John Travolta: The Boy in the Scientology Plastic Bubble

travolta-boy-in-the-scientology-plastic-bubbleJohn Travolta spoke out against Alex Gibney’s documentary “Going Clear” on Scientology yesterday, as was reported in the Tampa Bay Times.

Here’s an important quote from the Tampa Bay Times article which shows how Travolta, as a Scientologist, thinks about it

I think this is some very interesting reasoning, actually:


“I haven’t experienced anything that the hearsay has (claimed), so why would I communicate something that wasn’t true for me?” Travolta said. “It wouldn’t make sense, nor would it for Tom, I imagine.”

Travolta called Going Clear a product of “people who were disgruntled with their experiences” with Scientology, while the church “has been nothing but brilliant for me.”

“I’ve been so happy with my (Scientology) experience in the last 40 years,” he said, “that I really don’t have anything to say that would shed light on (a documentary) so decidedly negative.

“I’ve been brought through storms that were insurmountable, and (Scientology has) been so beautiful for me, that I can’t even imagine attacking it.”

One turbulent time for Travolta was the 2009 death of his son, Jett, after a seizure while on holiday in the Bahamas.

“Oh, my god, I wouldn’t have made it” without the church’s assistance, Travolta said. “Honestly.”

The two-time Oscar nominee claimed to have used Scientology to aid others in crisis, another reason he won’t see Going Clear.

“I’ve helped so many people through hard times,” Travolta said. “Loss of children, loved ones, physical illnesses. Through many tough, tough life situations I’ve used the technology to support them and help them. It’s always worked.

“So, why would I even approach a negative perspective? That would be a crime to me, personally, to do that.”


I believe that his reasoning here is that he is keeping his own “wins” afloat in his own mind by locking out contrary factual information that might lead him to question Scientology, which he believes gave him those wins. And so it would be a personal crime to himself to allow contrary factual information from the documentary Going Clear inside.

For John Travolta, it is a crime to burst the Scientology Bubble that he lives in.

Hey – He played “The Boy In the Bubble”.

He knows what he is talking about for himself!

The question is, with all of Scientology’s talk about RESPONSIBILITY ACROSS THE DYNAMICS, why after so much auditing and training in Scientology, is John Travolta still so stuck on the First Dynamic? What about his friend Spanky Taylor, and her child that she had to rescue when she found her covered in fruit flies?

What about the RPF and other fully documented human rights abuses that John Travolta undoubtedly knows about?

John Travolta is more proof that Scientology does not make people more responsible, but incredibly self-centered.

John Travolta demonstrates how Scientology destroys the moral compass of those who adopt it.

17 thoughts on “John Travolta: The Boy in the Scientology Plastic Bubble”

  1. off-topic, but is that an armadillo on icon u are using? and, if so, WHY?? what happened to the “golden buddha”??

  2. And, btw, I am not trying to “justify” for Travolta. Just saying that the guy is obviously “still in”; and so we cannot expect him to do something that only someone who is “out” can do.

  3. Alanzo, although I can play along and suggest that there might be several code points Travolta may be violating, that is hardly the point.

    As a Scientologist, Travolta can only be responsible for what he KNOWS. And, as a “good Scientologist”, he necessarily CONTROLS what he knows. Hereby, he controls that for which he is responsible.

    Having said that, with all due respect, you did what you often do:

    Rather than actually replying to any point I brought up, you simply re-worked and re-presented your argument.

    My point is that, as a Scientologist, Travolta is doing exactly what a Scientologist can be expected to do. So we need to focus on getting the guy out of the church [if we want him to do something “responsible”]; because there is no way we can expect a Scientologist to speak out against his own church.


  4. Alanzo wrote:
    “What about the RPF and other fully documented human rights abuses that John Travolta undoubtedly knows about?” (emphasis added).
    I have noted in the past your tendency to make such statements, when, in fact, you likely have no facts to support this statement. Indeed, what we DO know tends to contradict this statement.

    Why do you think that Travolta would “undoubtedly know” anything negative about Scn?

    It seems completely unrealistic that people continue to put out these comments about how JT should take more responsibility, and should speak out about Scn abuses.

    The problem is that Scientologists DO NOT tend to speak out against the Church of Scientology, until/unless they are EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS.

