Larry Wright, Alex Gibney, me and Paul Haggis
This week’s episode of Fair Game podcast features my old friend Alex Gibney.
This is not an episode to miss.
Alex is one of the greats in the world of documentary filmmakers. His credits include:
The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley about Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos
We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks
Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God (won 3 Emmy’s)
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (Oscar nom in 2005 for Best Doc)
Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer
Taxi to the Dark Side (winner of the 2007 Oscar for best Documentary) about the war in Iraq
2019’s Citizen K, about Vladimir Putin and the Russian billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Dirty Money (doc-series that explores corporate greed and corruption),
The Looming Tower, (series based on the book by Lawrence Wright) about 911
Of course, the main reason we spoke with him is because of his multi-Emmy-winning documentary Going Clear for HBO in 2015, based on Larry Wright’s NY Times bestselling book of the same name.
Going Clear was nominated for seven Emmy Awards, winning three, including Best Documentary. It also received a 2015 Peabody Award and won the award for Best Documentary Screenplay from the Writers Guild of America.
A lot of familiar faces appeared in Going Clear, including: Paul Haggis, Marty Rathbun, Jason Beghe, Spanky Taylor, Tom DeVocht, Hana Eltringham, Sara Goldberg, Tony Ortega and Marc Headley.
Leah and I talked to Alex about the media’s fear of scientology and the measures he took in order to make his film. Scientology took out full page ads to denounce the film before they had even seen it.
Of course, scientology went on a smear campaign tear once the show aired, with Freedom magazine and their websites launching a barrage of bullshit against Alex. And as is typical of scientology, instead of responding to what was contained in his film, they sought to disparage his character.
Of course, this was mostly intended for their internal public. “Look, here is a chaos merchant telling lies about scientology because he hates mankind.” The rest of the world looked at this, shrugged their shoulders and thought “don’t the scientologists ever learn that the more they do this, the more everyone knows that the exposes are true…”
Alex’s perspective and insight as an investigative journalist and documentarian is fascinating. We even speak about how he compared making Going Clear to his other docs — some of which have been pretty scary.
After Going Clear came out, Alex did something nobody else has done. He wrote an opinion piece in the NY Times and LA Times calling for Scientology’s tax exemption to be revoked in light of the allegations of abuse documented in the film. He was more committed to ending the abuses than just making a film and then moving on to his next project. Anyone who knows Alex knows he is a warrior for social justice. And he remains committed to ending the abuses in scientology.
This is his editorial piece:
LA TIMES OPINION PIECE
By ALEX GIBNEY
APRIL 11, 2015
When I made the film “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief,” which aired on HBO on March 29, I assumed that the response from the Church of Scientology would be vitriolic. I was right; but I hold out hope that this reaction may lead to the reform of an organization that has harassed its critics and, in my view, abused its tax-exempt status.
Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, believed that critics of the church were so fundamentally evil that any kind of counterattack was, according to doctrine, “fair game.” He wrote in a 1967 “Policy Letter” that critics “may be deprived of property or injured by any means … may be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed.”
In keeping with this doctrine, the church has waged a crusade against the film starting months before its release. The ex-Scientologists who testify in “Going Clear” have been on the receiving end of threats, surveillance and a smear campaign on the Scientology website Freedommag.org. In one of the attack videos, titled “Crocodile Liar,” a bull’s-eye frames a picture of Sara Goldberg, a grandmother who left the church in 2013. Rather than engage in informed debate, the videos accuse all the critical ex-members of various misdeeds, including theft and perjury, without mentioning that some appear to have been committed on behalf of the church.
Lawrence Wright, the New Yorker staff writer and author of the book on which the film is based, has not been immune. Nor have I. The church spent a great deal of its followers’ money publishing a parody of the New Yorker; it contained expensive graphics that were the envy of David Remnick, the actual editor of the New Yorker, which published Wright’s first investigation into Scientology. Because I am a filmmaker, the church produced a video going after me and my father, who has very little to say on the matter since he died in 2006. Wright and I have received countless letters from the church and its attorneys. My face appeared on full-page ads in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times attacking the film.
