Tag Archives: Going Clear

Whistleblower Character Assassin

Filmmaker Alex Gibney

When asked about Alex Gibney’s in-progress documentary on himself, Elon Musk replied, “It’s a hit piece.”  Gibney’s reaction to that was, “How would you know?”

The answer is more than apparent on this blog.  Musk has done more than any other person to date to dismantle the burgeoning Censorship/Propaganda Industrial Complex. The very industry Gibney sucks the hind tit of for a living. Look no further than what Gibney did to Julian Assange and Wikileaks when they were at the forefront of restoring transparency and accountability to Big Brother.

When Wikileaks founder Assange exposed the sinister side of American empire in 2010, the national security state came unglued. Perhaps no one more accurately represented the security state (also known as IC “intelligence community”) at that time than Michael Hayden. Between 1998 and 2009 he had served on the three top spy positions on the planet, the head of the National Security Agency (NSA), the Director of the CIA and as the 1st Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Under his guidance the national security state was formed, including the passage of the Patriot Act and its systematic stripping of our civil rights. Incidentally, he remains atop the Big Brother console to this day as head of the Atlantic Council’s Censorship/Propaganda Industrial Complex. 

Who did Hayden and company call upon when Assange and Wikileaks were awakening the world to the atrocities of the unbridled security state/IC? The documentarian who would give the head of the security state the platform from which to justify the horrendous conduct revealed by Wikileaks, while also viciously assassinating the character of Assange. The same guy who did principal Big Brother propaganda work for the COVID-19 roll out: Alex Gibney. 

Nothing more graphically represented the importance of the 2010 Wikileaks disclosures than the following video. It captures US military personnel gunning down several innocent civilians, including a Reuter’s news agency employee a rescue worker and his two children. See,

The nation was shocked. And Gibney gave it his all to get the masses to cool their jets with his documentary “We Steal Secrets.”  He featured Michael Hayden himself to tell us how to view this very leaked film. Haydn said he could understand how such abuses of imperial power bothers some people but not someone in the know like himself: “You’ve got this scene, some are evidently troubled by the scene – frankly, I’m not.”  Gibney then invites Hayden to explain how Assange put so many more lives at risk than were wiped out in the video, that there really is nothing to see here folks. Clearly, Gibney wholeheartedly agrees with his master as he fails to even once push back on the single person most responsible for the conduct Wikileaks exposed. 

And as is Gibney’s wont (see Big Brother Storyteller), he is so anxious to be the first to get the deep state’s spin released he doesn’t bother to examine any harm that Hayden alleges Assange’s releases will certainly do. In the final analysis, no one ever produced a single sliver of evidence that a single hair on a single head was harmed as a result of Wikileaks’ exposes. To the contrary one could easily imagine tens of thousands of lives being saved by the disclosures, by having its intended reform effect on the offenders. 

Thus self-blinded, Gibney sets out to destroy the reputation of Assange. He strings together a chorus of clips from his favorite politicians toeing the CIA/NSA/Hayden line literally calling for Assange to be hung to death or assassinated. 

The film largely consists of Gibney belittling and condemning Assange as a sociopath who might well be entitled to such treatment. In doing so, he also does a number on Chelsea (aka Bradley) Manning who was the military whistleblower who forwarded the leaked material to Wikileaks for publication. Gibney is a proud woke mind virus carrier. Nonetheless, he hypocritically devotes a great deal of time trying to smear Manning with his struggle over gender identity. Gibney ruthlessly paints Manning – a genuine American hero on the order of Daniel Ellsberg – as a psychotic sexual deviant. Gibney does so in order to create the invented picture that Assange took advantage of Manning and set him up to take the rap for the leak while hogging all the glory to himself.  In doing so, Gibney kills two Ellsbergs with one stone.

Through outright sleaze and cheesy propaganda techniques Gibney invents the narrative that Assange baited Manning into releasing the material to Wikileaks. In reality, the New York Times and the Washington Post (the “liberal” fronts for Empire fuckery) turned down approaches from Manning before he turned to Wikileaks. Yet, Gibney’s expert use of the dark arts makes it appear as though if not for Assange’s fraudulent preying upon a weak, perverted mind, Manning never would be in the deep trouble he was by then in (in solitary confinement awaiting trial for Treason and worse before a US military tribunal).  

