it.

So did you mean by better treatment more space or more truth?

Gerry

From: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:11 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Read the book and enter the no spin zone.

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:54 PM
To: Mark Rathbun
Subject: RE: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

I intend to read the book, thank you. I cannot, however, have any expectation, from all my observations of you, and even from your “handling” of me in this exchange, after 30+ years of Scientologists’ “handlings,” that reading your book will transport me to the no spin zone, if you in fact have such a no spin zone to which I might be transported.

Obviously you know that spinlessness (not to be mistaken for spinelessness) is not an undesirable quality. But it is really desired by the people who will see your spin as spin. Not everyone recognizes spin as spin, and then there are spinners, as I have clearly considered you to be, who deny their spin is spin. It’s a trick of conscience isn’t it? I would consider ending the disdain you convey for good people, and then sop up the disdain you’ve shown for good people these past many years, in service of Scientology or not. I wouldn’t delay. There is no insurmountable barrier to an instant Damascus Road moment.

Gerry

From: Gerry Armstrong
To: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 9:05 pm
Subject: FW: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Marty:

You lied when you said you treated me better than I’d been treated in any other serious writing.

You lied about me in your book.

You lied about it being a no spin zone.

Your lies, whether you know it or not (and I do not consider that you are unaware), serve the Scientology cult head’s command intention.

So you’re a warrior, and you consider that it is the most honorable identity a man can have. I challenge you to a debate. You will represent and defend Scientologists, your founder, and your tech, and I will represent the wogs and our Creator and wog tech.

More specifically, I will debate you about the rightness or holiness or effectiveness of your handling of me and my class per Hubbard tech and orders, both when you were in the Sea Org doing it and now when you say you’re not in the Sea Org.

I will take my challenge to you public fairly soon, so if you would like to discuss a debate, venue, timing, etc., please let me know as quickly as possible.

Thanks again.

Gerry

From: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:11 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Gerry,

You are more possessed than the most kool-aid drunk Scientology cult member. Please, begin your campaign; the more fireworks the better. But, I think you shot all yours almost thirty years ago.  Never too late to get a life my boy.

Marty

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 7:55 AM
To: Mark Rathbun
Subject: RE: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Marty:

Thank you for the agreement to a debate. Since I’ve been thinking about it the past day or so, the first and immediate debate theme I see is what I consider are your false statements about me. This provides us with specific, exact bits of text from your public statements about me, or related matters, that we can debate, as to their factualness or truth.

You would be able to do the same with public statements I’ve made about you that you consider are unfactual or untrue and should be debated.

For example, you might actually consider that my statement that your lies about me align with Miscavige or any other Scientology cult head’s command intention is untrue. In our debate, you could explain as best you can that your lying about me doesn’t help Miscavige at all. You would be able to provide examples of where Miscavige became upset with junior Scientologists saying nasty, lying things about me. Or you could show that Miscavige’s command intention is that the truth be told about me and so your lying couldn’t possibly be in alignment with it.

In my turn in the debate, I would be able to take one of your statements that I considered a lie and explain or demonstrate its falsity. For example, that I am more possessed than the most kool-aid drunk Scientology cult member. You have a habit of sloppiness in your writing, and a frequent dishonesty in your semantics. At the debate, you would have to clarify what you mean by “possessed” and who you believe is the most kool-aid drunk Scientology cult member. But even without your clarifications, I know that what you’ve written here is false and nasty. I think that I can show without any problem to a debate audience that it is false and nasty, and I believe you will have no defense of your statement, except with more falseness and more nastiness.

Then we move on to another debate topic. Give your ideas.

I’m uncertain what you mean by fireworks. It appears to be a threat, and of course the whole disdain deal you communicate is meant to be threatening. But I assure you, I have no fireworks, and seek no fireworks. I have the truth and I seek the truth, and a debate is a way to present it and get it, without fireworks.

Gerry

From: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:39 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

If you have an objection to a factual statement in the book, please provide specifics and any documentation available to support your position.

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 12:58 PM
To: Mark Rathbun
Subject: RE: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

That is basically what I proposed, so thank you. Because it’s a public debate, I will make my presentation to counter your errors or misinformation publicly. You can then provide your argument and documentation to support your errors or misinformation.