These tactics, however, don’t seem to have damaged the film’s popularity. On the contrary, according to the Hollywood Reporter, “Going Clear” attracted over 1.75 million viewers on its first broadcast, the best showing for a documentary on HBO in 10 years.
Only one group is averting their eyes: active Scientologists, who are encouraged, by doctrine, to avoid any criticism of the church. As “Going Clear” shows, the church will sanction its members for reading or viewing critical material. It may be that many of the church’s attacks on the film are not designed for the general public, but rather serve as a signal of possible danger for the flock. Recently, longtime Scientologist John Travolta criticized the film — even as he said he had no intention of ever watching it — because it would be a “crime” to “approach a negative perspective.”
Judging by online feedback, the most fervent viewers have been ex-Scientologists who seem to be delighted by the fact that their experience has been given voice in a national broadcast. As one long-suffering former member of the Sea Org (the church’s clergy) told me, “We were afraid our story would never be told.”
The reason for that fear — and the apparent pent-up demand for this story among the general public — may be that, historically, Scientology has been effective at limiting or even preventing open debate about its practices. Over the years, reporters on this beat have been ruthlessly intimidated and their journals and networks subject to war by litigation.
Roughly 20 years ago, according to investigative reporter Richard Behar, the Church of Scientology spent millions attacking him and his employer, Time magazine, in court and through the aggressive use of private investigators. Although the church lost at every level, right up to the Supreme Court, it regarded the litigation battle as a victory because it succeeded in putting the “fear of God” into most media organizations.
In the wake of Wright’s book and the film, many reporters, critics and ex-Scientologists seem to be more confident about speaking out and investigating ongoing charges of abuse. Only a few days ago, this newspaper published a story about a private investigator armed with a cache of weapons and 2,000 rounds of ammunition, who was allegedly paid by Scientology to spy on the father of the church’s “Chairman of the Board,” David Miscavige. A number of articles have even raised the question of whether the church should be permitted to maintain its tax-exempt status in the face of so many alleged or documented civil rights abuses, such as the videotaped harassment of ex-Scientologist Marty Rathbun and his wife, Monique. It’s an important question, since it implicates all of us.
The church maintains that its activities are protected by the 1st Amendment as religious practices. Partially on that basis, the church convinced the Internal Revenue Service in 1993 that Scientology should be tax-exempt and that all donations to the church should be tax-deductible. (The film shows that the church’s method of “convincing” the IRS featured lawsuits and vilification of its agents.)
In the past, critics of the church have called for its tax exemption to be revoked because it is not a “real religion.” I agree that tax-exemption isn’t merited, but not for that reason. The Church of Scientology has a distinct belief system which, despite its somewhat strange cosmology — mocked by the TV show “South Park” and many others — is not essentially more strange than, say, the idea of a virgin birth. Scientologists are entitled to believe what they want to believe. And the IRS website makes it clear that anyone is entitled to start a religion at any time without seeking IRS permission. To maintain the right to be tax-exempt, however, religions must fulfill certain requirements for charitable organizations. For example, they may not “serve the private interests of any individual” and/or “the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.”
On these points alone, it is hard to see why Americans should subsidize Scientology through its tax-exemption.
Regarding “private interests,” it seems clear that Scientology is ruled by only one man, David Miscavige. Further, powerful celebrities within the church, particularly Tom Cruise, receive private benefits through the exploitation of low-wage labor (clergy members belonging to the Sea Org make roughly 40 cents an hour) and other use of church assets for his personal gain.
It appears that many church activities may have been either illegal or in violation of public policy. Numerous lawsuits, my film, other media accounts and an abandoned FBI investigation have turned up allegations of false imprisonment, human trafficking, wiretaps, assault, harassment and invasion of privacy. And the church doctrine of “disconnection,” in which members are forced to “disconnect” from anyone critical of the church, seems cruelly at odds with any reasonable definition of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
A proper criminal investigation that followed the money — a virtual river of cash from tax-exempt donations and fees — could sort out some of these issues. Or a congressional subcommittee investigation could force Miscavige — who was unwilling to answer questions for Wright’s book or the film — to testify under oath about allegations of abuse.
