Going Clear, Part 5 Dishonest Editing

Going Clear, Part 5 summary:

After establishing that 80% of L. Ron Hubbard’s time is accounted for when one reviews the magnitude and content of his thousands of lectures (Going Clear Part 2), Rathbun then examines Wright’s only significant quotation from those lectures. Rathbun demonstrates with the actual transcripts quoted that Wright liberally misquoted, mixed up the sequence of sentences so as to change meaning to smear Hubbard. Rathbun shows how Wright’s quoted passage omitted fully more than half of the text to make the lecture seem disjointed and non-sequitur. Rathbun produces the transcript and demonstrates with highlight pen the violence Wright commits against Hubbard’s words in order to put him in a bad light.  Wright even invents the ”point” that Hubbard was allegedly trying to make.  Rathbun demonstrates that invented point was very evidently NOT the point, the invented non-sequitur that Wright alleges. 

Going Clear, Part 4

Going Clear, Part 4 summary:

Rathbun reveals that Wright intentionally and unjustly ignored the testimony of Fletcher Prouty.  Prouty was more credible than virtually all of Wright’s anti-Scientology sources combined. After all, he was the famous “Mr. X” in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK, Stone acknowledging the historic, heroic and credible whistleblower credentials of Prouty.  Wright specifically discounted Prouty’s critical testimony concerning L. Ron Hubbard’s indisputable naval intelligence career and the fact that clearly the US Navy intentionally altered Mr. Hubbard’s naval records to cover for his intelligence activities.  Rathbun produces receipts to demonstrate Wright’s research of Hubbard’s military records was purely amateur.  He discloses that the entire premise Wright presented as fact that someone ‘misrepresentations’ about Hubbard naval history was a major recruitment tool of Scientology was invented by Wright; not even a single one of his anti-Scientology sources corroborates it. 

Going Clear, Part 3 Wright’s Cultic Practices

Going Clear, Part 3 summary:

Wright accuses Scientology of thought stopping – a form of mind control censorship.  However, “By the time you get 3 or 4 chapters into Going Clear, he is effectively applying that to his readers…By then he has already labelled the founder “delusional, imaginary.”  So, from that point forward there can be no “scientology side” presented, since they are already referred to as “delusional, imaginary.” 

Wright uses a sophistry that is based on the “us vs. them” and thought stopping techniques he has employed.  That is, conclusions and subjective opinions of Scientology haters become logical and any subjective viewpoint from Scientologists becomes illogical.  To do so, Wright ignores any discrediting information about any anti-Scientology source, yet immediately treats a gospel any opinion or subjective slur against Scientology as fact. 

The fact alteration is remarkable in the favor the anti Scientologist.  Rathbun points out the protagonist Paul Haggis said by Wright to have come into Scientology “wanting to be a writer.”  In the movie – which Wright produces and carefully edited – Haggis said “he wanted to be a documentary film maker.”  He tells the writer he wanted to be a writer; he tells the film maker he wanted to be a film maker.  Instead of pointing out the manipulative, dishonest fellow is, Wright lets him have it both ways; because, “hey, who is going fact check and attack on scientology?” 

Going Clear, Part 2; Wright Propaganda tactics

Summary of Going Clear Part 2

Rathbun demonstrates how Lawarence Wright projected his own intentions and desires upon his target L. Ron Hubbard. 

Wright alleged Hubbard was obsessed with “making it in Hollywood.”  Rathbun informed Wright there was zero evidence of that during his 35 years in and around the Church. Yet, the book wound up predicated this false idea.  Rathbun saw instead that “Larry Wright was projecting himself onto Hubbard.  His own psyche…while working on the book, Wright himself was spending a great deal of time trying to get a foothold in Hollywood for himself.”

Wright uses a scrambled time line, full of major omissions and insertion of important falsehoods, in order to create a false narrative of Scientology. 

“80% of L. Ron Hubbard’s time between 1950 and 1966 are accounted for” by the thousands of 60-90 minute lectures he gave and their reference to hours of course instruction and technique refinement they refer to.  “None of that is in the book.”  Instead, “every little bit of scandalous problem area or speed bump or hiccup, piled on one after the other” constitutes the entirety of the narrative.  

Rathbun presages future videos where he will demonstrate Wright’s liberal uses of straight fact invention. The most glaring one is about Hollywood producer Paul Haggis – the fact that his narrative, the backbone of the book, was largely invented. 

