ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Oscar snubs Going Clear

Discussion in 'Movies, Plays, and Documentaries about Scientology' started by Churchill, Jan 14, 2016.

  1. Churchill

    Churchill Gold Meritorious Patron

  2. Intentionally Blank

    Intentionally Blank Scientology Widow

    First thing I looked at this morning - even before my email. How can this even happen??

    Canceling my popcorn subscription.
  3. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on



    That was very disappointing. But, perhaps not entirely surprising.

    [RANT WARNING: What follows may not be very brief or very politically correct, LOL]

    Because one has to consider two things: Why would such a magnificent documentary be entirely snubbed in the nomination process--and who is doing the voting.

    QUESTION: Why wouldn't the courageous and brilliant investigative HBO documentary gain recognition and, at least, a nod in the nominations?

    ANSWER: Because it's an HBO documentary--that already won the Emmys. One must remember that there is a severe class system in Hollywood where the "elites of the elites" are the MOVIE actors, not the TV folks. If anyone saw the Golden Globes, you might have noticed the edgy barbs that were thrown at the "noisy tv people" who sit in the rear of the auditorium, behind the movie royalty. They were cautioned to quiet down and behave if they ever wanted to sit up in the sacred front seats. It was a "joke" but not really. That's the mentality.

    Add to that, movie elites often vote for films that identify who THEY are was much as the quality of the project itself. For example, a film that is arguably the most watched and beloved movie in American history, "It's A Wonderful Life", was also snubbed at the Academy Awards, losing in all categories to the more serious "The Best Years of Our Lives"--a motion picture that was far more appealing to Academy voters who viewed themselves (and hence their choice) with far more gravitas than the "light entertainment" of Frank Capra's masterpiece. In other words, the voters were voting for a film but also making a statement about their adulation for their own (perceived) messianic importance to mankind.

    Thus, the thought process may well have been, why waste a perfectly good vote on a "TV MOVIE" (HBO) that the "TV PEOPLE" already gave awards to? Isn't the Oscar untold echelons above a mere mass entertainment "Emmy" winner? Don't movie elites set their own course in the world for all the rest to follow--or are they just mere "followers" of the subterranean castes like "tv people"? This is the kind of thinking wherein a vote becomes something else--a "statement".

    QUESTION: Is there some other reason (aside from self-serving "status" driven motivations) that Hollywood elites would reject a film against Scientology?

    ANSWER: Sure there is. Because the voters are dead-center in the middle of the world's most extreme liberal, politically correct ecosystem in the Western hemisphere--Hollywood! One must consider that merely stating that one is not a Democrat (gasp! a Republican!) is reason enough to be blacklisted in the television and film industry. In the inner-sanctum of Hollywood's politically correct gospel, there is no bad in the world--that cannot be fixed by the policing of bad thoughts and bad words. Examples:

    --Islamic terrorism, for example, is not the problem. The problem is people (gasp! Conservatives!) who use the term "Islamic Terrorism".

    --The problem is not the murderous rampaging black/hispanic gangs that have turned major cities into war zones. The problem is "racist" Republicans who hate minorities and deny them whatever it is that has turned them into sociopathic killers. (Never mind that the ultra-left wing of the Democratic part has ruled those cities for the past 40 years!)

    --The problem is not the undocumented alien/felon in San Francisco that was deported and illegally returned to the US five times. The problem was not that he murdered an innocent young woman (see KATE'S LAW link). The problem is not that the "sanctuary city" of San Francisco refused to turn the felon over to federal authorities, but instead released him back onto the streets where he used his freedom to murder his innocent victim. The problem (according to the politically correct) is that evil racists (conservatives) were targeting helpless aliens and trying to take away their "rights". Thus it is far better to let a criminal out than to let law-abiding demon Republicans commit "genocide" against non-white races (e.g. put someone in jail for breaking the law). ​

    I do understand that I have unceremoniously dragged some "sensitive" political matters into what is a discussion about how Hollywood academy members vote. But that is the entire point-- "Political Correctness", isn't it?

    Let's frame this a different way. Would the nation's most powerful leaders of "Political Correctness" (e.g. Obama, Hillary Clinton, et al) support something that is harmful to their constituency? Sure they would, they do it every day. Would they allow the borders to be open and flood illegals in by the millions that took away jobs from a nation that already has 94 million unemployed people? Yes. Would they try to flood a million undocumented "refugees" from Syria into the US, many of whom have already been detected (too late) are radical Islamic sympathizers or ISIS fanatics? Yes. Would they do nothing about "Sanctuary Cities" that brazenly defy federal immigration laws and free felons back onto the streets of America? Yes.

    Well, what about a "religion" like Scientology? Would they allow it to operate its fraudulent business tax free. Sure they would. Would they allow Scientology's human rights abuses to continue because its not politically correct or fashionable to target oppression unless it is a political foe, like Republicans? Sure they would, all day long. Why else does anyone think that Scientology's "ground zero" is Hollywood and the Hollywood celebrities whose shilling barely keeps the life-support cult alive? It's no coincidence that LA (Hollywood) is the axis upon which all Scientology turns, succeeds or fails.