There is ample precedent for the revocation of tax-exempt status: It happens more than 100 times per year. There is also an important Supreme Court ruling that addresses the religious issue. In 1983, the court upheld a decision revoking the charitable status of a religious college, Bob Jones University, because it forbade interracial dating. The court stated in Bob Jones University vs. the United States that the “government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education … which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the university’s] exercise of their religious beliefs.”
It seems to me that our government has a “fundamental, overriding interest” in protecting individual liberty by not subsidizing harassment or surveillance by gun-toting private eyes. The 1st Amendment should not be a smokescreen to hide human rights abuses and possible criminal activities.
Alex Gibney is an Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker.
Hi Mike from Vancouver, BC. Great podcast. Best one yet in my opinion. Is there any possibility that you could get Trey Parker and/or Matt Stone on? Would love to hear how they were fair gamed. As well as maybe they could get into detail about how and why Isaac Hayes quit South Park. Long live Cartman!
That’s a good idea. I will add them to my list to reach out to…
Great podcast, Mike! It was amazing to look back and get perspective on how much influence the movie had on changing the media’s position regarding exposing the church. Thanks to you and Leah, I am looking forward to seeing them lose their ridiculous tax exempt status. I am enjoying the podcasts. Thanks!
I just finished listening to most of this podcast. I had to turn it off at the 35 minute mark. I just couldn’t listen to any more of it and I will explain why later. But there were several mind-blowing moments. My absolute favorite was when Larry was planning to write his book and some representative from this scam showed up with a whole bunch of “banker boxes” of documents that they thought would shut down this book. But the truth was that that evidence actually made the book possible and they contained the evidence that Larry used in writing the book. It was more than just shooting themselves in the foot. This was like amputating both legs and both arms. It had to be one of the most stupid things they had ever done and it was representative of so many of their idiotic mistakes where they attempt to frighten people into refraining from criticizing them. But the truth is that their actions actually accomplish the exact opposite. I just loved that. It is my most favorite thing about this scam. They continue to do the most stupid things possible because …. that is what their founder tells them to do.
They are locked into the 1950s and that is the one thing that drags these idiots down faster than anything else. It is truly a hilarious comedy show. How stupid are these people? What idiotic thing will they be doing today? IMO, that is a great aspect of this struggle and as Alex Gibney said words to the effect, “I actually enjoyed these people.” By that he meant that their actions which were designed to frighten and intimidate him actually turned out to be laughable.
OK. So why couldn’t I finish listening to this podcast? I’m really sorry Mike but I just find Leah to be so extremely irritating with her constant need to interject this stream of “Uh Huhs” every ten seconds. I think she managed to suppress this last week. But I may be overly sensitive and get irritated too easily. But I’m sorry. I just can’t listen to that anymore. I’m guessing most people do not get as irritated as I do.
But thank you and I thank Leah too for this great edition of the “Fair Game” podcasts. I just hope she will eventually stop doing these constant interruptions. I guess she just doesn’t understand how annoying they are or she just gets excited or something. I hold no ill will against her. I really love the great work she has done. She is a magnificent champion of the cause. But I just can’t stand to listen to those interjections anymore.
Yes, Leah tries very hard to make sure the audience understands the vernacular of Scientology, which is often why she interrupts a train of thought. Mike seems to be patient about these interruptions, although they can irritate the audience. I sometimes think to myself, “Be quiet Leah and let him finish his thought!” I remind myself that she does because of her passion to do the right thing.
I love you Leah.
The Church of Scientology is a business racket and scam bordering a Mafia-like crime syndicate.
Formost, I suspect the Mafia wished they had it so good as Dwarfenführer®. ALL that money flowing into his coffers and he’s exempt from prosecution (other than from the IRS for tax evasion, inurement, and the like). All he has to do is step aboard passing winds and he’s out of anyone’s jurisdiction.
