Going Clear, Part 2 Wright Projecting Self on L. Ron Hubbard

Going Clear, Part 2 Wright Projecting Self on L. Ron Hubbard

The second element you find throughout the book, is a projection, and I’m talking about the psychological definition of projection, projecting onto others your own motives and ideas.

You know, I had lengthy discussions with Wright about this idea that I was getting from him, through his questioning, that L. Ron Hubbard at bottom really wanted to make it in Hollywood. And that was his real life dream and his life goal and that he sort of played out this fantasy through Scientology.

And having been involved in Scientology, you know, inside the Church for 27 years, with the subject for 35 years, you know, I really tried to explain to him that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support that. In fact, quite the contrary.

That Hubbard, even though he was the living Founder of this movement that people found so important to them that they stayed with it despite “public relations suicide” as he put it, Hubbard never surrounded himself with celebrities. I mean, I don’t think there’s any really A-list celebrities that ever even got to meet him. And that was a known fact within the Church.

So, I kept wondering where this came from. And I started, you know, I learned more and more about his sources, and, you know, I know, I got familiar with the whole anti-Scientology field, the whole independent Scientology field, the whole, you know, every aspect of anybody has anything to do with Scientology, and I’d never heard this before and yet he was continuing to persist with it.

And then when the book came out, I mean, the whole book was sort of predicated on that idea. And I came to realize that there was no source. The source was Larry Wright. Larry Wright was projecting himself onto Hubbard his own sort of psyche.

Because it occurred to me that during the process of the New Yorker article, the book and the movie, that Wright was spending a great deal of his time trying to get a foot into Hollywood. He was doing a lot of screenwriting, he was doing a lot of hobnobbing, he was, you know, sort of using the Haggis connection to insinuate himself into the drama field and the cinematography field, so in the end, to me, it appeared that this was projection. Now projection, that’s just to give you an example. Because I’m just giving you categories of techniques that are found throughout. And then I’ll go through the book and you can, they fit within these different techniques, the things that, the inaccuracies and the inventions are going to fit within one or more of these types of techniques he used.

The next one, the third thing he used was narrative manipulation. Which he purports and he kind of gives the impression that he’s giving a chronological narrative, but it’s had so many omissions and then so many alterations, that it really is a phony narrative and it’s not a chronology at all.

And, he’ll take, what I mean by vast omissions is, one of the things that I imparted to him was, and invited him to just look at the sheer volume of, let alone just the content, but I said, you know, take a look at the lectures of Hubbard, okay? One to two to three a day. 60 to 90 minutes. Substantive. Okay? And constantly evolving and changing over a 15-year period, nonstop from 1950 to 1960, to the mid-1960s. Okay? And he’s referring in there, during much of it, to workshops and seminars that he’s involved in, experimenting with Dianetics and Scientology.

So, he’s, I’m talking about L. Ron Hubbard is discussing the results, he’s not just, as much as you would get from Larry Wright that he’s just pontificating off the top of his head, they’re all predicated on drills and techniques and things that he’s experimenting with and working with between these lectures. So that, you know, 80% of his time, L. Ron Hubbard’s time, between 1950 and 1968, are accounted for. Right? None of that, none of that is in the book. None of what he was actually was doing, and, you know, was his life’s work, is in there.

It’s every little bit of scandalous kind of, you know, problem area, or speed bump or hiccup, whatever you want to call it, sort of just piled on one after the other. So there’s this vast omission of what’s really going on and what the bulk of his time and effort is about.

And then there’s his alteration, where he’ll take, he’ll take fact, he’ll be purporting to do a chronology and he’ll make conclusions throughout and judgments.

So, there’s a constant manipulation in terms of the timeline.

Another category of device that he uses is fact invention. And we’ll get into this in some detail as we go through the book. But the great, I think the greatest example, most glaring example, maybe, is the Paul Haggis situation on whom the book is supposed to be, you know, he, Paul Haggis in his narrative is supposed to serve as the, you know, the reason for the book and the foundation of the book. We’ll go through how that was in large part created.

Another device that he uses, or practice that he follows, is, or adopts, it this sort of us versus them, and ironically it’s sort of an indicia of a cult, but there’s an us versus them mentality where, if you’re with the anti-Scientology narrative, there’s no question about your credibility and you get full credibility. And if you are agin em, so if you’re agin em, you’re cool. If you’re for, then there’s something wrong with you, and you’re either painted that way or you’re just omitted entirely.