What’s behind Marty Rathbun’s daily program of efforts to destroy the Church of Scientology?
People frequently ask here why can’t Marty Rathbun get anything straight? Why does Rathbun misrepresent the most benign efforts of Scientologists and the most pro-survival actions of thousands of good people – including Church management – every chance he gets?
Why must Marty Rathbun put a suppressive twist on his every utterance about Scientology?
In a 1959 lecture, LRH described the phenomenon in which Marty Rathbun is stuck:
“The basis of destruction is Alter-isness. And when somebody would like to destroy you, but can’t, all he can do is alter-is you.”
“…we see this in various ways. Entheta, you see. Here’s an auditor sitting in an area doing all right. Some other auditor isn’t doing all right, so they start accumulating overts against this auditor that is doing all right. The next thing you know, the person committing the overts gets madder and madder at the auditor. This fellow has never done anything, you understand, to this other guy. Maybe even sent him some pcs. And the more that B does to A, the more overts, overts, overts pile up into the more anger, anger, anger. You got the idea? It’s a one-man fight. There’s no other fight going on over here, see?”
“Boy, it begins to look like a cyclone is happening in this vicinity. This fellow goes to bed at night and bites the pillow, you know, and screams to himself, you know. And while auditing a pc or something like that — lets out little yips occasionally. And this is Alter-isness.
Destruction as we know it, in war or in anything else, is simply Alter-isness of the creation. It is not the cessation of creation — it is the Alter-isness of the existing creation.
But Alter-isness — Alter-isness is the keynote of all destruction.
And any person who has a great many overts against another person starts trying to alter-is. Get the idea? He starts to alter-is the other person. He alter-ises anything the other person is doing. You see? He alter-ises anything the other person thinks. He alter-ises any other thing the other person has as a reputation and so on. And it adds up to basically what looks like destruction. And this basically is caused or can be caused by no more than an overt. In other words, you get this silly situation where one overt breeds another overt, which breeds another overt, which breeds another overt, which brings about a bad opinion.”