Formost observed:
“The Church of Scientology is a business racket and scam bordering a Mafia-like crime syndicate.”
I wouldn’t dignify them with “church”. I find it easiest to usually substitute “organization” or “enterprise”, depending on my mood at the moment. Never were a church, never will be, except in a sense that would include organized crime as a “religion”.
I just read Alex Gibney’s opinion piece in the LA Times (2015) again and every time I read it I just feel compelled to stand up and cheer.
Never mind the fact that he is a great writer and can essentially make people dance – not just with his words – but with the cause that he embraces. Whoo Hoo Alex!
There was one line in Alex’s letter that had me laughing so hard I was rolling on the ceiling. Or was it the floor? Dang new-fangled Internet! Anyway, here is what he said:
“Because I am a filmmaker, the church produced a video going after me and my father, who has very little to say on the matter since he died in 2006.”
These assholes just never learn and we should really be happy about that. They are stuck in the 1950s and that should be just fine with everyone else. After all, they built some really big prisons in the 1950s.
Mike you should try and get Paul Thomas Anderson on for an interview. It would be interesting to hear how Scientology handled “The Master” which is clearly based on LRH and the early days of the cult IMO.
Kennerado said, in part”…“The Master” which is clearly based on LRH and the early days of the cult IMO.”
Yup, it was painful to watch those parts of “The Master”. I could hear in my mind’s ear some of Ron’s early lectures or writings portrayed in The Master”
The problem with the way Going Clear and the Aftermath were shown at least here in the UK was that they were on pay TV and are being repeated on pay TV. If the makers of these programmes really wanted to get their message out they would offer it to the BBC (at a price they could afford) to be shown on free to air TV at peak viewing times then far more of the population would be aware of this insidious cult.
As a result of this lack of awareness, I see the reader’s comments on the Daily Mail (British red-top newspaper) website about TD’s new film that say things like “oh it’s Tom’s religion he has the right to worship how he wants so leave him alone”. OK so they may be shills for the cult but more than likely they are just totally ignorant of any of the malfeasance the Cos has perpetrated otherwise they probably wouldn’t still refer to it as religion and may be some would even find the decency to boycott his films.
That’s strange, Going Clear is on Netflix here in Australia.
Nothing strange about this as it’s probably on Netflix here too but that is also pay TV. It should be on Free To Air TV.
Do you see my point.
It’s an unfortunate fact of life that tv networks are businesses. They put out the money to make a show in the hope of making profits. They’re not public benefit tax exempt organizations. Usually shows like this do end up on free to air (recently in Australia) once that’s the last revenue stream available.
Mike,
I thought it might be something like this but the sooner they are shown to free to air the better.
Andy.
The BBC isn’t “free” though, is it. They’d arguably have more cash to spend if they became fully commercial. That we’re still being forced to fund this corporation is mind-boggling.
There is a licence fee to pay which means it’s free from government subsidy and therefore interference by same. This means it has cash to buy programmes but not as much as commercial free to air or pay TV.
The commercialisation of the BBC has been argued and discussed for years and it may well come to that, but in most people’s eyes it would be a shame.
Andy.
For the over 55s, quite possibly. Younger generations, not so much. Recent polls from the likes of YouGov and ComRes suggest some 60% of Brits want the licence fee scrapped in its entirety. After the latest Proms brouhaha, I’d imagine that’s now even higher.
And if I may add, 10% of the Beeb’s annual revenue is indeed from government subsidy (DWP). 25% comes from its commercial entities (primarily BBC Studios, BBC Studioworks and BBC Global News) as well as various additional grants (worth £89 million last year) from the likes of the FCO, DFID and the EU. #justsayin
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8101/
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/2018-19.pdf
https://ok.ru/video/376092166839 Try that.
https://watchdocumentaries.com/going-clear-scientology-and-the-prison-of-belief/ Or this.
Many thanks, I have seen all the docs on Scientology because I have pay TV. My concern is that the many who don’t have pay TV are blissfully ignorant of this small but significantly evil cult.