Wright uses us vs them mentality as only measure of credibility. If you are against Scientology – regardless of how criminal you might be – you are credible in Wright’s eyes; if you are ‘for’ Scientology – you are discredited in Wright’s judgment.  It is the SOLE measure of credibility throughout the book. 

Going Clear, Part 1

Note:

Mark Rathbun was approached by Lawrence Wright to serve as his source of Scientology expertise for his book Going Clear. Wright considered no one comparable to Rathbun in terms of depth of knowledge and experience with Scientology both within and outside the church.  Rathbun recounts how he spent many days, including two days of interviews at Rathbun’s home, attempting to educate Wright on the subject in a neutral fashion – that is taking the good with the bad. Wright apparently only wanted the bad. Rathbun posted a number of videos analyzing Wright’s work after the fact. Summaries are provided ahead of each video.

Intro video, Part One, summary:

How Lawrence Wright betrayed his ‘fairness’ standard employed in Looming Towers when it came to dealing with L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.

Instead, Wright slavishly regurgitated the existing Establishment anti Scientology narrative, excluding many facts brought to him that at minimum threw serious doubt upon that narrative.

Rathbun was frustrated because he provided much of the facts undermining the existing mainstream anti-Scientology narrative that Wright systematically excluded.

Rathbun was hounded by Wright’s fact checkers and virtually every one of Rathbun’s corrections to the fact checkers never found their way into the book.

Several propaganda techniques used by Wright included:

  1. Positioned self publicly as wanting to find out how prominent people found Scientology so alluring and stuck with it despite its bad media rap.  That cover was found by Rathbun to be insincere and fraudulent. Wright systematically excluded the plethora of specifics Rathbun provided to answer that question.
  2. On the press circuit Wright took 180 degree different position; that of anti-Scientology advocate, literally lobbying to have its tax exemption revoked and wanting to cancel prominent Scientologists to turn on their religion by Wright’s public shaming.
  3. Rathbun shows how Wright did “bias disclosure” in his only previous book on religion – Saints and Sinners. Yet, if there were ever pre bias disclosure required, it was clear that was case with Scientology. Yet, no such disclosure.

 

Introduction

Information Anarchy Relief

The post-fact era of information anarchy has caused many people to be overwhelmed with useless and misleading information. That is causing us collectively and individually to make more irrational and destructive decisions, e.g. see the posts Has Your Mind Become Infected, When Distraction Becomes Catastrophic, Lulz Rules. Consequently, concentration and focus are becoming increasingly valuable faculties for maintaining a semblance of equanimity and increasing the effectiveness of personal time-management and productivity.

One means of sharpening focus that I have read about recently in the works of Nassim Taleb seems to work, at least on a personal basis it has. That is, training oneself to differentiate ‘noise’ from ‘signal.’  Signal is the message of a communication – the substance of what one is invited to consider. ‘Noise’ is the carrier wave it rides in on often jazzed up to jar your wits, have your emotion override your reason, or is just plain alarming distraction. We most often see ‘noise’ in the form of appeals to emotion rather than to intellect or understanding. Emotion does and should play a role in the weight we give to data. But, when emotion is overemphasized and manipulated to override reason and interject deception, irrationality and worse results.  In the past year in the US we have seen an unprecedented level of appeals to passion, prejudice, and particularly to anger (by both sides of the political spectrum). It has served in lieu of important issue education and understanding to influence decision-making. The noise to message ratio across established media and social media has risen to absurd levels in favor of emotional prejudice over intellect. Practice noticing the distinction between signal and noise and you might find that many ‘messages’ themselves are nothing more than ‘noise’.

More means of recognizing and rationally evaluating message before getting distracted in and unduly influenced by time-consuming and potentially destructive noise is covered in Nobel prize recipient Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow.  One way is to learn to be wary of experts, particularly in the fields of politics and social sciences. Kahneman cites to clinical studies that evaluated the prediction reliability of the most commonly touted experts increasingly populating news and current events shows – those sitting on panels telling us how to view matters. Their long-term prediction success rates are well below 50% accurate when actually studied. In other words your chances of making correct decisions based on raw information – without relying on those ostensibly more qualified to make them for you – are better than if you waste a lot of time listening to those paid to tell you how to think. Taleb goes into this phenomenon in a lot more detail in his books as it pertains to economics and politics.