The same techniques used to assassinate Manning’s character are applied by Gibney in pursuing Assange as prey.  He ruthlessly explores Assange’s private sex life and goes to great length to indict and convict him for the alleged crime of intentionally breaking his condom during sex with more than willing partners (perhaps even sexual predators pursuing Assange). If you are wondering how that might constitute a prosecutable crime, Gibney’s invents the speculation that it would be a crime if Assange happened to knowingly be carrying around the AIDS virus. While the entire premise of Gibney’s prosecution (justification for the Swedish government pursuing Assange) hinged on that one invented possibility, Gibney (and no one else in the 14 years since) never presented a scintilla of evidence such was the actual case. Yet, through master use of the dark arts of cinematographic deception Gibney presents the picture of an AIDs ravaged madman travelling the world seeking to kill through sex.  

With those false premises established, Gibney then virtually lobbies for the criminal punishment of Julian Assange.  He accuses Assange of paranoia for suggesting that the U.S. government has Assange in its sights for the same treatment they were meting out to Chelsea Manning.  Gibney appears to want Assange to take the punishment Manning is taking; all the while calling Assange paranoid for sensing that is exactly the intent of Gibney and his deep state sponsors. 

The utter falsity of Gibney’s “paranoia” claims were more than proven over the next several years as the US ruthlessly pursued Assange through extradition (while its CIA director called for Assange’s assassination).  Completely contrary to the entire premise of Gibney’s invented outrage, Assange would wind up spending more time in confinement than Manning did (without ever being convicted of a single crime). Of course, Gibney helped accomplish this feat by virtue of other state-controlled media parroting Gibney’s deep-state smear for years. 

There is a pattern of Gibney’s over-anxious, impatient attack-dog work on behalf of the deep state.  He did the very same thing concerning the COVID-19 pandemic panic (see Big Brother Storyteller).  A rush to release the definitive government/big pharma COVID 19 narrative, followed by several years of the truth unfolding proving all his major premises to be wrong. He did the same with the Scientologists, tirelessly using his ‘documentary’ on them to lobby for removal of their IRS tax exemption, only for time to tell his invented premises for such draconian measures were fabrications. I have described before the fraud perpetuated and promoted by Larry Wright and Alex Gibney on that subject. (see blog posts between June 6 2017 through June 19 2017 and from July 16 2017 and August 8 2017).

As we shall later see, Gibney did the same with the Russia Hoax. The technique is, when chaos hits be the first to create a “documentary” to “prove” the deep state’s propaganda lines. Make the big lies look like truth through overboard dramatization in the guise of documentary film making. Use the ‘fact’ of the documentary to take designated targets down hard. While the facts begin to arise demonstrating the falsity of your work, dive into the next deep state crisis and rinse and repeat.

To demonstrate the 100% love, devotion and surrender nature of the deep state suck up, consider these facts. If the Manning/Assange leak were as expansive and potentially destructive as Gibney’s film claims, and Gibney is the flag-waving patriot he purports to be, then why did Gibney not investigate how two allegedly mentally ill, sex deviants managed to put the entire free world at risk all on their little lonesomes? That is, how could such alleged supermen as Michael Hayden be capable of such incompetent, treasonous insecurity?  That, Gibney does not investigate. Instead, he only covers deep-state ass. Again, he turns to his master Hayden to explain away the pesky matter of how on earth such a massive breach could occur. Hayden blames reforms imposed in response to the deep state’s colossal incompetence (at best) demonstrated during the events leading to 911. 

Hayden:

“After 9/11 we were accused of not being willing to share information rapidly and facilely enough and we’ve pushed that very far forward. In terms of our focus the default option in a practical sense has been to share it, rather than caging in information and making it more difficult to flow.”

In other words, “any attempt to point out an error on the Intelligence Community will be met with glue meeting rubber. That is, your catching us out on a mistake will result in you being guilty of our next crime.”

Remarkably, not only does Gibney not push back on such haughty arrogance, he lets Hayden shore up alleged CIA infallibility with this:

“When they catch us making a mistake, we admit it. When they have a valid point—even when it’s buried deep below a heap of not-so-valid points—we try to pull it out, brush it off, and address it.”

With that Gibney enters the Orwellian ranks, “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”

State-controlled media would of course cloyingly go along for the ride as per usual.

And that of course buried any dissent to Gibney’s propaganda work.  But, at the time of its release many credible sources expressed outrage at Gibney’s servile cowardice. 

The Nation had the following to say of “We Steal Secrets”:

“Unfortunately, just as today’s debate is already being diluted by focusing on Snowden’s psychology and motives, We Steal Secrets gets sidetracked by character issues… The debate that the film has stirred up consists mainly of an exchange of invective between Gibney and Assange, in which Gibney and his allies compare the WikiLeaks creator to a cult leader, while Assange and his allies accuse the director of mounting a smear campaign that benefits the US government. The upshot is that we have gotten neither the film nor the debate we need.”