    As such, if people are interested in Travolta doing ANYTHING, the first step is to get him out of the church. Next, he would require some amount of “decompression”; AFTER WHICH he might finally be prepared to “speak out”.

    Your position, Alanzo, is particularly surprising, given that I know you have watched the Going Clear documentary; and so you must have heard the following…

    Sarah Goldberg explains: “They say, ‘Don’t go on the internet. Don’t read. Don’t go to these sites.”

    And, as I am sure you know, most Scientologists abide.

    Then Paul Haggis follows up with this stunning admission:

    “From the time that I got in,  for 30 years, I never read one critical thing about Scn. When I finally decided to open my eyes and look, I was shocked. Just shocked.”

    I would argue that Travolta is a much more dedicated and long-time Scientologist than Paul Haggis; and yet Paul Haggis didn’t bother to find out anything negative about the church for three decades. So why would you expect Travolta to do anything more? Unfortunately, this seems to be “par for the course”. And I am sure that Travolta would, in fact, be just as “shocked”, were he to “open [his] eyes and look”.

    Bottom Line: It is probably true that Travolta has never experienced any of the negative things revealed in Going Clear. In fact, anything negative would likely have been explained away. As a celebrity, the attempt would certainly be to give Travolta the most positive experience possible; which means shielding him from “entheta”, lest it affect his wins and gains. Indeed, so long as Travolta views Scientology ONLY from the viewpoint of how much it has helped him [which I agree is a “first dynamic” focus, to use Scientologese], I believe it would be totally inconsistent for him to turn around and start attacking the church.

    Finally, let me note that, as far as we know from the film [about what he knew about Spanky Taylor], Travolta only knew that she was allowing herself to be so controlled that she cancelled a dinner with him. At least, that was my understanding of the incident. And, if this is the worst thing he knows about Spanky’s experience, I am not sure this would be sufficient motivation for him to turn around and attack his own church. There is no indication, for example, that he knew anything about what was going on with Spanky’s baby. And, if he doesn’t watch Going Clear, he may NEVER know anything about this [or about any of the other abuses].

    To summarize, it is unrealistic and out of sequence to expect Travolta to do anything to decry Scientology abuses, so long as he is a Scientologist. He SHOULD act on what he KNOWS. But, if he has made sure to KNOW NOTHING, then I am not sure how we can expect this man to do anything.

    I should also note that, despite whatever influence people might assume celebrities have in the “wog world”, I have not seen any evidence [with possible exception of Tom Cruise, due to his personal friendship with DM] that celebrities have any power to influence Scientology management. Celebs are very well taken care of; but, at the end of the day, they are just more Scientologists. This means they don’t tend to question church mgmt; and, like other Scientologists, they tend to do what they are told to do.

    BTW, maybe I should also note that I am sure Travolta knows about the RPF. But Scientologists don’t look at the RPF in the same way that non-Scientologists do. For Scientologists, the details of RPF life are largely hidden. In general, you simply know that someone is ON the RPF, without having any real understanding of the degrading life they are actually living. There is also the sense that the person “must have done something” to deserve being put on that program; and so there is not the same level of sympathy as might be felt from a non-Scientologist.

    So, again, even when it comes to what the guy DOES know, in my opinion, Travolta still needs to get out of the church, first. Then he can get the full picture about what’s been going on. And THEN we might realistically expect him to speak out against the church. To me, this would be the proper sequence.


    • Well Hello Zach Jackson!

      Long time no hear from!

      Mike Rinder, in his “Head in the Sand” post on this subject, talks about how there are negative things about Scientology that John Travolta undoubtedly knows about.

      I’ve bolded the relevant Source material for you.

      …”But, and there are a few very large “buts”:

      1. He says he has not seen the movie and has no plans to do so. That it would be a “crime” to watch it.

      2. He stated he hasn’t had any negative experiences with Scientology.

      3. He called the documentary a product of “people who were disgruntled with their experiences.”

      Point number 1 is simply more evidence of scientology’s cultish mind-control. He does not plan to see the movie, though he already knows he is featured in it, most devastatingly in the Spanky Taylor story. The truth is, he is afraid to see the film because it would put him in a tough spot because he would then have to specifically deny things revealed in it. It is easier to simply say he hasn’t seen it. But to everyone in the world who HAS seen it (or even heard about it) this response is clearly a reflection of the control scientology has over him. It also confirms that scientology does NOT allow you to think for yourself. The pure idiocy of stating it would be a “crime” to watch the film is a wonderful microcosm of “scientology think.”

