Boson Wog Stark
Patron Meritorious
"Gibney is a squatter in an abandoned warehouse. It doesn't take much mind power to guess where the shot of the ants really came from."
Again, dwelling on the six-second shot of ants, which was not used as a metaphor (Scientologists as vermin), like it was portrayed in Scientology's smear video. I don't think all Scientologists are familiar enough with Nazi propaganda films to understand what Scientology was driving at with that. If they did take it that way, they should still want to see the film to see how they are being portrayed.
Ants can get in anywhere, even in luxury homes. But sleeping on the floor and having them in the hole was part of the bad conditions, and that's all.
Filmmakers use images to enhance what is being said. No one in their right mind would think the ants shown were the actual ones in the hole (which Scientology claims never existed) at Gold Base, especially since Miscavige had the hole dismantled before the film was made.
Oddly, I think some of these things would just make a Scientologist curious about what was being said about ants in the film. According to Scientology, there were non-existent ants in a non-existent hole. It's just that Scientologists aren't allowed to talk about the "hole" part.
Scientologists should want to see what is influencing the opinions of so much of the outside public, even if they think it is 100% lies. But they already "know" how bad wogs are. Wogs are just interested in getting everyone on drugs, going to war, and destroying civilization.
The idea that Alex Gibney is a squatter or homeless person who makes documentaries for HBO is also intriguing. If this kind of discussion is meant to stop thinking and make sure Scientologists will not see the film, it's probably less effective than saying nothing. I would think that an Academy Award winning filmmaker who is churning out great documentaries at the rate of Gibney would capture their attention no matter what they thought his living conditions were like.
Besides not mentioning the hole, Scientologists apparently can't use the names of people in the film in discussion, especially Paul Haggis. So they label all ex-Scientologists in the film as people who were "thrown out 20 or 30 years ago." Never mind that the majority of the exes in the film were in more recently, and they were not thrown out, but left on their own.
I would imagine that by these blanket statements, Scientologists think they are creating new and better realities.
Again, dwelling on the six-second shot of ants, which was not used as a metaphor (Scientologists as vermin), like it was portrayed in Scientology's smear video. I don't think all Scientologists are familiar enough with Nazi propaganda films to understand what Scientology was driving at with that. If they did take it that way, they should still want to see the film to see how they are being portrayed.
Ants can get in anywhere, even in luxury homes. But sleeping on the floor and having them in the hole was part of the bad conditions, and that's all.
Filmmakers use images to enhance what is being said. No one in their right mind would think the ants shown were the actual ones in the hole (which Scientology claims never existed) at Gold Base, especially since Miscavige had the hole dismantled before the film was made.
Oddly, I think some of these things would just make a Scientologist curious about what was being said about ants in the film. According to Scientology, there were non-existent ants in a non-existent hole. It's just that Scientologists aren't allowed to talk about the "hole" part.
Scientologists should want to see what is influencing the opinions of so much of the outside public, even if they think it is 100% lies. But they already "know" how bad wogs are. Wogs are just interested in getting everyone on drugs, going to war, and destroying civilization.
The idea that Alex Gibney is a squatter or homeless person who makes documentaries for HBO is also intriguing. If this kind of discussion is meant to stop thinking and make sure Scientologists will not see the film, it's probably less effective than saying nothing. I would think that an Academy Award winning filmmaker who is churning out great documentaries at the rate of Gibney would capture their attention no matter what they thought his living conditions were like.
Besides not mentioning the hole, Scientologists apparently can't use the names of people in the film in discussion, especially Paul Haggis. So they label all ex-Scientologists in the film as people who were "thrown out 20 or 30 years ago." Never mind that the majority of the exes in the film were in more recently, and they were not thrown out, but left on their own.
I would imagine that by these blanket statements, Scientologists think they are creating new and better realities.