Award winning researcher and journalist Alexa O’Brien wrote:

“What was Gibney relying on for his costly ‘string of pearls’ reportage, beyond his hackneyed entourage of unexamined glory-boats, bearing witness on the silver screen to their privileged punditry—that is, talking about themselves amongst themselves for their own benefit– certainly not the public’s—or future generations?”

“Gibney’s exercise discovers nothing, and reveals nothing. His tabloid motion graphic is a regurgitation of stock footage, unsubstantiated innuendo, and unexamined allegation.”

“What Gibney has done here is not art; it is a cheap trick.”

And veteran war correspondent Chris Hedges wrote the following:

“Alex Gibney’s new film, “We Steal Secrets,” is about WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. It dutifully peddles the state’s contention that WikiLeaks is not a legitimate publisher and that Bradley Manning, who allegedly passed half a million classified Pentagon and State Department documents to WikiLeaks, is not a legitimate whistle-blower. It interprets acts of conscience and heroism by Assange and Manning as misguided or criminal. It holds up the powerful—who are responsible for the plethora of war crimes Manning and Assange exposed–as, by comparison, trustworthy and reasonable.”

“The film at many points is a trashy exercise in tabloid journalism. Gibney panders to popular culture’s taste for cheap pop psychology and obsession with sex, salacious gossip and trivia.”

Finally, Hedges recognizes the illness underlying the propaganda techniques employed:

“The vast structural sin Assange and Manning fought is ignored. The primacy of personal piety over justice is the inversion of morality. It is the sickness of our age.”

Remarkably, on this rare occasion when Gibney was held to account for his demonstration of the sickness of our age he petulantly defended his tabloid appetites. Unfortunately for him he protested too much and as much as admitted to the truth of what the Nation, O’Brien and Hedges pointed out:

“Just because someone tries to right a wrong or just because somebody tries to hold powerful people to account, it doesn’t mean that person is above the law.” – Alex Gibney

Under that ‘rationale’, Gibney is free to pursue whistleblowers into their prison cells and beyond.  

Given how Gibney approached whistleblowers Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, what are the odds he’ll take a deep dive into Elon Musk’s sex life?  One thing is certain, Gibney will make the gullible afraid of Mr. Musk, very afraid. 

I have seen up close and personal how deftly Gibney wields the art of cinematography to create realities that do no exist, and to dramatize them to the point of creating revulsion and terror in viewers. For a short lesson on Gibney’s trickery, see what he did to the Scientologists; creating a “guttural, deep emotional fear and terror of something that does not exist”, Going Clear Movie.

Leah Remini and her Troublemakers, Part 18

 

Going Clear Movie, Part 5 Joel Sappel invented story

Going Clear Movie Part 5, Inventions of Joel Sappel (LA Times)            

transcript

Mark Rathbun:  At 52:20 they have this Kim Masters, who I do not know from Adam. She says that a guy from the LA Times his dog was poisoned while working a story about Scientology. And I wouldn’t know what she was talking about except that year earlier I had been visited by a reporter from the LA Times who no longer works for the Times, named Joel Sappel. And I did not even know this, but Joel Sappel was telling me in 2012 that in 1990 or 89 allegedly his dog was poisoned while working on a Scientology story.  I spent an hour with this guy as a personal favor because I was blown away that this guy for twenty years would be fixated on this false idea.  Obviously, if anyone would have poisoned his dog would have had to been at my direction or I would have known about it, right?  But, Scientology doesn’t poison dogs.  It has been accused of it many times.  Never done it and not even ever done anything like it.  Never done anything to anybody critical of Scientology physically ever. Even in the darkest hours of the Guardian’s office long before our time.  I spent an hour with Joel Sappel – the reporter she’s making reference to – I was very sincere, because it didn’t mean anything to me being in opposition to the church at the time, so I as not trying to defend the church.  I am trying to give Sappel a reality check because it is blowing my, thinking what it must be like either perpetuating the lie for twenty years or actually believing so, being so tainted by the type of propaganda Gibney and Wright produced.

