Tag Archives: Alex Gibney

Going Clear Movie, Part 4 Hana Eltringham

Going Clear Movie Part 4, Hana Eltringham.              

 transcript

Mark Rathbun:  Hana Eltringham is brought in at 27:30 into the movie.  Hana Eltringham has been a known drama queen on the subject of Scientology for many, many years.  The omissions are amazing. She is very dramatic. But there is no balance whatsoever. Number one, a lot of what she says is discredited by the fact of what she said in the book.  What was she trying to get out of Scientology? After all, that is what Lawrence Wright said this was all about.  The movie, the book the whole thing, “what allures you?”  What allures her was, she had some involvement with a crazy aunt who was a Rosicrucian that told her that Rosicrucian mythology said “later in the century there is going to be a redhead guru that appears, and he is going to be a vessel of God.” And, that is why she joined. Because L. Ron Hubbard had red hair; and she wanted to be at the feet of the Lord.  No wonder she didn’t understand anything she studied in Scientology. She wasn’t there for that. She wanted to be a supplicant to the chosen one.  Number two, she condemns the whole subject and says it’s a fraud. Just like Haggis, “I knew it was a fraud when I saw this stuff”, and yet, she is in it for another twenty years after she has “already determined it’s a fraud.”  Even after she left the church of Scientology, she was still trying to monopolize the technology of Scientology.  She brought suit for a billions dollars to try to destroy the church. It was booted out of court.  It was only then that she picked up this whole schtick of the dramatic damsel.  Just context. They use her and Paul Haggis, who were people who just either didn’t get the subject or didn’t want to get it, to talk about the core of Scientology. So, the bizarre that we’ve come to now (through twenty minutes of Gibney’s film) is just compounded through that.  Look, Larry Wright had me devote all manner of time to go through it with him so that he would understand Scientology…watch the film and see how much explaining of Scientology I’m doing.  Zero. They’ve literally taken some bites of where I had some criticism of the organization personally, and nothing about the substance of Scientology. It is based on the invention of Gibney and Wright, and then exacerbated by Eltringham and Haggis.    

Going Clear Movie, Part 3 – Tony Ortega, anti Scientology propagandist

 

Going Clear Movie Part 3, Tony Ortega – Anti Scientology Propagandist, transcript:

Mark Rathbun:

At 25:30 of the film, Tony Ortega shows up.  I participated in a documentation that happened a year or two earlier that dealt a lot with my thoughts and perspectives about Scientology.  I was being relatively objective about it. The one thing that bothered me about it was they used this technique of interjecting Tony Ortega into it. The technique was they would press me on things – like the IRS, like there was something untoward about Scientology’s tax exemption, and I am not going to say that because it wasn’t true. I did say, “hey, we fought fire with fire, and we won, to get to the table; and then we were treated like a normal citizen. And we passed with flying colors.”  But they want me to say, no, no, you coerced it or you did it fraudulently.  And I won’t say it. So, they get me saying something about the rough stuff that was going on when we were going head to head with the IRS, in order to get too the table.  So then they bridge it with Tony Ortega just blithely saying, “Oh, yeah, they fraudulently got the exemption and – all this stuff that Marty is talking about, intimidated them into doing it (granting exemption).” So, he was used as bridge to get me to say all the false things I wouldn’t say throughout the movie. So, Alex Gibney, the great auteur – he is a lot like Mike Rinder, I don’t know if he has had an original thought in his entire life – because he used the exact same technique.  Tony Ortega’s name does not appear in Lawrence Wrights book and yet he is the most quoted people throughout the documentary. (Holds up book) He is not in this book!

Ortega will say whatever the anti Scientologist wishes

Tony Ortega comes in and makes any statement you need him to make in order to keep your false narrative flowing.  That they had to go to him, when he didn’t even appear in the book… I phoned Gibney after the fact and said to him, “you know what,  you are going to get all these accolades because it is very popular to jump on Scientology right now, but in the long run that was the biggest mistake you ever made, bringing this guy in.  And he didn’t deny it.  He just said, “well, I can’t throw him under the bus.”  And I said, “I’m not asking you to throw him under the bus. I am just telling you, I’m just informing you.”  And the context in which this came up was, Gibney wanted me to come to New York to the big international press day where they had this whole convention set up with every media under the sun, moon and stars. And I said, “ok, sure”, initially. And then I find out because Tony Ortega is all over it the he and Mike Rinder are going to be there.  And I told Gibney, “I don’t want to be an exhibit in a freak show. If somebody wants to talk to me, I want to have mature conversations about Scientology.  If you have something like that I’ll do it.”  So, I took Alex Gibney to school on Tony Ortega and why I wouldn’t want to associate or be involved with him.  Because it was a big juvenile delinquent style trolling game for Ortega.  And Mike Rinder was steadily becoming one of Ortega’s acolytes.  I told him “I don’t want to get into arguments and mess up your movie premiere; and I don’t want to have that type of juvenile discussion, game playing.”    And of course, I was right. 

