"Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" by Lawrence Wright

Anonymous · Mar 31, 2013

Jesse Prince on Lawrence Wright's book:
http://princejesse53.blogspot.com/2013/03/lawrence-wrights-new-book.html

DeathHamster · Apr 5, 2013

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/25/scientology-story/?pagination=false

The New York Review of Books
Scientology: The Story April 25, 2013 Diane Johnson

Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief View attachment ir?t=thneyoreofbo-20&l=as2&o=1&a=03077
by Lawrence Wright
Knopf, 430 pp., $28.95

Beyond Belief: My Secret Life Inside Scientology and My Harrowing Escape View attachment ir?t=thneyoreofbo-20&l=as2&o=1&a=00622
by Jenna Miscavige Hill, with Lisa Pulitzer
William Morrow, 404 pp., $27.99

Quite long, with an almost good list of other works at the end:
* Memoirs by people who have left Scientology make fascinating reading. See, for example, Mark Rathbun, The Scientology Reformation: What Every Scientologist Should Know (CreateSpace, 2012); Mark Rathbun, What Is Wrong With Scientology?: Healing Through Understanding (CreateSpace, 2012); Amy Scobee, Scientology—Abuse at the Top (Scobee, 2010); Nancy Many, My Billion Year Contract: Memoir of a Former Scientologist ( CNM, 2009); Mark Headley, Blown for Good: Behind the Iron Curtain of Scientology ( BFG, 2009); and Kate Bornstein, A Queer and Pleasant Danger (Beacon, 2012).

DeathHamster · Apr 7, 2013

http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/books/article/Exploring-the-Prison-of-Belief-4410207.php

Exploring 'the Prison of Belief'

By Steve Bennett, Staff writer
Updated 12:45 pm, Friday, April 5, 2013

[..]
It's an understatement to say that the church, notoriously litigious, was not pleased with Wright's work.

“There were some things I really didn't anticipate,” he said, “and one was the tremendous amount of fear that people in Scientology and recently out of it had in terms of talking about the church and their beliefs. The church had secured non-disclosure agreements among many top officials in the church. Foreclosing interviews could be really difficult. It was a clear attempt to block the flow of information.”

The church actively tried to discredit Wright and his work, setting up a website to attack him and getting its lawyers involved through making statements rebutting just about everything about the book.

“I had to deal with some pretty absurd statements that the church made about my work,” Wright said.
[..]

The Wrong Guy · Apr 13, 2013

Understanding Scientology - Reason.com

A new book examines the controversial church

By Hugh Urban | April 13, 2013

The last several years have been rough ones for the Church of Scientology. Since 2008, a number of high-ranking defectors have come forward and condemned the church’s current leadership, followed by a long list of books by ex-members that detail a shocking array of abuses within the church. Withering exposés of Scientology have appeared in The St. Petersburg Times and on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, while the faith’s innermost secrets were mercilessly ridiculed in a 2008 episode of South Park. Most recently, the church has been the focus of three major books: my own academic work, The Church of Scientology, and two journalistic accounts: Janet Reitman’s Inside Scientology and Lawrence Wright’s Going Clear.

Of these last two, Wright’s book is arguably the more balanced, thoughtful, and empathetic, offering not an “exposé” but rather an attempt to understand the effects of religious beliefs in people’s lives, exploring the allure, the benefits, and the perils of involvement in this complex new religion. Indeed, at certain points, Wright bends so far over backward to be fair to the church that he risks undermining the credibility of his own narrative.

Continued at http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/13/understanding-scientology

Anonymous · Apr 13, 2013

Hugh Urban said: ↑

...
But it is less clear that he has applied the same critical analysis to the accounts of ex-members, who surely also have agendas, axes to grind, and simply their own subjective views of events.
...

Yes, Hugh Urban did just use Scientology's favourite term.

Hugh Urban said: ↑

...
What is it like to grow up as a child in the Sea Org, which Wright himself tells us is the true inner core of the church?
These and many others aspects of this complex movement remain to be explored and understood. We can only hope that another writer as thoughtful, even-handed, and eloquent as Wright takes up these other chapters in the long, strange story of Scientology.

Umm.. did he just set up the perfect segue to Jenna Miscavige Hill's "Beyond Belief" then pretend it doesn't exist, or does he actually not know about her book?

Anonymous · Apr 13, 2013

Anonymous said: ↑

Yes, Hugh Urban did just use Scientology's favourite term.