    What about accepting hundreds of millions of dollars from nations that openly denied women the most basic civil rights? Sure, Hollywood would vote in favor of that all day long. That's exactly what Hillary Clinton did in amassing billions of dollars in the Clinton "foundation"--accept massive "donations" from terror-supporting countries and nations that had despicable histories (past & present) of abusing women. But, would the Hollywood supporters of Hillary Clinton ever once be concerned about their candidate's hypocrisy in accepting hundreds of millions from such despicable abusers--while giving speeches about the sanctity of "Women's Rights"? No, not a voice was raised. In fact it is estimated that more than 90% of Hollywood's entertainment work force votes in lockstep--strictly Democrat.

    So, now these same ultra-liberals are asked to vote for the "BEST DOCUMENTARY".

    Would they vote for a film that blows the whistle on radical islamic terror? No.

    Would they vote for a film that blows the whistle on how "open border compassion" actually overloads the country's welfare budget while taking away even more jobs from ethnic minorities in the US legally? No.

    Would they vote for a film that blows the whistle on pedophile Catholic priests? Sure, because Hollywood liberals hate "white Christian" values.

    Would they vote for a film that blows the whistle on the disgraceful scandal of a government funded program ("Planned Parenthood") illegally harvesting and selling baby body parts for profit? No. Because Hollywood hates any politics that might withhold free abortions and other welfare services to "minorities". Even though the minority communities are devastated by (the violent crimes caused by) children born out of wedlock with neither the parenting nor the finances to support raising them into civilized and responsible members of the society.

    Would they vote for a film that came out against Scientology? No. Hey we are talking about people who are 100% behind Obama giving nuclear weapons and 100 billion dollars to Iran--the world's leading state sponsor of terror.

    Well, that's my rant du jour. I am not happy that the liberal Hollywood elites chose to entirely ignore "GOING CLEAR" in the Oscar race. It was an extraordinary opportunity to tell the world about Scientology's hidden sociopathic and terroristic schemes--but wasted for no other reason than it is not "politically correct" to say bad things about terrorist religious regimes such as Iran, Isis and Scientology.
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2016
  4. prosecco

    prosecco Patron Meritorious

    Great rant!

    Not sure about the political aspect, but agree there is an element of snobbery about it being a HBO film, however my understanding is that it only was shown in a handful of cinemas so that it could qualify to be entered into the Oscars.
  5. ILove2Lurk

    ILove2Lurk Lisbeth Salander

    Loved it much . . . a near perfect rant. :thumbsup:

    But didn't you leave out "white privilege?" :whistling:

    Shoulda snuck that in there. :coolwink:

    Edit: Since we've veered . . .

    View attachment 11981
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2016
  6. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    Thanks and.....

    Dammmmmmm! I really did leave that out, shit, hell, fuck! LOL

    What to do....hmmmmmmmm.


    Does anyone reading this possibly have the link to that ancient issue of ADVANCE! Magazine where the guy explains how easy time travel is? (I've already got the clay).
  7. Jump

    Jump Operating teatime

    Excuse me, that's not clay, it's just a lump of bullshit.

    You're welcome.

    Last edited: Jan 15, 2016
  8. No One

    No One a girl is no one

    That was soooo almost a Haiku also. :coolwink:
  9. Jump

    Jump Operating teatime

    Oh great catch - I'll make a deposit in that thread. :lol:
  10. Jump

    Jump Operating teatime

    Another cross post from the haiku thread...

  11. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

  12. arcxcauseblows

    arcxcauseblows Patron Meritorious

    what did get nominated? drugs, violence, sexy celebrities and a revolt... celebrity, death, drugs drugs, violence murder, genocide revolution civil rights, drama, celebrity

    try talking to people about scientology, they make a few remarks about how disgusting it is and change the subject quickly, it's probably not very interesting unless you experienced it from the inside
  13. Jump

    Jump Operating teatime

    I think hubbad had a policy to make their actions so outrageous that people wouldn't even believe it . This would offer a degree of protection until the planet was cleared. Does anyone have a reference?
  14. oneonewasaracecar

    oneonewasaracecar Gold Meritorious Patron

    HH - Charlie Hebdo called.

    Your unique style of humor appeals to them.
  15. Cat Daddy

    Cat Daddy Silver Meritorious Patron

  16. ForLease

    ForLease Maximus Squirrel

    Folks, I know we're all disappointed, but Going Clear has already been nominated for and won a ton of awards around town, including making the Academy Award short list and being nominated by that oh-so-right-wing body, The Writers Guild.

    There a lot of great docs out there. I know, I've seen them. Some of them are better filmmaking.

    This does not lessen the vast worldwide impact that Going Clear has had. The film has been a spectacular success playing to huge audiences worldwide. In Gibney v. The Church of Scientology, he scored a first round knockout. WE'VE ALREADY WON.

    It's not a vast liberal conspiracy.