Andy S:
It would be “nice” if the exposés on scientology were free, but the content makers have a right to make SOME sort of living. They’re not all independently wealthy.
Kennerado,
isn’t Netflix a pay service? I’m too lazy to look it up.
In the US, it was on HBO, which charged a measly $2.99 IIRC to stream it to my TV.
Andy S, I found “going clear” somewhere on the InterWebZ. Might have cost $2.99. And I didn’t even have to get out of this chair.
While I’ve been waiting for Episode 7 of Mike & Leah’s podcast featuring Alex Gibney, I managed to come across another webcast hosted by Jim Norton and Sam Roberts where Tony Ortega was the guest.
This one was a real delight. The best part IMO (so far) was when Tony Ortega discussed a book written by the POOP head’s neice (Jenna) which he explained made the POOP look like a thoroughly disgusting coward. The explanation was right in line with his nature (again IMO) and you can hear all about that beginning around the 18:00 minute mark. But if you have 18 minutes, I would recommend you start at the beginning because the entire broadcast was a real delight and covered many things that I have never heard about before. For avid readers of Mike’s blog, I would guess that many of these fascinating events will be news for you too. It was all really very interesting and completely new to me. .
This broadcast is titled, “Co$’s Secrets” but it really just divulges more of the same kind of horseshit that we all have come to know as “stupid shit” from this scam.
I hope you all will enjoy this.
Thank you for all of your work Alex, Larry, Paul and Mike and Leah. Someday the big ship will sink and Scientology will cease to exist. Personally I am still chasing King Solomon’s Demons. It is just so much fun.
Heh Heh Heh. Have you ever thought of starting a fan club, George? Please put me on the waiting list to join if you ever do.
My idea is to do the real story of Scientology in ART. I have often thought of moving to Clearwater and opening a shop. The decline of Scientology is so obvious now, however.
Yes. It is so obvious now. Ain’t it great?
Skyler, it’s obvious to us who are paying attention, but not to the clams buried in the sand.
On the Scientology subject, to me, academia, or the in depth “religious/spiritual” academics in human history, is the big omitted or hole.
A “new religion” if even if Lawrence Wright bending over backward in his book, gives Hubbard as much credit as he can, still, there isn’t really a human forum to talk “religious/spiritual” nuts and bolts, and the truthfulness or lack of, of spiritual beliefs.
Scientology fails for it’s own deep flaws and faults. All traceable to Hubbard, and Hubbard’s false claims for the spiritual benefits that Scientology was to give a person, are based on human historical “earlier similar” false claims of spiritual achievements being even attainable.
To me, a laymen, a public, wants to know if Scientology meets its claims.
It doesn’t, of course, but the details of how Scientology doesn’t meet it’s spiritual claims needs spelling out, somewhere, in some forum.
TV and books by popular (even as incredibly talented and gifted as Lawrence Wright is) authors at this point in human history, can’t just tear into the false claims of Scientology/Hubbard’s.
So, even as great and as good and likely never to be bettered, for a book and movie, on Scientology, as the “Going Clear….” book and documentary are, they still leave out what is commonly wished for answers about the truth (and lack of results) of Scientology’s spiritual practices.
Anyways, the final pages of “Going Clear….” book are so vital information for all Scientologists to hear and contemplate.
More than any new facts that have come out about Scientology, the final pages of Wright’s “Going Clear…” book are the most devastating vital new news.
No wonder so much fair gaming has been done of Wright and Gibney.
Hubbard admitted he’d failed. That is devastating new news.
What can be told soberly by average people to one another, are that Scientology is quackery, and thus is of course will fail to meet Hubbard’s false claims, despite Hubbard’s best efforts to make his false claims even to the end of his life, minus what Hubbard said privately to Sarge, which thankfully is in the film, and which is more detailed in the book.
Mike, I didn’t know you were “a vicious liar to be avoided.”
Something tells me that description is a bit off, so I’m still here.
🙂
That is David Miscavige saying lies about Mike Rinder. It’s the “Ad Hom“ tech he learned from L Con Hubbard. Yawn. So predictable.
