Going Clear Movie, Part 8

10 responses to “Going Clear Movie, Part 8

  1. Heaven forbid that actual facts get in the way of selling the carefully constructed a priori narrative by Gibney and Wright.

  2. Speaking of trafficking and law enforcement intervention, Tony Ortega’s “work” using the Village Voice as a cloak to launch and international sex trafficking syndicate seems to have finally made its way to the surface of public attention. At a cost of millions upon millions to U.S. taxpayers.





    It is interesting that the people concerned about trafficking do not seem to take issue with Tony Ortega’s history of trafficking children for sex.

    Lawrence Wright and Alex Gibney, both fully aware of these conditions, were just out partying with Ortega in Brooklyn a few night ago.

    I think all three are mainly looking for money and acclaim with their protests. Clearly, in life, they do not have a problem with homeless children and disenfranchised women being exploited and sold for sex as slaves.

  3. Clearly, all three have their own prisons of belief.

  4. I’m glad you’re laying it all out like this Marty. The intent of the parties perpetrating this false narrative is becoming more and more obvious.

  5. Gibney and Wright perfectly exemplify what psychiatrists call “projection” and Scientologists call “similar overts” and what any astute observer would call hypocrisy.

    I lost any respect for Wright after he wrote his opus The Looming Tower (of BS) and Gibney produced We Steal Secrets.

    So they lacked any credibility from my POV even before they got to the subject of Scientology.

    I wonder if they actually believe what they write or film or are just a couple of amoral cynical establishment lackeys who have no conscience or integrity.

    In other words just banally evil or evilly banal.

    Back Page Tony on the other hand abets selling innocent children into sexual servitude for fun and profit and even defends the action of doing so by wrapping it in the First Amendment and himself in the last vestige of a scoundrel.

    Ironic that he displays the attributes of what Stout writes in her book the Sociopath Next Door a book that Rinder and company rave as the “missing PTS Tech” yet fail to see it manifest in their good friend Back Page Tony.

    Making them either extremely blind or supremely hypocritical .

  6. Their intent seems to be to bring about revocation of the church’s tax exemption. But is there an intent behind that, and who is pushing it “from behind.”? (Take that as rhetorical, Val. Or not.)

  7. Any person choosing to befriend a man (Tony Ortega) that participated and profited knowingly and proudly in selling homeless children for sex, then dehumanized them and branded them by labeling them “underage prostitutes”, is morally bankrupt.

    Neither Lawrence Writh, Alex Gibney or Tony Ortega have ever been involved with Scientology in any capacity. The fact that they are making movies about it or writing about it with absolutely zero knowledge is absurdist theater. The fact that they suppress any positive feedback is called an agenda. In Leah’s book and her television series there is not one second of foray into Scientology but the name “Scientology” is splattered on both. It is gossip sessions about how people abuse power. Yes, some of them can be Scientologists why not? And some of the them can be hungry people in the entertainment industry just like Leah.

    All power is a temporary trust. Treason conditions can be limitless and eventually go flow one. Treason to self. And you find Lawrence Wright in vintage rhinestone cowboy attire seeking applause from a child sex trafficker in Brooklyn. Strange things happen when you park your tools, talents and assets on the dark side.

  8. It goes beyond any specific result like that, I think. It is an attempted demonization and general suppression of the subject, by creating a completely negative view of it among the public.

  9. Yes, but what is the purpose in creating the negative view, I wonder. It might just be a matter of “follow the money.” For example, there’s an ongoing debate about whether churches should be tax exempt. On a Google search I found a website that listed out various pros and cons on the issue. Here are a couple of opinions that it quoted:

    “David Niose, JD [JD = Juris Doctor degree, also known as Doctor of Jurisprudence]…stated the following in his Sep. 14, 2015 article titled ‘Americans Are Leaving Religion. Why Are We Still Subsidizing It?’ available at the Washington Post website:

    “‘Another gratuity to churches is the real estate tax exemption, which denies cash-strapped municipalities revenue that could be used for public safety, road repairs and other services. Like everyone else in town, churches benefit from services provided by municipal governments, but in most areas are exempt from property taxation simply because they are churches…

    “‘As we reassess religious privilege in America, even the notion of having churches pay income taxes should be on the table.'”

    Another quote:
    “Sep. 14, 2015 – David Niose, JD:

    “‘For every house of worship that is exempt from property taxes, taxpayers have to pay more than they would have if a residence or business were on that same piece of land. Do churches not benefit from the same taxpayer-funded benefits that the rest of us enjoy — protection by the police and fire departments, maintenance of roads to and from their places of worship, etc? Why then should they be exempt from these taxes?'”


  10. THAT I can agree on

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