      John is going to be asked a LOT more questions about this film, and it is going to wear thin to just say, “I haven’t seen it and I am not going to watch it.” He put himself in the position of being a scientology spokesman and he cannot avoid the responsibility and questions that come with it.

      2. This is a lie. At one point, he had basically left the church. I am sure today he would explain that this was “before DM took over” or something. Anyone who watches the film KNOWS this is a lie, think back to the advice he gave Spanky about not allowing herself to be abused. There are plenty of other things John has experienced or knows about that are NOT “positive experiences” in scientology. To say that there are NO negative experiences in 30 years sounds as unreal as it is.

      3. Isn’t that the point? He is not saying those “disgruntled” people are lying. They ARE disgruntled, and with good reason. Is there something wrong with people who have been abused, had their families broken up, money taken and head screwed with being disgruntled? How about mad as hell? And why SHOULDN’T they make this known?

      He seems to have missed the big picture.”…


      • Alanzo, thanks for posting my reply and for your response!

        I did read the post you copied from Mike Rinder’s blog.

        I have heard Travolta speak about why he left and returned to the church. And you/Mike are correct that this might be the only obvious sign that his Scientology experience has not been perfect. However, I am not arguing that his experience has been perfect. I only said that it is not likely that he has experienced any of the abuses discussed in the HBO film.

        In fact, had he had THOSE experiences, I cannot imagine that he would have returned to the church. I mean: Do you think Travolta would have stayed/returned, if he found Jett in the condition in which Spanky found her baby, while under Scientology care? I would hope not. But who knows, other than Travolta himself. If he decided to stay, in this case, then it only goes to the point I made, and that Mike made, about church mind control. And this goes back to my basic point that we need to focus on getting Travolta out of the church than on upbraiding him for not speaking out.

        Travolta claims he left the church due to suppressive elements that had entered the church; and that he returned, once those elements had been removed. So, I would need to know more about what he actually experienced that made him leave the church. It is possible that it had nothing to do with him personally. Had Mike provided more detail about this [than is already available], I would certainly be willing to say that this might have been an example of a “negative personal experience”. But whether or not it rises to the level of the abuses revealed in the film is a different matter.

        And, finally, on this point, I would suggest [again] that the fact that Travolta returned at all is some indication that whatever this “negative experience” may have been, it was obviously NOT a “deal breaker”. And I should also note that, unless an event is particularly heinous, one or two “negative events” may not, in Travolta’s mind, add up to a “negative Scientology experience“. Indeed, so long as his experience is more positive than negative, then, to Travolta, it may be considered to be a “positive experience”.

        The other point Mike makes, I already made: Yes, according to the film, Travolta seemed upset that Spanky was allowing herself to be so controlled; but there is no indication that he knew anything more about the devastating experiences she was actually having. In fact, I am sure that all care would have been taken to shield him from such info. So, again, not sure if Travolta knowing that a single Sea Org worker was having a rough time would be a sufficient red flag for him, especially given all of the conditioning, etc. Also this, of course, may have been more of a “negative experience” for Spanky than for Travolta himself.

        Finally, Mike makes a general statement [without providing any additional details or evidence] that, by the way it is written, sounds like nothing more than speculation on his part. However, even if true, I have already made the point that such experiences would have been “explained away”; so that they may NOT be filed away as “negative”, in Travolta’s mind. So this might only be opinion on Mike’s part; not fact.

        I mean: Why would someone stay in the church, if they actually allowed themselves to know all of the facts? It seems almost axiomatic, if these guys stay, that they have NOT yet reached the point where they can even admit anything “negative” about the church.

        So, in closing, I note that you have NOT really addressed the central point that I repeated a few times: It is unrealistic and out of sequence, to expect a Scientologist to speak out against Scientology; because the mind of a Scientologist IS CONTROLLED by the church.

        As such, I may personally agree with Mike [and you] that it IS likely a LIE that Travolta has NEVER had ANY “negative experiences” in Scientology. However, until/unless Travolta sees those experiences as “negative” and “sufficiently heinous”, it is silly to keep pushing him to speak out or to even fully inform himself about Scientology [by watching Going Clear, for example].