We are all here with you a Mike and will stay with you to the bitter end of Scientology and David Miscavige.
Great work to you all. Thank you.
I feel SORRY for the poor folks who are forced to put out this dreck; first, that they’re still “in”, Second because they have to deny the evidence of their own lives to combat the “haters”. ME, a HATER?? Only of you specify that I hate the degradation and lost lives they are enduring trying to obtain the goals scientology is institutionally organized to deny them. Hubbard never intended to FREE his subjects, only to build up the number of slaves held under his sway. “Number of slaves” seems to be the score those black magic sorcerers used to figure out who was better/stronger.
I am a hater and considering the nature of this beast, I am proud of it. I am only sorry that I cannot seem to think of any legal measures I can take to help bring these criminals to justice.
Actually, I can think of one legal measure that could help. I seem to be aware of some law called something like, “Abuse of Legal Process” or something like that. I just don’t remember if it is a Criminal law or a Civil wrong (sometimes known as a “Tort”). The difference is that one of these can get someone put into prison while the other one just enables people to sue them in a Civil court where they can win money.
If there is any such law or statute in the USA, surely what this scam did to the empolyees of the IRS would have been plenty of evidence to cause them to get hauled into court and sued. So, I just don’t know why one of those things never happened. I would like to see it happen. This scam deserves to be dragged (if necessary) into court and pay the price for all of their bullshit.
Skyler,
Wait a while. Dwarfenführer will, in his overworked state, make a tortious mistake he can be convicted on. That opens the door to the IRS re-thinking the 501 C(3) exemption and Davey’s tax-free income stream, thus most of his protections.
Skyler,
Wait a while. Dwarfenführer will, in his overworked state, make a tortious mistake he can be convicted on. That opens the door to the IRS re-thinking the 501(c) exemption and Davey’s tax-free income stream, thus most of his protections.
The “tech” Hubbard came up with to handle “attacks” or “criticisms” might have some small amount of workability in the 50’s and 60’s when there was a handful of TV stations and newspapers to get information from. Oddly enough, the “big thetan” could not imagine the internet. He could not imagine the day when there would be video recorders on virtually every phone on the planet. The one thing Scientology will not survive is the light of day shining upon its covert activities.
Oh! I’m so excited! I really love Alex Gibney’s work and I especially loved his movie, “Going Clear: Scientology & the Prison of Belief (2015).”
I thought that one of the episodes of Aftermath featured Alex Gibney but when I tried to check, I could find no listing of him on that show. I guess I must have gotten his appearance in “Going Clear” with Aftermath. I’m referring to his appearance where he told the story of how a bunch of people came to his home and several of them “leapt to their feet” to protest when he said something negative about the scam. I laughed out loud at that. But I guess that must have been in the film “Going Clear”.
At any rate, I can’t think of hardly anyone who is more knowledgeable about TV and Movies and I will be waiting excitedly to hear this podcast. Thank you Mike for letting us know this in advance. I will be sitting by my PC waiting to hear this podcast.
And also, I want to say to SILVIA, “You are dead right when you praise Mr. Gibney’s letter and writing.” He is a really great writer. I laugh every time I imagine the Creep reading his open letter where he wrote about all the wrongdoings by this scam. I hope the so-called POOP was drinking some hot coffee when he read that and he spit it up all over his $5,000 Armani suit. That would have served him right.
LOL! LOL! LOL!
Oh Dear. I just realized that I confused Paul Haggis with Alex Gibney. I’m always doing that. Sorry.
Well, they both wear glasses.
I categorize Danny as washed-up because the only time I hear of “The Ranch” or “that 70s Show”, it’s immediately connected with: “Danny Masterson, charged with…”.
“It seems to me that our government has a ‘fundamental, overriding interest’ in protecting individual liberty by not subsidizing harassment or surveillance by gun-toting private eyes. The 1st Amendment should not be a smokescreen to hide human rights abuses and possible criminal activities.”