I will probably create a YouTube video to present my side of the debate for each item I choose to address. You can respond however you want, as long as it’s legal, and create your own video or blog post or whatever to debate any of my statements you wish.

The first item I intend to address is Hubbard and Scientologists’ “Suppressive Person” doctrine. In Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, you repeat lies about the doctrine that you’ve been telling for some years. In a video last year, I countered some of what you published about the doctrine in your book What’s Wrong With Scientology?

Because in your latest book you continued to lie about the SP class, which I represent and defend against your calumnies, I will continue to counter your lies with another video.

I truly hope that you will honestly debate this vital issue, because, if you do, I believe there is a good chance that you will see the wrongness and antisocial nature of your facts and position regarding SPs like me.

Caroline posted about our debate on WWP, and people appear to be quite enthusiastic about the idea. https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/rathbun-armstrong-the-debate-is-on.111336/

I hope you’re able to find something you honestly believe is erroneous in what I’ve said – about Hubbard, Scientology, you and other Scientologists – so that our debate doesn’t get stuck flowing in just one direction.

Thanks again.

Gerry

From: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 2:02 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

You are so possessed you cannot even identify a specific.  Go get a life Gerry.

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 7:00 PM
To: Mark Rathbun
Subject: RE: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Dear Marty:

You’re lying. You’re lying here. That’s specific. I can’t know specifically why you’re lying here, whether you’re just carrying out a program order, or if Miscavige has you blackmailed into acting like a lying bully, or you’re pathologically incapable of simple truth, you’re terrified, or if there’s some other condition. I wrote this in 2011 to provide my best explanation then for your lying: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/5059 Back then it came down to because your telling the truth would set a lot of people free, and it served your purposes to keep people trapped.

It’s quite clear that this is still the situation today. If you told the truth that I can provide a specific, I have provided many specifics, and am not so possessed that I can’t, you would begin to free the people who look to you from the miscomprehension and hatred toward me you incite, and in which, by lying, you keep them. You should release all the people who look to you from this ridiculous prison.

In your present round of lies, your book sales have to be seen as a factor. If people knew you lied so much, they could be freed from any desire to buy your book, and also freed from the trap of believing you’re honest, or a straight shooter, or trustworthy. I think people should obtain your book, and I think people are justified by fair use guidelines, in consideration of the criminal conspiracy against citizens and the subversion of the US Government that it evidences, to web it in toto to facilitate universal public parsing and public action. That’s a specific.

I wrote that our debate is public. That’s a specific.

I wrote that I will make my presentation to counter your errors or misinformation publicly. That’s a specific.

I wrote that you can then provide your argument and documentation to support your errors or misinformation. That’s a specific.

I wrote that I will probably create a YouTube video to present my side of the debate for each item I choose to address. That’s a specific.

I wrote that you can respond however you want, as long as it’s legal, and create your own video or blog post or whatever to debate any of my statements you wish. That’s a specific.

I wrote that the first item I intend to address is Hubbard and Scientologists’ “Suppressive Person” doctrine. That’s a specific.

I wrote that in your book you repeat lies about the doctrine that you’ve been telling for some years. That’s a specific.

I wrote that in a video last year, I countered some of what you published about the doctrine in What’s Wrong With Scientology? That’s a specific.

I provided a link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeeWZPdZ-U8

That’s a specific.

In the video you will find more specific specifics.

I wrote that because in your latest book you continued to lie about the SP class, which I represent and defend against your calumnies, I will continue to counter your lies with another video. That’s a specific.

I wrote that I truly hope that you will honestly debate this vital issue, because, if you do, I believe there is a good chance that you will see the wrongness and antisocial nature of your facts and position regarding SPs like me. That’s perhaps wishful thinking, but pretty specific wishful thinking.

I wrote that Caroline posted about our debate on WhyWeProtest. That’s a specific.

I provided a link to the WWP thread Caroline started. That’s a specific.