Going Clear Movie, Part 2 – Phony Haggis narrative, deceptive editing

Going Clear Movie Part 2, Wright, Gibney Deception, transcript:

Mark Rathbun:  At 6:15 in the film Wright says “I’ve studied Jonestown, radical Islam”, go give his qualifications I guess and to give comparatives. I spoke to this guy for hours and days about religions and things he had written about “Methodists, Satanists, Atheists, Catholics”, everything but Jones town and radical Islam.  But, all the sudden, Larry Wright is an “expert” on Islam and Jonestown because they are going to implant this idea real early to give you…”we are going position Scientology right from the beginning with my new invention.”  Wright says right after that, “My goal was not simply to write an expose, it was to understand Scientology.”  Now, I’ve done a whole analysis of the book and just with my personal experience with Wright, that is most false he could possibly make.  I mean, I’ve gone through it chapter and verse; and it is a complete, utter lie.  His goal was clearly to write an expose from the beginning. Anything that had anything to do with bringing an understanding about Scientology – which he got in spades from me over days, weeks and months – none of it made it into his book. So, this is just a complete and utter lie.  So, he sort of create this aura of objectivity which is false.

Phony Haggis Narrative

Gibney does a good job, as Wright did, of shifting the timeline back and forth. So, he is kinda of telling a narrative, but he is real liberal moving things around and not dating them so that, like I said before, you end like it is all in present time.  So, at 7 minutes into they skip back to Paul Haggis and was what was he trying to resolve by getting into Scientology.  And Haggis says, “I’m in love.”  You go back to the book and he’s asked the same question and he answers that he had bad grades and he was going nowhere.  They have just created a second, new script.  Then Haggis said he told his wife “it could save our relationship.”  Nowhere in the book does he talk about their relationship being a problem, let alone a reason for joining Scientology.  Not in the book, not in the film, nowhere else.  It is all of the sudden a new, invented scenario. 

More Phony Haggis re religion

So, at 7:45 into the movie Paul Haggis said he was troubled when he found out Scientology was a religion.  Of course, because he is such a deeply intellectual person it was troubling.  Except that in the book, his first encounter was on the street, and it was not about somebody telling him about a cult in New York (yet another tale Haggis wove), it was a guy handing him a copy of the book Dianetics which Haggis flipped open and it said “Church of Scientology of London, Ontario.”  And Haggis’ response to “Church of Scientology of London, Ontario” was “take me there!”   But now we’re doing the movie, and we’re really going to influence the Hollywood people and really marginalize Scientology, so we just rewrite the script. Now all the sudden, Paul “the intellectual”, was troubled when he found out it was a religion. 

Deceptive editing

At 9:10 Spanky Taylor comes in – and, I don’t know Spanky Taylor from Adam – but I do know that the whole way that they have edited this film, she all the sudden says from nowhere she signed a billion year Sea Org (Scientology Fraternal Order) contract.  There is no possible way – and I was in the Sea Org for twenty-seven years and another ten years afterwards with a lot of interaction with Sea Org members – and there is not a single one of them who doesn’t have some sort of life-changing, life-altering sort of miraculous experience through Scientology before signing a billion year contract.  And they just dramatize you know, she says “they just couldn’t hold me back!”  Right? Well, what was it that you experienced that put you in the state that you couldn’t held back?  But Gibney is like, “we’re not going to put that in here.”  So, it is really sleazy editing. 

Going Clear Movie, Part 1 Overview, Hysteria Creation

 

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. 

Scientology’s Vortex of Hate

Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard developed a complicated knack for sucking all who defied him or failed to comply with his dictates into a vortex of hate.  Virtually all of his closest associates who expressed the slightest doubt or disagreement with him were driven by Hubbard to wind up hating him with a vengeance.  A careful study of Hubbard’s history suggests the cycle was intended.  It garnered him all manner of hysterical calumny that he deftly turned into exhibits in demonstrating hate-filled ‘bias’ against  him and his creation, scientology.  And so it goes with his brainchild scientology and his successor David Miscavige.

In the early fifties Hubbard lectured to his followers that he considered that no group could survive for long absent a well-defined, hate-filled enemy.  He candidly admitted that he ‘chose’ psychiatry (generalized as ‘psychs’ to rope in virtually all mental healing arts and sciences) as scientology’s enemy out of convenience.  It worked well for a while.  Several prominent psychiatric and psychological societies worked feverishly to check or stop scientology in its tracks.  While the psychs were hard at it, scientology saw its greatest expansion, drawing close ranks to energetically fight off real (albeit largely self-created) threats to its survival.  Ironically, fifty years later scientologists came to believe as an article of religious faith that psychs are inherently evil, while psychs came to consider scientology little more than a harmless fringe cult.   Scientology sought refuge in the guise of religion and achieved a sort of immunity from the consequences of its crimes.  But it came at a cost, parking itself in time as a mid 20th Century anachronism.