Umm.. did he just set up the perfect segue to Jenna Miscavige Hill's "Beyond Belief" then pretend it doesn't exist, or does he actually not know about her book?

that would be just a big axe

Anonymous · Apr 13, 2013

Anonymous said: ↑

that would be just a big axe

He can't have it both ways. If he wants to know "What is it like to grow up as a child in the Sea Org" and active members are forbidden from discussing anything but their mandatory "wins" in the Church, he's limited to either former members or nothing.

Incredulicide · Apr 14, 2013

Anonymous said: ↑

Yes, Hugh Urban did just use Scientology's favourite term.

Umm.. did he just set up the perfect segue to Jenna Miscavige Hill's "Beyond Belief" then pretend it doesn't exist, or does he actually not know about her book?

Yep, and Tony Ortega also picked up on it:
"Our jaw literally dropped open as we read those words. Could Urban seriously be ignorant of the fact that not three weeks after Wright’s book came out, another major book about Scientology was published by William Morrow, the memoir of Jenna Miscavige Hill, who did, indeed, grow up as a child in the Sea Org? And that other books, perhaps not with major publishers, have addressed the other things Urban says have gone unwritten? Vance Woodward, for example, who spent 22 years in Scientology without “going Clear” or learning the Xenu story, and who wrote a rollicking, hilarious, and very personal account of what it’s like to be a nobody in Scientology’s byzantine bureaucracy?
We find it stunning that Urban, who proclaims to be an expert — indeed, he pimped his own title as a “major book” in the review’s first paragraph — can be so ignorant of what’s going on in Scientology publishing.
Maybe he ought to pay a little more attention to a certain blog and keep better informed. Just a thought."

Anonymous · Apr 24, 2013

Kirkus reviews has Going Clear at the top of this list:

10 Strange (but Undeniably True) Tales
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/lists...m=email&utm_content=title&utm_campaign=042413

Notably, Jon Ronson's "Psychopath Test", which contains refs to slimontology, is also on the list.

Karin Pouw · May 4, 2013

To the Editors:
Diane Johnson’s sophomoric line claiming that you can spot a Scientologist by their “glazed look” tells you everything you need to know about her bias and prejudice toward the global religious movement and why she was the wrong person to objectively review Lawrence Wright’s book [“Scientology: The Story,”NYR, April 25]. This does a great disservice to readers of The New York Review of Books.
Among Ms. Johnson’s misstatements:

• Like Mr. Wright, Ms. Johnson regurgitates the false allegation that L. Ron Hubbard once said that “he’d like to start a religion because that’s where the money is.” This myth was exposed years ago via several court judgments in two countries that established that Mr. Hubbard never made such a statement.
• Ms. Johnson seeks to perpetuate the myth that lawsuits “are Scientology’s principal weapons against its outside critics.” Yet she can cite no example more recent that 1971, and for good reason. In fact, the Church has not filed suit against a media organization in more than two decades. While we reserve the right to sue over defamation and the spreading of egregious falsehoods, the public record is clear: we go to great lengths to avoid litigation.
• She extols Lawrence Wright’s fact checkers, but omits completely that the Church has documented dozens of factual inaccuracies and undermined the credibility of key sources for his book. These inaccuracies include everything from citing an interview with a source with whom Wright never corresponded or met to claiming that the Church owns banks and schools in Clearwater, Florida, which a simple check of public records shows is false. He even botched the year a prominent celebrity Scientologist was married even though the wedding was covered by scores of media worldwide. Add to that tales Mr. Wright printed from news clippings without mentioning they were later recanted, along with allegations he prints from court cases that conveniently neglect to mention they were tossed out as baseless during judicial proceedings. In one case, Wright attributes a bizarre, unsubstantiated tale about a phantom crime even though police and court records show no such crime ever took place. Mr. Wright’s source: a man who once publicly claimed that his daughter and father had committed suicide with the Reverend Jim Jones in 1978, but later admitted he made it all up.
• Her sweeping pronouncement that “Scientology is a moneymaking outfit” flies in the face of six decades of reasoned conclusions to the contrary reached by judges, government administrative bodies, and religious experts worldwide.
• Ms. Johnson refers to Lawrence Wright relying on the work of Dr. Robert J. Lifton to condemn Scientology. Something Ms. Johnson and Mr. Wright failed to note is that in 1987 Dr. Lifton himself sharply criticized any use of his theories of coercive persuasion when applied to participation in new religious movements.
• The review happily embraces a small collection of former Scientologists and self-promoters behind an orchestrated media campaign. In an attempt to sell self-published books, they invent new, increasingly bizarre tales while “corroborating” each other. Yet they can’t find outside sources, police reports, public records, or any other objective, third-party means to verify their allegations.
We believe your readers should be able to judge for themselves whether Mr. Wright did his homework, or whether he merely compiled a laundry list of exaggerated claims and allegations made to newspaper and TV reporters by disgruntled ex-members. Publishers in the United Kingdom and Canada chose not to publish the book, which we believe speaks to quality of the facts, allegations, and sources Mr. Wright used. And while we are aware libel laws are stricter in those countries, if a book and its sources tell the truth there should be no cause for concern by a publisher….
Karin Pouw
Public Affairs Director
Church of Scientology International
Los Angeles, California