I wrote that people appear to be quite enthusiastic about the idea. Well that’s my best guess at the posts’ emotional tone level that you would understand; but it’s a specific tone. I admit, the WWP posters’ tone about the Rathbun-Armstrong debate could average out at cheerfulness, or aesthetic, or even exhilaration, but it seemed to me they averaged out at enthusiasm, which, as I said, is a specific. I see one one point one post but also some games, and maybe even some serenity, so I still think there’s a general enthusiasm about our debate. I know I’m as enthusiastic as ever. Don’t suppress our enthusiasm!

I wrote that I hope you’re able to find something you honestly believe is erroneous in what I’ve said, about Hubbard, Scientology, etc., so that our debate doesn’t get stuck flowing in just one direction. This is not only a specific, but eminently fair, and actually an encouragement to you to do the honest best you can in our debate.

All those specifics, and you made the bizarre, patently false claim that I cannot identify a specific. You have failed to identify one specific that I cannot identify, and I challenge you to identify one now.

You told this gargantuan lie to support your equally dishonest black PR that I cannot identify a specific because of some possession you project onto me. You write this as if it was some evil that possessed me, an evil so evil you can’t even specifically identify it. I assure you, God possesses me. He has all the specifics.

Thanks again and again.

Gerry

From: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 8:18 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Find a good shrink Gerry.


From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:52 PM
To: Mark Rathbun
Subject: RE: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

Marty:

I think it’s necessary to define terms here. The relevant definitions for “debate:”

-A discussion involving opposing points; an argument;

-Deliberation; consideration;

-A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debate

“Argument” here is not a quarrel or altercation, but:

-A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood;

-A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason;

A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument

“Argumentation” is:

-The presentation and elaboration of an argument or arguments;

-Deductive reasoning in debate;

-A debate.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argumentation

For our purposes, this definition of “deduction” will serve:

-The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deduction

I truly believe that the simplest action that Scientologists can take to resolve the Scientology problem for them is to debate it, and particularly to debate the objections that people have had to Scientology and Scientologists for sixty years. In all that time there has been no debate. Courses of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood have never occurred. Attack by Scientologists on their own propositions, which should be attacked – with debate, with deliberation, consideration, argument, reason, proof and evidence – is not permitted.

It is possible, I recognize, that actual debate might have been psychologically impossible for Scientologists all these years. That you Scientologists have been denied this tremendous ability and gift, and, naturally, have denied it to the wogs who have had to deal with you, is a very antisocial action. On Hubbard’s command, of course, you have substituted “attack” for debate in human affairs, which is terribly regressive.

Attacking, as Scientologists are compelled to do by their scripture, has certain advantages, as you know, such as staving off cognition, remaining in ignorance, and staying bound to Hubbard, Miscavige or you, so the cult leader can continue to benefit from the lies that debate would expose.

You Scientologists have manufactured all sorts of justifications for your stuck attack flow, which is also evidence of a regressed psychological condition. This is why I have been so enthusiastic that you have finally at least agreed to a debate, even if you’re still making infantile attacks, such as “Find a good shrink.”

Our debate, obviously, is quite formal. It is a contest of argumentation in which you and I defend and attack given propositions. Note that argumentation is directed at propositions, not the contestants. There will be some overlap, certainly, since some of our propositions will relate to statements you made about me or I made about you. “Find a good shrink,” “get a life,” “you’re so possessed,” etc., however, have nothing to do with such propositions, but are puerile ad hominem bullying, which has no place in our debate.

Here is the first proposition: That a Suppressive Person is not roughly equivalent to a sociopath or psychopath.

A second, related proposition: That equating SPs with sociopaths or psychopaths is disgusting and should be stopped before more people get hurt.

You would defend equating SPs with sociopaths or psychopaths as true, wonderful, pro-survival and a reality that you would want everyone to have. But you wouldn’t, when defending the activity or attacking the proposition, just tell me to find a good shrink. For a debater that would be about as lame as a basketball player breaking his ankle in the first sixty seconds. He’d be forty-seven minutes short of a game.

I would suggest starting to think about the above two propositions and preparing your argument as soon as you can. Or acknowledge that I’m right and you have no argument, and we can move on to our next propositions.

Gerry

From: Mark Rathbun
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 3:25 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior

You clearly did not read my book.  Read the whole thing Gerry, then engage your mind before running your mouth, or fingers.