Kahneman provides more information that can serve as another handy index.  That is, studies have shown that – no matter how counter-intuitive it may seem – often the more absolutism and unyielding certainty an expert asserts or excudes, the less likely his predictions will be accurate.

Another useful noise-detection tool is contained in Kahneman’s book where he covers the ‘availability cascade.’  Here is a short section where he defines the term and describes the pitfall which capitalizes on the human tendency to follow like sheep:

An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may start from media reports or a relatively minor event and lead up to public panic and large-scale government action. On some occasions, a media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the public, which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage in the media, which in turn produces greater concern and involvement. The cycle is sometimes sped along deliberately by “availability entrepreneurs”, individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of worrying news. The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media compete for attention-grabbing headlines. Scientists and others who try to dampen the increasing fear and revulsion attract little attention, most of it hostile: anyone who claims the danger is overstated is suspected of association with a “heinous cover-up.”  The issue becomes politically important because it is on everyone’s mind, and the response of the political system is guided by the intensity of public sentiment. The availability cascade has now reset priorities. Other risks, and other ways that resources could be applied for the public good, all have faded into the background.

It is not difficult to spot availability entrepreneurs if you apply some of the tips covered above. An increasing percentage of ‘news’ online and on television is reporting on the reactions to ‘news’ and then reactions to reactions, and reactions to reactions to reactions, and having those reactions evaluated by experts, etc.  If one could teach oneself to spot such and to identify availability entrepreneurs, one could be spared a lot of time, anguish and potential grief. And one might even wind up being a little bit smarter and happier.

Lulz Rules

 

How have we come to elevate a crypto fascist to the Chief Executive position of the world’s beacon of freedom and democracy?

A cursory reading of history shows that some form of anarchy precedes tyranny which is seen by the haves as necessary for restoration of some semblance of order (read, cling on to what the haves have in defense of the threat of the have-nots wanting to have what the haves have). Did anyone notice how rapidly the ultimate haves (Goldman Sachs/Exxon Mobil/et al), whom Trump vowed to collar, were invited into (and accepted) Trump’s bunker the second he won our sporting electoral college contest?  Chances are not for long – because far more vital information has intervened, like “trump tweeted a dis’ at Obama in response to his alleged dis’”, and “one Rockette isn’t going to show for the inauguration”, and “Michelle is ‘An Angry Black Woman’ for not praying at the Trump altar”, and “Hillary is steaming mad because Putin’s beef with her attempted intervention in Russian politics caused him to intervene in US politics”, and “Trump has already declared economic success for the common man’s economics because Wall Street speculation is bumping”, and “Trump vehemently asserts transition is a disaster and huuugely successful” (both in the same day), while on the same day America’s two most influential ‘intellectual’ media outlets report a speech on Israel as follows, clearly appealing to emotion in lieu of intellect: “Bibi Netanyahu Makes Trump His Chump” (New York Times) and “Kerry’s Rage Against Israel” (Wall Street Journal).

What form of anarchy preceded elevation of the big daddy who promises to restore ‘law and order’ at any cost (read liberty)?

We have created an information anarchy. In the age of information – where information reigns supreme over any other commodity – that translates into an anarchy in fact. We have created a public information sharing media that carries no penalty for purveying falsehood and deceit, penalizes in-depth and time-consuming investigation and presentation of relevant fact, and rewards appeals to emotion over intellect. Today’s information sharing does little to nothing to increase understanding. It does much to incite and inflame passion, prejudice and bias.

Worried about the arrival of ‘It Couldn’t Happen Here’ (yeah, break the spell for a day and read Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 novel by that title) in America? Fortunately, resignation to accepting realization of Lewis’ prophecy is slightly premature. Unfortunately, the only reason it is premature is that the information anarchy continues to grow exponentially. The beast that created today’s would-be Windrip (novel’s ‘populist’ tyrant) will devour Trump when he inevitably attempts to control the anarchy that created him. (Here’s a wild, ironic guess on how it might unfold: the ultimate self-interested information anarchist who helped sink Clinton out of sight will sink Trump out of sight just as soon as Trump helps him out of his legal bind – or he recognizes he’s in for the Christie-Giuliani treatment).  For the time being, lulz rules.

When Distraction Becomes Catastrophic

 

“Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year. By the year 2000 there will be about 25 percent more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than at present…

…The climate changes that may be produced by the increased CO2 content could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.”