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/may/23/scientology-story/

Anonymous · May 4, 2013

"In fact, the Church has not filed suit against a media organization in more than two decades."

That's referring to the case against Time magazine, which Scientology lost.

Anonymous · May 4, 2013

Karin Pouw said: ↑

To the Editors:
Diane Johnson’s sophomoric line claiming that you can spot a Scientologist by their “glazed look” tells you everything you need to know about her bias and prejudice toward the global religious movement and why she was the wrong person to objectively review Lawrence Wright’s book [“Scientology: The Story,”NYR, April 25]. This does a great disservice to readers of The New York Review of Books.
Among Ms. Johnson’s misstatements:
• Like Mr. Wright, Ms. Johnson regurgitates the false allegation that L. Ron Hubbard once said that “he’d like to start a religion because that’s where the money is.” This myth was exposed years ago via several court judgments in two countries that established that Mr. Hubbard never made such a statement.
• Ms. Johnson seeks to perpetuate the myth that lawsuits “are Scientology’s principal weapons against its outside critics.” Yet she can cite no example more recent that 1971, and for good reason. In fact, the Church has not filed suit against a media organization in more than two decades. While we reserve the right to sue over defamation and the spreading of egregious falsehoods, the public record is clear: we go to great lengths to avoid litigation.
• She extols Lawrence Wright’s fact checkers, but omits completely that the Church has documented dozens of factual inaccuracies and undermined the credibility of key sources for his book. These inaccuracies include everything from citing an interview with a source with whom Wright never corresponded or met to claiming that the Church owns banks and schools in Clearwater, Florida, which a simple check of public records shows is false. He even botched the year a prominent celebrity Scientologist was married even though the wedding was covered by scores of media worldwide. Add to that tales Mr. Wright printed from news clippings without mentioning they were later recanted, along with allegations he prints from court cases that conveniently neglect to mention they were tossed out as baseless during judicial proceedings. In one case, Wright attributes a bizarre, unsubstantiated tale about a phantom crime even though police and court records show no such crime ever took place. Mr. Wright’s source: a man who once publicly claimed that his daughter and father had committed suicide with the Reverend Jim Jones in 1978, but later admitted he made it all up.
• Her sweeping pronouncement that “Scientology is a moneymaking outfit” flies in the face of six decades of reasoned conclusions to the contrary reached by judges, government administrative bodies, and religious experts worldwide.
• Ms. Johnson refers to Lawrence Wright relying on the work of Dr. Robert J. Lifton to condemn Scientology. Something Ms. Johnson and Mr. Wright failed to note is that in 1987 Dr. Lifton himself sharply criticized any use of his theories of coercive persuasion when applied to participation in new religious movements.
• The review happily embraces a small collection of former Scientologists and self-promoters behind an orchestrated media campaign. In an attempt to sell self-published books, they invent new, increasingly bizarre tales while “corroborating” each other. Yet they can’t find outside sources, police reports, public records, or any other objective, third-party means to verify their allegations.
We believe your readers should be able to judge for themselves whether Mr. Wright did his homework, or whether he merely compiled a laundry list of exaggerated claims and allegations made to newspaper and TV reporters by disgruntled ex-members. Publishers in the United Kingdom and Canada chose not to publish the book, which we believe speaks to quality of the facts, allegations, and sources Mr. Wright used. And while we are aware libel laws are stricter in those countries, if a book and its sources tell the truth there should be no cause for concern by a publisher….

