Going Clear, Part 20

5 responses to “Going Clear, Part 20

  1. Marty in the above video: “In this bankrupt age of intellectual corruption, people embrace these reductio-ad-absurdum, simple sort of propaganda statements about issues, and Scientology is no exception – and so, Wright’s embrace. But it’s based on a Straw Man.”

    This is so true about the intellectual corruption. I saw it in the posts of virtually every Scn blog I’m familiar with. If former Scn’gists just observed this one phenomenon, they would have gotten a big gain from their experience with Scientology. Beyond Scientology, I guess the only hope for the planet is for people like you to keep pointing it out.

  2. chuckbeatty77

    I’m no fan of a whole lot of Marty’s conclusions, but for posterity, since Marty was such an important human being on the ground, to the Scientology “IRS win” history, I wholeheartedly wish Marty does a full in depth, all angles stated, and allow a full “peer” review of the Scientology “case” for religious tax exemption, despite everything.

    I wish Marty does a detailed book on his Part 11, 12, and 13 videos, and lays out really exhaustively, the Scientology “case”.

    For posterity.

  3. Chuck, I thought it was covered pretty well in the videos. To start with, Marty made it clear that the courts had already adjudicated, multiple times, that Scientology meets the criteria of a religion, and that it isn’t even the job of the IRS to do so. He did admit that the church had to get the IRS’es attention and put them in a frame of mind to consider their case in a fair way – which would not have occurred otherwise due to the decades-long black PR campaign on Scn – but that after getting their attention, it was all legit – and that, going through the book with a fine-toothed comb, nothing Wright brought up indicated otherwise.

    I did a comparison of what was said in the videos to Tony Ortega’s attempts at rebuttal. Ortega says Marty is now “parroting the church’s position that this was simply a matter of the IRS granting the church what it deserved,” and that “Rathbun wants you to believe that journalists, including Larry Wright, have been inventing stories in order to make the Church of Scientology look bad.”

    Obviously, Marty does accuse Wright of inventing stories – and he cites quite a few examples of this from Wright’s book, none of which are effectively refuted by Ortega, the majority not even being taken up by him.

    On top of it, he misses Marty’s basic point – which is that Wright ONLY writes about what makes the church look bad. This is in spite of having been given a lot of positive data, with references, by a decades-long, high-level participant and student of the core subject. He thus points out that Wright is forwarding the anti-Scientology narrative, which accepts and even embellishes anything negative about Scn, up to and including sheer rumor — whereas anything positive is omitted. I independently noted this about the film too when I saw it (which is based on the book, as you know).

    One of Ortega’s attempted rebuttals was to quote Victoria Brittan’s Facebook comment about the videos, where she says that in 2012 Marty “described in detail how he set up a meeting to influence a Hillsborough County judge in the Lisa McPherson case” and then infers that Marty was either committing perjury back then or isn’t telling the truth now in the videos.

    But what apparently went over both their heads (hers and Ortega’s) was Marty’s primary point – which was that after the GO flap no one would dare do anything like the things Wright was forwarding “without HQ [headquarters] OK,” and that he (Marty) would have known about anything that was given the OK if it had to do with the tax exemption cycle, since he was intimately involved with it.

    At least this is what I got.

  4. T.O. “only wants to know enough to destroy”. He doesn’t really read all the way through or listen all the way through, but latches on to the first point he thinks he can attack, and proceeds to do so. Virtually everything he says is in rebuttal to Straw Men he puts up in the first place. Which is pretty much what the “anti-scientology movement” is engaged in.

    This is my opinion.

  5. Well, that’s a better opinion than the alternative – which would be that he knowingly spins what he actually understands. You’re probably right, though, because I’m not sure he’s bright enough to be doing the alternative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s