  • From Special Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, President’s Science Advisory Committee, dated November 1965, entitled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment” (Government Printing Office).

If one could manage to forego an hour of daily online distractions and spend that time instead on some directed google searches, one would find that the statistical predictions from the above report turned out to be pretty accurate.

If you would like to understand how these statistics affect our future as a species and how we are conditioned to ignore facts like these in favor of infotainment diversions, a meticulously researched book ably treats those subjects:  Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

At this moment, while a majority of the United States electorate is engaged in a game of who is punking who with ‘fake news’ and illegally obtained news, the climate-change denying president-elect is proposing the longtime head of Exxon Mobil (which acknowledged in writing internally as early as 1980 the truth of the above-referenced report, but buried it and continued to profiteer on oil for another 36 years and counting) to be our ambassador to the world at large, proposing a climate-change denier to uproot the Environmental Protection Agency (established by Richard Nixon largely based on the above cited report and its progeny), and proposing the most environment-antagonistic governor Texas ever had to establish our Energy policies (don’t forget, he vowed in 2011 to dismantle  the department he’s now been named to run). But Democrats and Republicans alike are cool with it because in the short term they think they might earn a few more coins in yet another fossil fuel bubble and a get a couple percentage points discount in taxes. Their kids and their grandkids be damned.

If you choose to look and think honestly with it, you may wind up asking yourself, “fifty years later, and I’ve been obsessing about what?”

The Pity Play

Apropos of current events, I offer for contemplation a passage from the book The Sociopath Next Door, by Martha Stout. Ironically, after I introduced this book on my blog in 2010, some of its most fervent subsequent promoters turned out to be described to a tee within it. The answer to that paradox is in the book, even within the following passage.

From chapter 6 – how to recognize the remorseless

After listening for almost twenty-five years to the stories my patients tell me about sociopaths who have invaded and injured their lives, when I am asked, “How can I tell whom not to trust?” the answer I give usually surprises people. The natural expectation is that I will describe some sinister-sounding detail of behavior or snippet of body language or threatening use of language that is the subtle give-away. Instead, I take people aback by assuring them that the tip-off is none of these things, for none of these things are reliably present. Rather, the best clue is, of all things, the pity play. The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy.

I first learned this when I was still a graduate student in psychology and had the opportunity to   interview a court-referred patient the system had already identified as a “psychopath.” He was not violent, preferring instead to swindle people out of their money with elaborate investment scams. Intrigued by this individual and what could possibly motivate him – I was young enough to think he was a rare sort of person – I asked, “What is important to you in your life? What do you want more than anything else?” I thought he might say “getting money”, or “staying out of jail”, which were the activities to which he devoted most of his time. Instead, without a moment’s hesitation, he replied, “Oh, that’s easy. What I like better than anything else is when people feel sorry for me. The thing I really want more than anything else out of life is people’s pity.”

I was astonished, and more than a little put off. I think I would have liked him better if he had said “staying out of jail”, or even “getting money.” Also, I was mystified. Why would this man – why would anyone – wish to be pitied, let alone wish to be pitied above all other ambitions? I could not imagine. But now, after twenty-five years of listening to victims, I realize there is an excellent reason for the sociopathic fondness for pity. As obvious as the nose on one’s face, and just as difficult to see without  the help of a mirror, the explanation is that good people will let pathetic individuals get by with murder, so to speak, and therefore any sociopath wishing to continue with his game, whatever it happens to be, should play repeatedly for none other than pity.

More than admiration – more even than fear – pity from good people is carte blanche. When we pity, we are, at least for the moment, defenseless, and like so many of the other essentially positive human characteristics that bind us together in groups – social and professional roles, sexual bonds, regard for the compassionate and the creative, respect for our leaders – our emotional vulnerability when we pity is used against us by those who have no conscience. Most of us would agree that giving special dispensation to someone who is incapable of feeling guilt is a bad idea, but often, when an individual presents himself as pathetic, we do so nonetheless…

…When deciding whom to trust, bear in mind that the combination of consistently bad or egregiously inadequate behavior with frequent plays for your pity is as close to a warning mark on a conscienceless person’s forehead as you will ever be given. A person whose behavior includes both of these features is not necessarily a mass murder, or even violent at all, but is still probably not someone you should closely befriend, take on as your business partner, ask to take care of your children, or marry.