Going Clear Movie Part 1 Overview, Hysteria Creation, transcript:
Mark Rathbun: After my experience with Harry Smith (NBC Rock Center) trying to get me to discredit the legitimacy of Scientology’s tax exemption on behalf of Lawrence Wright (see Going Clear, Part 19 – IRS and NBC’s Attempted Ambush), I never heard from Larry Wright. For a year and half I had been fielding continuous phone calls with Wright with him clarifying things we had discussed. I had written my review of the book and posted it, which wasn’t too kind. In late 2012 Mike Rinder said “hey, I’m working with Alex Gibney on this movie about Wright’s book. That was real odd. I had been disengaging for some time from the whole Anti-Scientology business. Rinder wanted to know whether Gibney could call me. I said “sure, he can call me.” So Gibney called late in the year to set a time for an interview. This is my take on the movie, now seeing his final product. First of all, I refer to it as McDocumentary and I refer to Gibney as a sort of McDocumentarian. I did look at two previous documentaries he’d done which I knew something about the facts of. One was Enron, The Smartest Guy in the Room. I had read the book. And the other one I was familiar with was the pedophile priests scandal. I thought Gibney’s movies on they were some of the most lazy, boring things I had scene. So I wasn’t really impressed. So when I saw Going Clear, I was kind of taken aback by how emotional he made the whole thing. I mean, he couldn’t have made the Catholic pedophile priest scandal more mundane, banal and boring. And yet you had tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of children being violated and continuing to be violated. So, I was kind of shock to see in the Scientology movie to really make the story – which by then to me, I’ve gone through the book with you – Gibney makes it this super melodramatic, emotional thing. And that is why at event on the movie that I spoke in Austin I referred to Gibney as an auteur. To me, it was like he dramatized the whole thing. He wound up dramatizing Wright’s work which supposed to be a work of non-fiction. After the movie came about, because the only things in it that hadn’t already been published before were uttered by me – and that was a very small body of stuff – I was the only one the media wanted to talk to. So, they are up at the Sundance Film Festival (where it was initially released). I hadn’t heard from these guys in forever. All of the sudden I’m getting all these text messages from Mike Rinder and Gibney’s people. Now they are all frantic, because they are all up there taking bows on the stage and nobody wants to talk to Rinder, they don’t want to talk to Marc Headley, they don’t want to talk to Tony Ortega. And all these guys are up there at Sundance, trying to jump into the spotlight. So, I got sort of thrust into this thing. I did a little media at the outset. Because my face was out there connected with the movie. And I started getting emails because this was an unprecedented amount of exposure for an anti Scientology piece. And I started getting emails from all over the place from people connected with Scientology. I found myself having to defend Scientology because these people were just hysterical. That was the effect that the movie had. Like I’d get this stuff about children because Spanky Taylor says in the movie that something happened; and they have no idea that she was talking about 1978. I mean, put aside whether it is exaggerated, put aside whether it is true. The one thing I do know is that it happened in 1978. The people who watched the movie had no idea. They think that whatever she is griping about is happening right now. So, I’m having to calm people down, “now, wait a second, that particular thing that has got you so tied up, that happened in 1978. Scientology has not even had child care facilities since the mid-eighties. Ok, that’s thirty years ago.” I mean, these are the types of responses I’m having to give people. “Calm down”, right? I mean, paranoid things. A lot of them were former members who were like completely convinced that phones were being monitored. And I’d look at the circumstances of the person, I’d say, “Look man, first off they aren’t doing any of that stuff, but second of all, you are the last person on earth they would be interested in.” I mean this is like he just created this hysteria. Because there hasn’t fresh accusations about Scientology in the past ten years, the Anti Scientology people are just rehashing stuff. And they are rallying around this idea about ‘disconnection’; saying it is the most horrendous thing, this policy of disconnection, which is basically shunning. A lot of messages and calls had to do with that. So there business connections and family members who had connections with Scientology who were all in an hysteria about “I’ve have to resort to something radical to either get the person out of Scientology, or disconnect so they can’t hypnotize me in some way.” It really was shocking to me. I’d been out for a long time and I have sort of involved in the anti Scientology area, and I’d never seen such hysteria before. So, I just handle every inquiry, the person in front of me, one by one. So, I literally found myself having to put things in context for people. The impression created to people at large was, they cherry picked the most sensational accusations from 50 years – because they indicted L. Ron Hubbard from the age of 12 – or from 40 from the inception of Dianetics itself, all the way up to present time and communicated it such a way as to say “this is all happening now and it is a clear and present danger to you.” And if you go down the roster of the people who are creating the most hysteria, they are 35 years before, 50 years before, and 65 years before the present respectively. And they are people talking about things that happened that many years ago. So, accuracy be damned, or accountability for hype and exaggeration be damned, all that stuff is highlighted then thrust on you. It created an impression. I know from first hand because I was sort of becoming the point person for those so effected. And literally to a one I found myself trying to get people to calm down, “hey, that’s not happening.” Whether it did or didn’t happen before, it was mainly about putting things in time sequence. I ultimately came to the conclusion that Gibney is a fantastic propagandist. Because he created this emotional and deep guttural fear and terror of something that does not exist.