Karin Pouw
Public Affairs Director
Church of Scientology International
Los Angeles, California

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/may/23/scientology-story

Mike Rinder's take-down:

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientology-sockpuppet-speaks-sort-of/

Scientology Sockpuppet Speaks (Sort Of….)

May 4, 2013 By Mike Rinder 23 Comments

Corporate Scientology has mastered the art of speaking out of both side of its mouth and keeping a straight face at the same time.

See Tony Ortega’s article about the Laura DeCrescenzo case this morning. While pleading that the CHURCH is being “discriminated” against (they have also mastered the art of playing victims — everyone including the courts, psychiatrists, governments, SPs, media, the internet, drug companies, cyberterrorists, anyone who dies in their care and the martians are out to “get” them) and how turning over Laura’s pc folders will prejudice “other religions,” they don’t mention that they hang onto these folders so they can comb through them to use against “critics”, or that they have admitted that more than 200 people have had access to her pc folders (and that doesnt include those they have NOT admitted to, including the fact that sessions are video’d). Nor do they mention the simple fact that she isnt asking for someone else’s folders or “privileged” information. She is asking only for her own files — THEIR record of HER statements. The church is NOT protecting her from the disclosure of her confessionals to a hostile source, they are ONLY seeking to protect themselves by hiding their records of what she said because they will SUPPORT her claims. Such amazing hypocrisy under the guise of sanctimonious “religious beliefs.” The only religious belief at issue here is the belief that they must protect themselves from the outside world at all costs….

But then here comes another doozie. This time from nominal “spokesperson” Karin Pouw STILL responding to Larry Wright’s book. Karin has not actually SPOKEN in a few years now. She is simply the name affixed to victim letters sent out by the church to the media. She does not write the letters.

His/her/their latest contains much to laugh at, but one particular paragraph is especially noteworthy (you can find the complete text of the letter at the end of this post, so as not to be accused of “quoting out of context” — another of their favorite victim phrases, to be covered in an upcoming post…):

• Ms. Johnson seeks to perpetuate the myth that lawsuits “are Scientology’s principal weapons against its outside critics.” Yet she can cite no example more recent that 1971, and for good reason. In fact, the Church has not filed suit against a media organization in more than two decades. While we reserve the right to sue over defamation and the spreading of egregious falsehoods, the public record is clear: we go to great lengths to avoid litigation.

Wow, someone’s nose grew a few inches when they wrote this — Dave/Dan.

Of course, Ms. Johnson left herself open to the parsing of sentences and distinctions without substance that is the primary tool of Miscavige in “attacking the attacker.” Had she said “Threatened lawsuits are Scientology’s principal weapons…” Miscavige/Sherman/Pouw would have had nothing to protest. Any member of the media that has attempted to report on Scientology has been the subject of numerous letters from lawyers and threats of litigation — this is well documented with copies of the letters published or read out on air on numerous occasions. So, it IS true that the church does NOT sue the media these days. They cannot afford to as Miscavige is terrified of having to take the stand to testify.

But there is an even bigger lie in this little paragraph.

Somehow they managed to pick out that Ms. Johnson “can cite no example more recent that (sic)1971…”

Funny about that. The church sued Time Magazine and Reader’s Digest following the Time article in 1991 and of all people, David Miscavige knows this. He directed every aspect of that case. They also sued Richard Leiby and the Washington Post in 1995. But maybe it’s a typo, as she does go on to say that they haven’t sued the media in more than two decades. Yeah, probably a typo. But the church has ridden Wright into the ground about the typo in his book giving the wrong year for Tom Cruise’s wedding — as if it is absolute proof that everything about his book is flawed and inaccurate as “he can’t even get that simple date right….”

OK, it’s hard to type when you have socks on your hands….

But the HUGE lie that cannot be written off as a typo is that they are responding to the quoted statement from Larry Wright’s book that lawsuits are the principal weapon used against “outside critics.”

Apparently in the bubble in which Miscavige/Sherman/Pouw reside, the word “outside” excludes Debbie Cook. She was an “inside” critic? Because the church DID sue her and her husband in 2012. At the very time Larry Wright was writing his book. And she was certainly a critic…

The church always claims that any criticism of their abusive practices are “fabrications and lies.” They do it again here in another of the very stale “bitter defrocked apostates banding together to run a campaign to sell their self-published books” lines, ending with the brazen statement: “Yet they can’t find outside sources, police reports, public records, or any other objective, third-party means to verify their allegations.” I call bullshit on that too.