As society itself evolved and hating lost its social acceptability, scientology lost its expansion-driving underdog, under-siege appeal and cohesiveness.  Its numbers have been gradually declining since the mid nineties when the last serious threat to its continued existence was overcome.   I use the term ‘last’ decidedly, notwithstanding the scientology infotainment blogs’ End of Days prophesying with the airing of ‘Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief.’  While the documentary will have an effect on the size of future potential new membership it will do little to change or alter scientology’s course.  (For more on that score, see Vice.com interview.)

Over time Hubbard and scientology fine-tuned their ethics system and organizational pattern to replicate its policies of hatred creation toward anyone who doubted or questioned any aspect of Hubbard or scientology.  The cycle seemed to go:  a) someone exposed scientology abuses or criticized its practices, b) scientology harassed the person to the point of driving him into a rage causing the whistleblower to become a crusader,  c) as scientology’s smears and attacks escalated in their audacity and dishonesty, the crusader naturally clustered with others similarly situated folks for support, (scientology all the while encouraged such clustering pursuant to principals set forth in Hubbard’s recommended text The Art of War) d)  as the cluster was then attacked as an ‘anti-scientology’ group,  its members developed a hate-filled culture, took scientology’s bait and started responding in kind, d) scientology then pointed to the character of hate-filled counter attacks as proof the attackers were haters.  Ultimately, haters hate, they wind up hating each other and the groups having no purpose beyond scientology’s demise accomplish little beyond steeling up scientologists to fight yet more battles.

You can see that same cycle playing out today.  Scientology forums read more and more like scientology’s propaganda sheet ‘Freedom.’  They are replete with name calling, expressing glee at every enemy faux pas, assigning evil motives to any and every enemy utterance or move, pronouncing hyperbolic end of days scenarios for the enemy, even targeting for distrust and enmity anyone who does not exhibit its own culturally devolved standards of ridicule and hate.  Their heaping praise and kudos on those mostly closely adhering to the company line verge on cult-like.  The tone, intelligence and tolerance levels are no different than scientology’s itself.  Their leaders have become as obsessed with scientology as scientology’s leading lights are.  Their sense of right and wrong becomes nearly identical (albeit reversed in vector) to scientology’s.

Scientology’s instilled ‘ethical’ values can be summed up in two clauses:  Whatever or whoever supports and forwards scientology is good; whatever or whoever detracts from scientology is evil.

Similarly, the anti-scientologists’ creed could read:  Whatever or whoever supports and forwards scientology (or, in extreme cases, is even neutral on the subject) is evil; whatever or whoever detracts from or attacks scientology is good.

Sadly, what apparently few of the former friends of Ron and ex-scientologists grasp is that when scientology successfully sucks one into its vortex of hate, one has lost and scientology has achieved its objective.

It is relatively easy to get former scientologists to go this route since they developed such simplistic denialist thinking patterns as scientologists.  They simply reverse the target and carry on as before in the comfort of a new group of like-minded pack members.

It is a regressive cycle.  It involves segregation, devolution, and descent.   It may give one an outlet for a cheap, temporary sense of relief, purpose or importance but at the end of the day it does not achieve its purported aims.   Paradoxically, it often has the reverse effect than that intended.  It winds up fueling scientology’s drive to expand numbers, resources and influence.  That perhaps is not surprising given the fact that that was scientology’s purpose for creating the vortex of hate in the first place.  Ultimately, scientology’s gloating, self-professed conquerors in fact wind up as unwitting agents of scientology itself.

Conversely, the only effective route to individual healing and growth is greater understanding.  Not surprisingly, it is the practitioners of that process that scientology attacks with the most resources and vigor.

Scientology and Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The blowback over Indiana governor Pence’s signing into law ‘The Religious Freedom Restoration Act’ has gone viral.   Prominent citizens, politicians and human rights groups are aghast as the act’s potential for instituting discrimination against those who don’t toe the line to fundamentalist Christian sexual orientation standards.  In defense of signing the act into law Indiana’s governor Pence has said it was based on the 1993 federal ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act.’  See New York Times for more on the Act.