Moving On Up a Little Higher 
Here’s Julian Assange’s response to Deep State “Documentarian” (propagandist) Alex Gibney for “We Steal Secrets”:
https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html
This pretty much says it all about Gibney’s “accuracy” and “objectivity”.
Combine that with Lawrence Wright’s carelessness of facts in what they call “non-fiction”:
http://www.banditobooks.com/essay/content/2.php
Gives us the “documentary” from hell.
Silver lining is that both Gibney and Wright’s careers have become moribund because of their exaggerations and innuendo.
Excellent post, Remote. Thanks for the links. Very interesting. Both Wright & Gibney appear to be mouthpieces for the deep state. Makes me wonder whether their Scientology hit pieces were sponsored by the Intel Community.
Wow, RV, that Bandito Books article is pretty thought-provoking. A quote from it:
“That we are bombarded on all media fronts by deep-state-sponsored disinformation specialists like Lawrence Wright has long been an open secret. (Make no mistake: I am asserting that Wright is an ex officio deep state asset.) But his winning of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Literary Nonfiction is direct evidence that the layers of cooption rise to the very top of the elite cultural hierarchy. (Wright’s book and The 9/11 Report were both nominated for the almost-as-prestigious National Book Award.)” http://www.banditobooks.com/essay/content/2.php
A quote from the other link, an annotated transcript of Alex Gibney’s film “We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks”:
“Narration by Alex Gibney:
“‘In this environment of expanding secrecy, Assange went fishing for secrets to publish. To bait whistleblowers, he published a list of the most wanted leaks.’”
“Note: Gibney’s choice of words, ‘Fishing,’ ‘Bait’, implies solicitation.
“Throughout the film, Gibney propagates the idea Assange had been ‘fishing’ for the leaks or that Manning had been ‘persuaded’ to leak. This is factually incorrect but also buys into the dangerous proposition that journalists and publishers can be conspirators by virtue of their interaction with confidential sources. The US government is attempting to argue that any news organization that deals with confidential sources can be put into prison for engaging in ‘conspiracy’.”
“Gibney makes a careless error that shows poor fact-checking. WikiLeaks makes clear on its website that, like ‘other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information’.”
https://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html
We Steal Secrets was straight propaganda. I saw it before Going Clear and that was my impression.
I’ll have to watch it again. I thought you said the Church doesn’t spy on people, or “doesn’t do that”.
Much like Scientology and Going Clear, Assange denounced We Steal Secrets before he ever saw it. His transcript is from an incomplete and unreleased version of the film. Many, but not all, of his criticisms have been addressed and debunked.
Yes, omitted time flows through all of the tabloid-television interviews. People reaching back decades to describe something that happened and they never mention the incident they are talking about is decades past. Again, small fragments of a whole are cherry picked out to serve up. And there is a purpose behind that and this is exactly the kind of misinformation and misleading theater I am talking about. And these theaters are never presented as close conspiracies, which is exactly what they are.
I saw the film and the transcript is accurate. You seem to like to use this “debunked” but give no evidence of actual debunking. Saying it does not make it so.
Nobody here implies anyone should not speak up about abuse. But if you are, to be honest about it. Misinforming people is also suppressing the truth.
Somehow I inadvertently ended up on Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory email list. Just as a reminder that there a bright spots in life and other things to think about, here’s a bit from one of the emails.
The Good, the Beautiful, and the True
Beautiful – Art, Self, Aesthetics (1st-person, Buddha)
Good – Morals, Culture, Ethics (2nd-person, Sangha)
True – Science, Nature, Logic (3rd-person, Dharma)
“Ken often refers to these irreducible dimensions of experience as ‘The Big Three’ of I, We, and It.”
I don’t participate in Integral Life. Scientology was enough of a “philosophical practice” for me for now and I’m happy with overviews of other practices – lol.