        Only an EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS has the ability to do that.

        • Sorry for the long posts, Alanzo! I always seem to go in with one or two clear points that I want to make. But, when I begin to write, so many other things occur to me and things get out of control!

          • Zach Jackson!

            I know that you are justifying for John Travolta with what you believe to be the reality of brainwashing in Scientology, and I think you are right about that. But JT is justifying his behavior by being a “good Scientologist”.

            So I had a thought:

            What if you judged John Travolta’s statement above to the standards set for what a “good scientologist” is in The Code of a Scientologist?

            Take a look over this Code and see how many of these points he has violated:



            The Code of a Scientologist was first issued in 1954. In this code, L. Ron Hubbard provides a Scientologist with guidelines for fighting for human rights and justice through social reform. It is a vital code for any Scientologist active in the community. The code was revised in 1969 and again in 1973 and is given here in its final version.

            As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all.

            1. To keep Scientologists, the public and the press accurately informed concerning Scientology, the world of mental health and society.

            2. To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups and the world.

            3. To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

            4. To decry and do all I can to abolish any and all abuses against life and Mankind.

            5. To expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of mental health.

            6. To help clean up and keep clean the field of mental health.

            7. To bring about an atmosphere of safety and security in the field of mental health by eradicating its abuses and brutality.

            8. To support true humanitarian endeavors in the fields of human rights.

            9. To embrace the policy of equal justice for all.

            10. To work for freedom of speech in the world.

            11. To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help Mankind.

            12. To support the freedom of religion.

            13. To help Scientology orgs and groups ally themselves with public groups.

            14. To teach Scientology at a level it can be understood and used by the recipients.

            15. To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in all its applications and variations in the humanities.

            16. To insist upon standard and unvaried Scientology as an applied activity in ethics, processing and administration in Scientology organizations.

            17. To take my share of responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world.

            18. To increase the numbers and strength of Scientology over the world.

            19. To set an example of the effectiveness and wisdom of Scientology.

            20. To make this world a saner, better place.

            How many of these points of the Code of a Scientologist does John Travolta’s stance on “Going Clear” violate?


  5. There is a third problem which is making its effects felt on every religion on Earth.  This is the “Information Age.”

    Possibly Scientology will simply be the first domino to fall as the Age of Aquarius pours out the baptismal water of enlightenment on ideologies everywhere?

    In every public place I see people devoted to and worshiping the internet.  Is this to be the new religion of the new millenium?  Or is information simply the “universal solvent,” and the actual “destroyer” of imaginary worlds?  Whatever it is, I seem to be doing it right now!

  6. The current public relations debacle confronts COS as a whole with the question of,  1.  “What to do about Miscavige,”  and 2.  “What to do about their ridiculous sci-fi perception.”

    1.  Dave Miscavige may be the undoing of COS because it seems that there is not one S.O. member who is not under Dave Miscavige’s hypnotic trance, who is not suffering from some form of Stockholm Syndrome.  

    2.  I don’t particularly see their sci-fi scriptures as impossible to work around.  Every religion has crazy unsupportable ideas at their core.  A similar model in current times is the Catholic Church and their public relations debacle about what to do about rapist pedophile priests, a much larger and more important problem than a few “slaps in the face” or families breaking up because the MAA told them to.  The comparison is not precisely the same but it is a good one.


  7. Clearly JT is very selective as to who is entitled to receive help and who is not.  One would think his old friend would qualify.  However, when you pit friendship up against the church, the church always wins.  Always.

    This is why a Scientologist cannot be a true friend, and why they cannot be trusted.

    They may be a decent individual, hard working, family man, honest, social personality.  And they may appear to be your friend.  But, if the church gets involved, realize the Scientologist’s allegiance will always side with the church.  To this degree they cannot be counted on to do the right thing, but can be counted on to do the “church thing”.

    Do not make the mistake of confusing the two.

    • I agree with StatPush on the scn friends point they will side with the cult every time so can never be a true friend, I found this out the hard way – telling someone something in confidence only to find the reg had mysteriously gotten hold of it and was using it to get money out of me. Hence I maintained a friendly demeanor to many but was friends with none. It is entirely possible that some of those still in do exactly the same thing as a defense mechanism – trust no one who is a scn.

Comments are closed.