Again, how are they defining “outside sources?” There are a lot of “outside sources” who have verified the existence of the Hole, physical and mental abuse, beatings by Miscavige. They discount them all because they are former “inside” outside sources… Or they have written a “self-published” book… Or they “banded together”… Or something.

And there are certainly public records. They forget the Debbie Cook court case again? Or the Headley case (well, that doesnt count because they didnt prevail on the legal issues, but that didnt invalidate the sworn testimony, cited by the Appeals Court). Or the declarations filed in the Luis Garcia case two weeks ago, or the Garcia case itself? Plenty of public records…

Unfortunately, the FBI doesnt make their investigative files available, so they can pretend no reports exist there. But there are plenty of law enforcement and government agency reports available outside the US. And I have half a dozen police reports of harassment by PI’s in the US, as do Marty Rathbun and Karen DelaCarriere. But they don’t count either apparently. The sockpuppet is expert at one thing — asserting things as though “everyone knows” they are true when they are in fact bald-faced lies.
Seems to me Corporate Scientology simply accuses everyone else of doing what THEY do so facilely: Lying, while assuming the mantle of victims and oppression.

Anonymous · May 4, 2013

"Seems to me Corporate Scientology simply accuses everyone else of doing what THEY do so facilely: Lying, while assuming the mantle of victims and oppression."
There's no seems about it Mike, you know they do it because you did it while you were in.

Finnahnonymoush · May 5, 2013

Karin Pouw

To the Editors:
Diane Johnson’s sophomoric line claiming that you can spot a Scientologist by their “glazed look” tells you everything you need to know about her bias and prejudice toward the global religious movement and why she was the wrong person to objectively review Lawrence Wright’s book [“Scientology: The Story,”NYR, April 25]. This does a great disservice to readers of The New York Review of Books.
Among Ms. Johnson’s misstatements:
• Like Mr. Wright, Ms. Johnson regurgitates the false allegation that L. Ron Hubbard once said that “he’d like to start a religion because that’s where the money is.” This myth was exposed years ago via several court judgments in two countries that established that Mr. Hubbard never made such a statement.
• Ms. Johnson seeks to perpetuate the myth that lawsuits “are Scientology’s principal weapons against its outside critics.” Yet she can cite no example more recent that 1971, and for good reason. In fact, the Church has not filed suit against a media organization in more than two decades. While we reserve the right to sue over defamation and the spreading of egregious falsehoods, the public record is clear: we go to great lengths to avoid litigation.
• She extols Lawrence Wright’s fact checkers, but omits completely that the Church has documented dozens of factual inaccuracies and undermined the credibility of key sources for his book. These inaccuracies include everything from citing an interview with a source with whom Wright never corresponded or met to claiming that the Church owns banks and schools in Clearwater, Florida, which a simple check of public records shows is false. He even botched the year a prominent celebrity Scientologist was married even though the wedding was covered by scores of media worldwide. Add to that tales Mr. Wright printed from news clippings without mentioning they were later recanted, along with allegations he prints from court cases that conveniently neglect to mention they were tossed out as baseless during judicial proceedings. In one case, Wright attributes a bizarre, unsubstantiated tale about a phantom crime even though police and court records show no such crime ever took place. Mr. Wright’s source: a man who once publicly claimed that his daughter and father had committed suicide with the Reverend Jim Jones in 1978, but later admitted he made it all up.
• Her sweeping pronouncement that “Scientology is a moneymaking outfit” flies in the face of six decades of reasoned conclusions to the contrary reached by judges, government administrative bodies, and religious experts worldwide.
• Ms. Johnson refers to Lawrence Wright relying on the work of Dr. Robert J. Lifton to condemn Scientology. Something Ms. Johnson and Mr. Wright failed to note is that in 1987 Dr. Lifton himself sharply criticized any use of his theories of coercive persuasion when applied to participation in new religious movements.
• The review happily embraces a small collection of former Scientologists and self-promoters behind an orchestrated media campaign. In an attempt to sell self-published books, they invent new, increasingly bizarre tales while “corroborating” each other. Yet they can’t find outside sources, police reports, public records, or any other objective, third-party means to verify their allegations.
We believe your readers should be able to judge for themselves whether Mr. Wright did his homework, or whether he merely compiled a laundry list of exaggerated claims and allegations made to newspaper and TV reporters by disgruntled ex-members. Publishers in the United Kingdom and Canada chose not to publish the book, which we believe speaks to quality of the facts, allegations, and sources Mr. Wright used. And while we are aware libel laws are stricter in those countries, if a book and its sources tell the truth there should be no cause for concern by a publisher….