Tony Ortega in his alter ising, false reporting, misleading usual:
Today’s tweet.
Tony OrtegaVerified account @TonyOrtega94 Jul 16
Warrior Marty says everything in ‘Going Clear’ happened too long ago.
If you just watched the above video, Marty never said anything about anything happening “Too long ago”. He mentioned specific times things did occur. He mentioned time is left out.
It is Tony Ortega, who says things “happened too long ago”. And parks this under Marty Rathbun. A lie. A blatant lie. And he churns like this on a constant.
And he has people that appreciate being lied to, and appreciate the fact that he lies to others.
Reply 10 Retweet 19 Like 91
And in the tweet, he implies he has busted Marty lying!
” Sara Goldberg’s story was just the year before it came out. Whoops.”
While it is actually him, who is lying!
Lying. Gaslighting. Mis informing. Inventing enemies. Creating disturbance. Altering facts. Finger pointing and unjustly accusing someone else. Injustice. Bullying on social media. The poster boy for sociopathy.
Sociopathy: A mental health disorder characterized by a disregard for other people.
Thank you for causing good feelings. I am very curious about these views.
Ironically the time period when the Church did the most spying on its perceived enemies was when Rinder was in charge of OSA which is kind of like Gottlieb leaving the CIA and complaining about the excesses of Mk Ultra.
To paraphrase Marty they bring up incidents that occurred or in many cases alleged to have occurred in the past and make them seem as if they are occurring contemporaneously in the present.
This is what is called an outpoint known as “dropped out time”.
Gibney unlike Assange who releases the raw intel regurgitates it by adding his own interpretation or spin to it.
He did this with Taxi to the Dark Side which eclipsed a better and more accurate account entitled the Torture Papers because it won an Academy Award.
Much like Wright’s book the Looming Tower (of BS) won the Pulitzer Prize over two well documented accounts entitled Religion Incorporated and Ghost Wars.
Thanks for your input. Thanks for the reminder of what LRH said about the price of freedom:
“Constant and continual alertness is the price of freedom. Constant willingness to fight back is the price of freedom. There is no other price, actually.” (The Genus of Dianetics and Scientology, 31 December 1960, Human Mind Congress)
“Seven years ago, the people I work for were smart enough to start Backpage.com, a competitor to Craigslist,” the Voice’s Tony Ortega, who authored a number of stories criticizing concerns over sex trafficking on American shores as nothing more than “mass paranoia,” wrote in July. “What happens when two adults find each other through Backpage.com? I couldn’t tell you … [It] exists solely so that people can freely express themselves—sometimes in ways that make other people uncomfortable. We’re First Amendment extremists that way. Always have been.” Tony Ortega
http://www.thedailybeast.com/village-voice-medias-backpage-attacked-by-clergy-over-sex-trafficking
“I helped turn a weekly newspaper with a Web site into a digital enterprise.”
Tony Ortega
https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/at-village-voice-editor-and-music-editor-depart-and-weekly-will-have-a-new-address/
Tony, It’s your criminal past catching up with you that is the main event these days. I think it’s time for you to lawyer up. Just saying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-about-backpages-employees/2017/07/14/66cfeda0-6817-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.195967e57642
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves”
Carl Jung
Sorry did have time to listen to the video until now.. It’s like you read my mind. I was thinking about this. Some people just want to be left alone and live their life and move on. The hysteria true.
A true teaching, one that frees a person from dogma and group think, supports and nurtures the individual’s unique expression of truth and creates a space for that expression.
The down side of some exoteric religions, that enforce regimented behavior, is that they do not help develop the individual expression of truth unique to each soul.
Each individual is a unique expression of some individual expression of some principle.
True freedom is not enforced by threat of punishment. That is old school religion.
Hi Marty,
Thanks for the videos. I too, watch and ask “Didn’t any of these people get one gain out of Scientology Technology”?
All with a minimum of 20 years.
And they are going to blame Scientology!!
Wow. What a wrong why.
What were they doing with the cans in their hands?
What did they say at the examiner?
What I don’t see in either COS or these attackers is ARC.
It mostly has been my basic nature since L11 and L12…
Along KRC and you have all the answers of the universe.
You can get a group of 10 Scientologists and ask “Has Scientology saved your life?” Six including me will raise their hands.
Sadly, Leah and the group do not differentiate between an organization and the technology.
Thanks for a bit of sanity!!
The Story of Serge Obolensky – An Aftermath Foundation Documentary