    Or they would have called me, obviously :biggrin:


    For Lease
  17. Northern Shewolf

    Northern Shewolf Patron Meritorious

    To arcxcauseblows
    You made very good points here:
    Unless wogs (excuse the use but it does apply) have seen "Prison of Belief" and delve deeper into the matter, it is difficult for them to get the enormity of abuses all the way to murders that this cult is guilty of. It takes effort and time, lots of time as never-ins know so well, to get the enormity of this criminal organization and to understand its evil tactics.
    Most people kindly listen and, as you so correctly say, change the subject....mostly because they think that anyone so foolishly dumb enough to fall for this billion year contract do deserve all they get, wrong as that is it is a reality that we all must work at changing. Media has been a help, but in the end once you know a wrong, it becomes your responsability to propagate the truth.
    Sincerely and with you
  18. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    I have not seen the other documentaries, so if I were to make a string of assumptions it might go like this:

    86% of the Academy were born prior to 1966. That means most of them have probably been aware of Scientology most of their lives to some degree and long ago mentally registered that it was controversial and something to avoid. It is a quirky dated marginal subject that reflects poorly on Hollywood in the documentary especially on the heals of the Bryan Singer revelations and it is too complicated to flesh out in one documentary. Maybe if people understood the greater importance of what it means to establish precedent by allowing an organization like this to operate with government sanction in a free modern society it would have been given more consideration but the history and op on getting the IRS to grant tax exempt status could be an entire documentary in itself.

    I expect the Academy leans Left politically but somehow I doubt the majority of voters ticked off a list of issues to determine if Scientology was left or right. Maybe a few dialed into their position on gay marriage due to Prop 8 but that should mean that they would vote for Going Clear.

    I knew an Academy member who was in the classic Hollywood movie industry. He was white, lived in a very affluent enclave, very intelligent, of advanced years and has long since passed. As I try to imagine how a conversation about this might have gone with him my sense is that ultimately it would come down to the fact that most people make a decision to get involved with Scientology and stay involved even though (arguably) they have the ability to leave. This is not to minimize the crimes, damage, mental manipulation, or that many people are impacted directly or indirectly not of their own choosing, but the subject can be interpreted as being about saving a person from themselves. If you are going to become emotionally invested in a cause over abuse and injustice there are other causes that are much easier for the average person to relate to.

    Going Clear has already been a game changer even if it served as a superbly created Introductory Primer. My big concern was that in the US and other 1st world countries people were becoming inoculated to Scientology but it might still be able to operate and expand UTR in poorer countries where people mostly knew about it through the celebrity tabloid angle. I think Going Clear made huge progress towards that problem.

    Oscar voters are nearly 94% Caucasian and 77% male, The Times found. Blacks are about 2% of the academy, and Latinos are less than 2%. Oscar voters have a median age of 62, the study showed. People younger than 50 constitute just 14% of the membership.
  19. Northern Shewolf

    Northern Shewolf Patron Meritorious

    How well put! Indeed it takes a person already sensitized or educated on the subject of religions and cults in order to want to know more...and even then....personally read Russell Miller in 1986 and at that it took me a lot of time to connect the dots of information and get over my revulsion....
    Pre-internet, you really had to dig, as a specialized bookseller and because of my life-long study of systems of thoughts (religions, philosophies, cults, etc...) I ended up making choices as to W5s. So by 1995, I decided to limit myself to American-made religions and cults, hence my presence herein.
    I am an unusual sort by most yardsticks, will always go further than most to get full pictures, hate vagueness, inuendos, tomfoolery and sanctified secrecy, most folks do not take the long view if you get my drift, it is too demanding, too easy to just let go once you are past the generalities. That is where it is for the majority out there.
    What you say about Hollywood grandees et al. is on the money!
    None of these folks want to really acknowledge the murky deals made everyday in this business, deals that involve nurturing, socializing with and cultivating all sorts of deviance or moral and ethically disturbed behaviours in their environment....too threatening to business at large,non?.... So, it is a sweep as soon as can under the carpets of where sits what powers that there are....
    Money has no smell, so long as it flows in the right direction...... it is always good to remember this.
    Thank you for using your thinking cap :goodposting:
    The one and only Northern Shewolf :yes:
  20. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    I appreciate your filling me in a little on your background. I actually had become curious about what it might be like for you as a never-in to spend so much time on ESMB but from what you are saying my impression is that you are in a rather unique niche, more akin to researcher.

    Pre-internet there was a lot of critical information available on Scientology for someone who made a special effort to find it but certainly by the time I got in circa the 70s LRH had an effective system in place to shut that down from the git go. The concept of VD (Verbal Data) was another critical component. Giving someone verbal data was tantamount to a crime because by trying to interpret LRH you were inserting yourself as Source and potentially damaging a person’s chance for spiritual freedom for eternity. So every Scientologist not only cannot freely discuss the subject but must refer a newbie directly to LRH references and if they don’t it might pop up the next time they are on an e-meter. It is an instant closed loop.

    This is one of the reasons they must rely upon quoting “wins” so much in their promo. Members can say how they benefited but not what it is.

    Now it puts them at a serious disadvantage. They can't come out and explain LRH and Scientology to the Academy or anybody else in a way that they can understand it. Not only is it just too weird, convoluted and indefensible but they basically have to say - its great, we are right, they are baddies and you must buy a book or take a course.