Karin Pouw
Public Affairs Director
Church of Scientology International
Los Angeles, California

My reaction: Ha, Ha what a skank!,indeed it is readers that decide what to think not what the cult dictates

has the phrase "writing a penny for a word, when a man wants to make a million dollar he starts a religion" went to court, EVER is is Pouw lying her face off as usual Davis at least tried to back up his accusations Pouw here seem to be pulling these "facts" from her ass

Anonymous · May 5, 2013

Finnahnonymoush said: ↑

Pouw here seem to be pulling these "facts" from her ass

They slap her name on these, but she doesn't write them.

Finnahnonymoush · May 5, 2013

Anonymous said: ↑

They slap her name on these, but she doesn't write them.

she doesn't have the balls confront & shatter suppression does she, I miss davis already at least he had the balls humilatiate himself on national mediums, why is this did they finally learn from the flops of Heber, Mike and finally davis that it is not generally a good idea to send a cult spacegoat to be utterly butchered by investigate press or somone who actually reads all of the related books, articles etc; someone who know what they are talking about?

I don't get the cults course of action in these PR shenanigans. can somone enlighten my WHY they don't handle these matters directly anymore, they instead use stantard copy-and-paste tech when harassing magazine editors or anyone that mattered have the gone that lazy?

just how short sighted are these cult representatives are? they just don't give about people respond them with it seems

The Wrong Guy · May 10, 2013

Evening With Lawrence Wright on Scientology

Published by TheLBJLibrary on May 10, 2013

Based on more than two-hundred interviews with current and former Scientologists and years of archival research, Lawrence Wright discussed his book Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief, which offers an exhaustive account of the church, from its founding by L. Ron Hubbard to its present-day leadership.

In a conversation with Library Director Mark Updegrove, Wright explained why celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta are drawn to Scientology and discussed the future of Scientology.

Wright is a playwright, screenwriter, and staff writer for The New Yorker. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 2007 for his book The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.

Co-sponsored by the Texas Book Festival.

Anonymous · May 10, 2013

It was unfortunate that an audience question that took up almost all his time answering was entirely unrelated to this book.

wolfbane · May 15, 2013

Has anybody else noticed there is something extremely weird about the dust jacket for Going Clear?

It seems to be a magnet for dust, grime, funky smudges and greasy fingerprints. It also grows to feel quite icky with time, kind of like Scientology itself. So I can't help but wonder if that's why the dust jacket feels so weird - a subtle YHBT message? Or just plains sucks. Hard to decide.

Anonymous · May 24, 2013

Lawrence Wright: How I Write
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/22/lawrence-wright-how-i-write.html

Long read profile is long, but quite good. These two bits particularly good...

Now, after Going Clear has come out, has your opinion of Scientology changed?
I have certainly been touched by the damage that organization has inflicted on so many families by its policy of disconnection; and I’m also very disturbed by the exploitation of children who are recruited into the church’s clergy at alarmingly young ages, forced to surrender their education and work round the clock for negligible wages.
What is the status of Going Clear in Canada and the U.K.?
In Canada, it’s up to Knopf to decide whether to distribute, and I hope they will soon. My U.K. publisher dropped the book after receiving a legal threat from the church through a famous libel-law firm in London. Since then, Parliament has revised Britain’s awful libel laws. I went to London and spoke to members of the House of Lords while they were considering the new legislation. I’m hopeful that, with the public-interest section of the new defamation bill, that Going Clear will soon have a U.K. edition.

The Wrong Guy · May 30, 2013

Religion or cult? Inside the Church of Scientology

By Diane Johnson, May 31, 2013

Excerpt:

Scientology is a neat reflection of the worst aspects of American culture with its repulsive veneration of celebrity; its weird attitudes towards women, sex, healthcare and contraception; its promise of equality among its followers but actual crushing inequality…. It is, in its own dark way, the inevitable religion to emerge from 20th-century America.

http://cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=36068

DeathHamster · May 31, 2013

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/scientology-and-prison-belief-0

May 31, 2013 | Culture | Rebroadcast

Scientology and the Prison of Belief

By Doug Fabrizio
Tuesday, Doug is joined by Pulitzer prize-winning author Lawrence Wright whose latest book investigates the Church of Scientology. Wright says that he's fascinated by why people would be drawn to what he's called "the most stigmatized religion in America." Over the course of three years, Wright sat down with more than 200 current and former members to get at that question. The result is an exhaustive look at the history and the inner workings of Scientology. His book is called Going Clear. (Rebroadcast)

Lawrence Wright is an author, screenwriter, playwright, and a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine. His books include "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" [ Amazon / Indiebound ] and "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" [ Amazon / Indiebound ], which earned him the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction.