What perhaps few know is that one of the most energetic proponents of the federal act that serves as Indiana’s model was none other than the church of Scientology.  Scientology crows about its achievement on its own website:

“In 1991, Scientologists supported passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law on November 16, 1993. The Church of Scientology International was an active member of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, a broad-based religious and civil liberties group that strenuously worked for passage of the act.”  Scientology website

Scientology was so involved in its passage that its president was invited to the White House for the President Clinton’s signing of the original federal act. (President Heber C. Jentzsch crowed about it on Larry King Live)

What scientology doesn’t tout is that it shamelessly exploited the Act even before its final enactment.  As it was wending its way through Congress, which scientology was directly and indirectly lobbying, scientology was using its imminent passage as leverage in obtaining tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service.

Scientology has used the federal Act for more than two decades to not only discriminate against the LGBT community, but also to immunize itself against charges ranging from human trafficking, to wrongful death, to fraud.

Scientology cited to the act in successfully dismissing criminal charges against it in the case of Lisa McPherson, a 36-year old woman who died in scientology’s custody on its premises.  St Petersburg Times

Recently scientology successfully argued for dismissal of a high profile lawsuit for fraud brought by former members in Tampa Florida, citing to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The Underground Bunker

Coincidentally, the highly publicized documentary ‘Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief’ premieres this Sunday on HBO.  Its director and producer have both been quoted far and wide of late questioning how scientology gets away with the abuses they chronicle in the film (including its tax exempt status).  They need only examine more closely the current media fire emanating in Indiana to find a considerable part of the answer.  Folks concerned with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act who look deeper might find that it potentially carries far more grave consequences than currently meet the eye.

The Active Ingredient in Scientology

The most active ingredient in scientology is not of scientology.  It was with us long before L. Ron Hubbard.  It has evolved and will continue to long after scientology ceases to attract headlines.  The seed of scientology’s rise and fall is Hubbard’s and scientology’s manic efforts and extreme measures taken to bottle and own and sell it (reference ‘Truth’).   This point is fleshed out a bit more in the latest post at the The Underground Bunker.

It is discussed in greater detail with Larry Flick on the Morning Jolt on sirius xm.  To listen to it do the following:

a. Go to the following link, Morning Jolt.

b. Go to the green bar ‘OutQ on SoundCloud.’

c. Scroll to ‘Marty Rathbun Blows The Lid Off Scientology…’

Scientology Wiretaps Cruise/Kidman Home

Hear the details:

NBC Today Show

Austin Film Society and Going Clear

I want to acknowledge and thank Alex Gibney, Larry Wright, Evan Smith (Texas Tribune), and Richard Linklater and the Austin Film Society for hosting, conducting, and participating in an intelligent public conversation on scientology. Such are rare these days.  Austin Film Society Facebook page images.  Keep Austin Weird.

 

Scientology Beliefs (revised)

In plain English, here are scientology’s core religious beliefs.

  1. Scientology’s sophisticated mix of pop psychology and hypnotism are firmly believed to be the only workable ‘technology’ for curing mental issues, neurosis, psychosis, physical disease, increasing awareness and intelligence, and for creating OT’s (operating thetans, L. Ron Hubbard’s version of Nietzsche’s superman or Aleister Crowley’s magician).Note:  Scientology is at first presented in secular, scientific terms promising and then false reporting 100% workability.  In fact scientology never achieved even the scientifically recognized 20 to 30 percent placebo effect in terms of long-term satisfaction.  In order to explain away that discrepancy the less-than-placebo percentage who stick with it are led to adopt the remaining listed beliefs.  The ‘technology’ evolved being carefully designed and administered so as to lead scientologists to wholeheartedly accept and live according to these beliefs.

2.  Planet Earth is a prison. The vast majority of human beings – and billions of             invisible other beings – are its inmates.

3.  Xenu is the name of scientology’s Satan who established Earth as                                  a prison and transported billions of beings to serve as its inmates.

4.  Our continued imprisonment is assured by ‘psychs.’ ‘Psychs’ are                                    defined as psychiatrists, psychologists, psycho-therapists, priests,                                ministers, and anyone else practicing in the field of the mind and                                  spirit.  Psychs were sent here from a planet called ‘Farsec.’  They are a                        special breed of being created and invested with the sole purpose of                            keeping humankind mentally imprisoned.

5.  Ron Hubbard is the first to discover the above ‘truths’, and the only                             one to have devised a means of escaping the prison planet.

6.  Navigation through the only hole in the wall consists of closely                                        emulating Hubbard and behaving as he did when he lived.

7.  Enemies, including psychs as well as anyone expressing any doubt or                           reservation about these beliefs, must be destroyed by any means                                  necessary by scientologists. Such means include lying, suing, cheating,                        harassing, intimidating, blackmailing, smearing and by physical                                      violence.

8. When a scientologist has expended all of his best efforts in the vain                             pursuit of these beliefs he is expected to ‘discard’ his body so that he                           may continue to pursue them without such a physical ‘impediment’.

Whether the ultimate belief, number 8 above, constitutes suicide is a wholly subjective question of religious belief.