Why this incident is instructive

 But, that is an interesting and instructive moment right there.  Because if Joel Sappel really did believe that and hung onto it for twenty years; I can tell you, it just did not happen.  If something happened to his dog it had nothing to do with Scientology.  I was on that story (Sappel’s) from the day we heard it was happening, and they worked on it for years. I know exactly what happened. I know everything that happened investigation-wise, PR-wise, etc., from the day the situation arose. It arose two years earlier.  They started on it in 87 I think, and they never came out with it until 89 or 90.  Nothing like that (what Sappel alleged) ever happened.  It is instructive for this reason: If Joel Sappel truly believed that, and hung onto that all that time, that means he was poisoned by some kind of propaganda that he  had gotten as far back as the eighties.  I am telling you, this film (Going Clear) is far more misleading, vicious, and downright scary than anything that had been produced up to the time that Joel Sappel got the false and paranoid idea that someone (in Scientology) had messed with his dog. 

PS: Perhaps Gibney and Wright did not have Sappel in the movie was because Sappel’s visit with me settled his mind and they had to bring in a talking head to spread unattributed hearsay. 

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. 

Going Clear, Part 21- Headley lawsuit, FBI sting

Going Clear, Part 21 transcript:

Mark Rathbun: A key part of the anti-Scientology narrative as partially authored by Lawrence Wright, continuously published by Tony Ortega, endlessly repeated by Mike Rinder and other outlets on the troll farms, is: ‘Dang, we had Scientology – the FBI was right on them yet they got saved by this thorny Constitution interpreted by limp-wristed liberal justices of the Ninth Circuit.’  That literally is an invented narrative on several levels. The first level is this, if you read the opinion you don’t need the Constitution, you don’t even need a constitutional analysis.  First of all, the Ninth Circuit’s statement of the constitutional protections afford to religion is absolutely accurate. That it was applied to Scientology is absolutely nothing new. It has been consistently applied by courts for decades.  So, there is no news there. But, if you read the opinion, the court did not even need the Constitution. It found on a factual basis, if you literally broke down the facts, it didn’t even need the Constitution, because they found facts didn’t support the civil wrongs that were alleged.  Now, we know that the FBI investigation was prompted by the Headleys and really that was the core of their case.  The court said ‘factually’ they don’t have a case.  Factually.  Now, the problem is compounded. As early as April 2010 the only significant ‘defector’ from high up in Scientology who said anything after 2090 was John Brouseau.  And I arranged for John Brouseau to speak with the FBI.  And John Brouseau told the FBI, “I have seen no violence on behalf of David Miscavige or anybody else at the upper levels of Scientology. I have seen no evidence of anything they call the ‘hole’ for the several years that I have been there – since most of these people (who had already spoke to the FBI) left the church.”  None of the stuff that was the advertised crux of the FBI investigation existed. The only percipient witness, the only person who was in a position to know and a position to see – who was speaking to the FBI on behalf of the complainants (the Headleys), said ‘there’s no there there.’  And that in effect was the end of the FBI investigation.  The only conversations that I had with the FBI after that point (when Brouseau had testified) were about how to sting Scientology executives on a potential obstruction of justice rap.  In other words, do that the FBI usually does to somebody in a white collar case. 88% or 90% of the time, when they are going after somebody in a white collar case, they get them covering up.  I told them, ‘you can troll them.’  In FBI lingo, that is ‘sting them.’  Get them to do something stupid.  And in fact the FBI engaged in it.  And Scientology didn’t take the bait.  And now even the sting was over by 2010.  So, this whole narrative about how the Constitution saved Scientology from scrutiny by the FBI was entirely invented. Lawrence Wright said he was going to cover it in his (New Yorker) article because the FBI has a dismal record when it comes to dealing with “cults.”  Wright said, “sometimes they need incentive.” So, clearly Wright was trying to give them a black eye to incentivize them to go after Scientology. It is quite the motivation of an unbiased journalist, right?  

Going Clear, Part 20 Wright’s Straw Man

Going Clear, Part 20 transcript:

Mark Rathbun: Wright sets up a couple of straw men. They are related. The first straw man is the idea that Scientology is all predicated on the idea that Hubbard cured himself from being crippled and blinded and that this all happened at the Oak Knoll Naval hospital.  First of all, and I went through this in spades with Wright, demonstrating that that is a straw man.  It is a false premise.  The representation does not really exist, number one.  And number two, what actually happened at Oak Knoll didn’t involve L Ron Hubbard. And I gave him all the lectures where Hubbard covered it.  Hubbard did not say that he cured himself at Oak Knoll Naval hospital. He said he discovered the fundamental techniques of Dianetics by engaging in two-way communication therapy of sorts with people who were recovering from illnesses there.  And he talks about it at length and in detail. If you know anything about Dianetics and Scientology you can see. I gave him all the materials and explained it to him for days and gave him the primer so that he could understand it.  It makes perfect and logical sense.  Wright’s invented theory is based on a straw man. 