The Wrong Guy · May 31, 2013

Back on January 18th I posted this video in the sixth page of this thread [ https://whyweprotest.net/community/...by-lawrence-wright.106469/page-6#post-2260662 ] and decided to share it again.

Scientology: Going Clear exposes more of the cult's and Tom Cruise's secrets

Scientology exposed: In Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief, Pulitzer prize-winning Lawrence Wright takes aim at Scientology, Tom Cruise and David Miscavige in his exhaustively investigated book on the cult from its founding by L. Ron Hubbard to the present day.

Fluffie · Jun 12, 2013

Would anyone know why a handful of Scientology books are no longer available on Kindle? I went to download Lawrence Wright's book and it's not available on Kindle in the UK or US. The same for Janet Reitman's, which I bought a while back on Kindle. I can't find Addicted to Scientology either, by Vance Ashley Woodward, and his website doesn't seem to be live. Have they been pulled as a result of pressure or are they unavailable for more innocent reasons? I don't get why Wright's and Reitman's are available in hard copy but not on Kindle.

wolfbane · Jun 12, 2013

Fluffie said: ↑

Would anyone know why a handful of Scientology books are no longer available on Kindle? I went to download Lawrence Wright's book and it's not available on Kindle in the UK or US. The same for Janet Reitman's, which I bought a while back on Kindle. I can't find Addicted to Scientology either, by Vance Ashley Woodward, and his website doesn't seem to be live. Have they been pulled as a result of pressure or are they unavailable for more innocent reasons? I don't get why Wright's and Reitman's are available in hard copy but not on Kindle.

Woodward voluntarily pulled his book.

Wright's book is showing as available for download on Kindle for me:
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Clear-Scientology-Hollywood-ebook/dp/B00A9ET54E/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin

So is Reitman's:
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Scientology-Americas-Secretive-ebook/dp/B004X7TLU6/ref=pd_sim_kstore_7

Fluffie · Jun 13, 2013

Thanks very much for the links and clarifying availability. Interesting that they're not showing up for me as Kindle options. I'm in the UK and have used a (cough, cough) fake US address in the past to download ebooks from Amazon.com that aren't available in the UK, but they might have tightened up their systems.

Th0R · Jul 25, 2013

I just happened to stumble on this. (sorry, don't know which thread to pop this into. ;-)

--> Slate has a book club and they did a review of Lawrence Wright's book that can be heard on audio.......
http://www.slate.com/articles/podca...ntology_discussion_podcast_and_book_club.html

The Audio Book Club on Going Clear

Our critics take on Lawrence Wright’s epic investigation into Scientology and Hollywood.

TrevAnon · Jul 25, 2013

Lrn2search

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...e-prison-of-belief-by-lawrence-wright.106469/

I'll self report this so a mod can move the posts.

The Wrong Guy · Jul 31, 2013

Opium eaters: Book review of ‘Going Clear’ by Lawrence Wright

By Lisa Westerfield

A quote attributed to P. T. Barnum is, “There is a sucker born every minute.” Although it is only my opinion, L. Ron Hubbard took advantage of extremists and suckers who wanted to expand their understanding of the world around them. Nothing about Going Clear is shocking in and of itself except for the idea that Scientology tends to go to extremes in trying to protect its reputation which ultimately is the reason why many people stay clear of it. Overall, Scientology is the pyramid scheme of tax-exempt faiths.

Continued at www.examiner.com/article/opium-eaters-book-review-of-going-clear-by-lawrence-wright

The Wrong Guy · Sep 6, 2013

SPIEGEL Interview with Lawrence Wright on His New Scientology Book | SPIEGEL ONLINE

'It Is Like a Drug Trip': Author Explains Allure of Scientology

In an interview, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Lawrence Wright discusses his new book on Scientology, the organization's ability to manipulate people, how some followers voluntarily spend years in penal compounds and his fascination with L. Ron Hubbard.

www.spiegel.de/international/europe/spiegel-interview-with-lawrence-wright-on-his-new-scientology-book-a-920634.html

DeathHamster · Sep 6, 2013

Wright: He is one of the most interesting people I have ever written about, a fascinating figure, full of contradictions. He is listed in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the number of books he has published -- more than a thousand! He created a church that has endured for more than half a century. If he had only been a con man, he would eventually have taken the money and run. He spent a good deal of his life in a room with an E-meter trying to understand what was happening inside him.