That seems so obvious and yet the appropriate gov’t agencies and officials do nothing about the on-going abuses inflicted by the church of scientology.
I am REALLY looking forward to this podcast.
As usual and required, scientology will never respond to criticisms, even when backed by evidence. All they will or can do is the lowest “defense” in the book: Deny, Deny, deny, and attack any who say anything other than the Official Party Line. When they’ve been in courts of law, they can’t counter witnesses telling what they saw and experienced, usually settling rather let the suits reach their obvious conclusions: Big losses for the organization, even (or particularly) when scn brought the suit.
They haven’t a legal leg to STAND on, and they know it. All they have is assymetrical warfare which can and did wear big targets down, as they did with the IRS. Their constant harassment works, we’ve seen. They can’t stand up and defend themselves, though. There IS no defense for many, perhaps most, of their deeds which could be prosecuted under common law. I’m half expecting that if Danny Masterson ever gets to a trial, scientology’s actions to protect him will come out and expose a massive chink in their armor. And for what? protecting a minor, washed-up actor’s reputation.
IMO, the minor “win” they’ve had protecting him could end up in big losses if the IRS notices their upcoming convictions for obstructing justice and other enterprise-wide illegalities.
O/T. Amazon TV series “The Boys” introduces the Church of the Collective, a Scientology doppelgänger. (Long post at ESMBR.)
https://exscn2.net/threads/amazon-tv-series-the-boys-introduces-the-church-of-the-collective-a-scientology-doppelg%C3%A4nger.1876/
/
Amazon TV series “The Boys” introduces the Church of the Collective, a Scientology doppelgänger.
ANOTHER reason to skip subscribing to Amazon TV.
Channel 320 (Davey’s vanity project) guarantees I won’t be going back to DirecTV, even though I still have one of their dishes mounted upstairs with cables running through the house.
Actually, the Amazon series “The Boys” is critical of the Church of the Collective, their stand-in for Scientology. The series makes it clear that COTC is a cult. Check out the artcle excerpts at:
https://exscn2.net/threads/amazon-tv-series-the-boys-introduces-the-church-of-the-collective-a-scientology-doppelg%C3%A4nger.1876/
/
The Boys is hilarious! One of the best shows on telly, imho.
mWestn opined:
“The Boys is hilarious! One of the best shows on telly, imho.”
Well, that improves the odds that I’ll bother with Amazon’s channel as I respect your opinion.
What does more good? Canceling DirecTV, or subscribing to DirecTV and not watching the Scientology Channel, thus diminishing their ratings?
Can some expert please answer that question?
I’m just (if it’s possible) MORE disgusted with DirecTV than when I cancelled their service and switched to Fios, even though I knew it’d cost me a bit more.
Shermanspeak should learn from Mt Gibney’s letter how to write.
Precise, congruent, clear and, above all, truthful.
SILVIA specified:
“Shermanspeak should learn from Mt Gibney’s letter how to write.
“Precise, congruent, clear and, above all, truthful.”
ABOUT that last: scientologists lie, must lie, can’t not lie. It’s in the “scripture”.
N.B. When I said, ‘It’s in the “scripture”‘, I meant the double-entendré.
In the scripture
1)Ron specifies not to tell the whole truth, but to give “acceptable truths”, which in practice were never much truthful. In general, those “shore stories” backfired because real people, even “wogs”, can tell they’re being lied to even if they can’y quite spot WHAT the lie is.
2) Also, the “scripture” is itself false, except by accident. IMO, he never intended to deliver on his promises, but to do the opposite: enslave people to him and his will. We couldn’t BELIEVE anyone would lie to our faces like that, the lie was SO big. That’s why we all didn’t figure it out sooner.
Darn, keep missing “Y” or T and hit the other, instead.
Speaking of “truth”: scientology, if. you are so certain that something is FALSE, PROVE IT in a court of law. You’re NO stranger to the courtroom, though lately, you’ve shot yourself in the foot more often than not, particularly when you’ve brought suit.
Is that last WHY you’ve seemingly retreated to the shadows like cockroaches caught out in the light?