Going Clear, Part 19 – IRS and NBC’s attempted ambush

Going Clear, Part 19 transcript:

Mark Rathbun: The only media that I was asked to participate in when the book Going Clear came out in January 2013 was when Larry Wright asked me if I would be willing to go to New York to interview with NBC’s Rock Center. Wright said “you are a central person in this whole thing; so, could you do that and talk about the book?”  I said, “sure.”  And I don’t even know if I had read the book by that point.  I flew to New York. I spent an entire half a day with Harry Smith (NBC New). It was this elaborate set up.  It was in the Waldorf Astoria in this old, historic room – it was like a library.  We were there for an entire morning and into the afternoon. In the entire time we were in there, Smith did what Larry Wright had done with me a year or two earlier.  He tried to get this generalized statement that Scientology’s tax exemption was fraudulently or illegitimately obtained.  And he tried angle after angle on me. It was like Larry Wright redux.  Larry Wright had gone through the same thing with me.  And I went through chapter and verse and detail about how you don’t get it. ‘Yeah, there was some hardball, but you don’t get it, when the IRS is coming after you have to play hardball back or you meet your demise. You are getting all caught up in these tactics, and the bottom line is, the thing they just want to write out of history, is: All the hardball tactics did was get us to the table.  And at that point they (the IRS) held the cards and every anti-Scientology voice, every person who had been there (the IRS) for twenty years and had this deep institutional bias – every one of them was fully heard. And we had to answer to every one of them; and this went on for two years.  And Harry Smith is looking at me, like he is pissed. He can’t believe that there is all of this information coming out. All he wants is to get to ‘cut and print’ on ‘the whole thing was a sham.’  And so, it went on for three hours.  It got to the point where, like it had with Wright a year and half earlier, of sort of this testiness and disappointment. We finally finished. I couldn’t wait to get out of there and get back home.  So, unsurprisingly, I guess, two weeks later the show plays and I’m not in it.  Very clearly, what is what Larry Wright sent me to New York for and what Harry Smith was briefed on to get.  And, they didn’t get it.  So, they just cut it out.

Going Clear, Part 18 – BBC’s John Sweeny

Going Clear, Part 18 Transcript:

Mark Rathbun:  Wright goes into how allegedly the BBC’s John Sweeny “never had such emotional and psychological pressure placed upon  him as he did with Scientology”; even though he covered the war in Bosnia and Chechnya and other kinds of similar business.  Then Wright downplays Sweeny’s meltdown where he screamed obscenities at Scientologists by saying that “Sweeny shouted in an oddly slow cadence.”  Total euphemism for a guy having a mental meltdown on the middle of a set.  Sweeneys producer, Sarah Mole, and Sweeney himself both told me unequivocally that the entire story that Sweeney did (wherein the meltdown occurred) on Scientology that Larry Wright is referring to, was a trolling operation.  There was no subject of investigation.  They did not even have a phony reason, like Larry Wright gives in his book, for his “investigation.”  Instead, they literally set forth to conduct a trolling operation to see what reaction they could cause from the church and that would be the subject of the piece.  In other words, we’re investigating you and we’re going too be as noisy obnoxious as we can and we’re going to document your reaction to that.  And that was the entire thing. So, for Wright to position John Sweeney as some seasoned, brave guy who undertook an even braver task to look into Scientology is complete and utter fiction. 

Going Clear, Part 17 – Haggis Resignation Letter

Going Clear, Part 17 transcript:

Mark Rathbun:  Wright alleges that  “by October (2009) Rathbun got hold of the letter (Paul Haggis’ Scientology resignation letter).  Actually, I have an email dated 23 August where I am already talking to Haggis, not only do I have the letter I am giving Haggis detailed, meticulous instructions about how to present it deceptively to media contacts that I have established – this is two  months prior to October.  It didn’t as Wright states “find its way” to me; Paul Haggis sent it to me directly by email. Paul Haggis consulted with me every step of the way, how he should position this and how he should do this.  Quote from Going Clear:  “He (Rathbun) called Haggis who was shooting (film) in Pittsburgh and asked if he could publish the letter on his blog.”  In fact, two months earlier than that Paul Haggis wrote to me (Rathbun) and made me the coordinating point on seeing to it that his letter was published.  So, how could I be asking him to publish it two months later?  I coached Haggis through every step of the way on the release of his letter. What a prima donna. This process went on for two months.  (This was part of the phony narrative making Haggis look like he was operating on his own initiative, the John Wayne narrative. It was invented.)