Barf! Guinness really needs to get their nose out of Scientology's butt and turn loose their fact-checkers on Scientology's claims. Hubbard never wrote 1000+ books, unless they're counting every HCOB as a book. Odds are that CoS has massively padded out the number with fluff and multiple editions of the same books (with and without semicolons).

Anonymous · Sep 6, 2013

DeathHamster said: ↑

Odds are that CoS has massively padded out the number with fluff and multiple editions of the same books (with and without semicolons).

They're probably also counting all the translations of each book too.

DeathHamster · Sep 6, 2013

Anonymous said: ↑

They're probably also counting all the translations of each book too.

Including the "translations" that could have been done better by running them through Babelfish.

Besides, it's mostly vanity press anyway. Isaac Asimov definitely beats Hubbard in real publications.

Anonymous · Sep 18, 2013

Nonfiction Long-List Announced for Book Awards

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/09/18/nonfiction-long-list-announced-for-book-awards/

A pair of best-selling works by staff writers for The New Yorker, Lawrence Wright’s “Going Clear” and George Packer’s “The Unwinding,” were among 10 books chosen for the nonfiction long-list of the National Book Awards.

Nancy Beazley · Sep 18, 2013

Very excellent news that Wright's book nominated for National Book Awards.

Anonymous · Sep 19, 2013

Scientology to slavery: Nonfiction long-list for book awards
Best-sellers "Going Clear" and "The Unwinding" made the cut for the long-list of finalists in nonfiction for the National Book…

NEW YORK — A pair of best-selling works by staff writers for The New Yorker, Lawrence Wright's "Going Clear" and George Packer's "The Unwinding," were among 10 books chosen for the nonfiction long-list of the National Book Awards.
Besides Wright's investigation of Scientology and Packer's

Anonymous · Sep 19, 2013

http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/scientology-to-slavery-nonfiction-long-list-for-book-awards?stay=1

Anonymous · Sep 20, 2013

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/71258

Summary: Lawrence Wright reports on the Church of Scientology. He interviewed over two hundred former and current Scientologists. He also examined the inner workings of the Church. He also profiles its founder, the late science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard.

Anonymous · Oct 16, 2013

Yeah Larry!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/business/media/finalists-for-national-book-awards-announced.html

Finalists for National Book Awards Announced

By JULIE BOSMAN

Published: October 16, 2013

The finalists for the National Book Awards were announced on Wednesday, one month before the winners will be named at a ceremony in Manhattan.
In fiction, the finalists are Rachel Kushner for “The Flamethrowers” (Scribner); Jhumpa Lahiri for “The Lowland” (Knopf); James McBride for “The Good Lord Bird” (Riverhead); Thomas Pynchon for “Bleeding Edge” (Penguin Press); and George Saunders for “Tenth of December” (Random House).
The nonfiction finalists are Jill Lepore for “Book of Ages” (Knopf); Wendy Lower for “Hitler’s Furies” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt); George Packer for “The Unwinding” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux); Alan Taylor for “The Internal Enemy” (Norton); and Lawrence Wright for “Going Clear” (Knopf).

Quentinanon · Oct 16, 2013

Lawrence Wright has an accurate understanding of the scientology organisation and expresses that eloquently in his book, Going Clear.
My favourite book on the cult.

Log in or Sign up

"Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" by Lawrence Wright

Anonymous Member

DeathHamster Member

DeathHamster Member

The Wrong Guy Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Incredulicide Member

Anonymous Member

Karin Pouw

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Finnahnonymoush Member

Anonymous Member

Finnahnonymoush Member

The Wrong Guy Member

Anonymous Member

wolfbane Member

Anonymous Member

The Wrong Guy Member

DeathHamster Member

The Wrong Guy Member

Fluffie

wolfbane Member

Fluffie

Th0R

TrevAnon Member

The Wrong Guy Member

The Wrong Guy Member

DeathHamster Member

Anonymous Member

DeathHamster Member

Anonymous Member

Nancy Beazley Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member

Quentinanon Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Predefined Skins