The “data” con

Something that was pointed out in an anti-Scientology book or interview I read/heard recently (there were a couple) — L. Ron Hubbard’s use of the word “data.”

LRH uses the word “data” (correctly) to refer to pieces of information. But now we get into one of the slicker elements of Hubbard’s con: The reliance on dictionary definitions (only of words he didn’t redefine, of course) rather than accepted usage.

The word “data” implies facts — in fact, the definition in Webster’s dictionary is “facts or information used usually to calculate, analyze, or plan something.” (Oddly enough, the definition of “datum,” the singular form, does not mention facts.) At the time Hubbard re-wrote his own language, the word “data” was also being associated with then-new electronic computers, which were not broadly understood and often assumed to be infallible.

So by skillfully using the word “data,” the ol’ fraud subtly implied that the information he was giving was factual.

Hubbard would say “Here is a datum concerning blah blah blah,” and give some sage-sounding piece of nonsense advice: “A stuck flow always reverses on the terminal,” or some shit like that. Scientologists would refer to this as a “datum” and regard it as factual.

In fact, what Hubbard should have said was “Here’s an idea I have about blah blah blah.” or “Here’s a theory.” I wonder how Scientologists would have reacted to his ideas then? They’d probably still buy in, but at least they wouldn’t think they were somehow flawed for not understanding it. (Of course, then the con wouldn’t work.)

It’s a subtle use of language that should remind us all what a brilliant con man L. Ron Hubbard was — and that Scientology outside of the Church is just as dangerous as Scientology inside the Church.

Here’s a bit of “data” for you: If you live your life by the advice given by L. Ron Hubbard, you’re still in a cult, and you’re still giving over your mind to a dangerous con man who only had the answers to one thing: How to line his own pockets with his victims’ money.

ML,
Caliwog

The times, are they a-changin’?

A conversation I never thought I would see take place on Marty’s blog:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/scientology-intelligence-manual/#comment-283741

The interesting stuff starts at CommunicatorIC’s comment.

Long read (and still growing), but worth it — lots of people making legitimate criticisms of LRH, pretty severe ones at that — entheta to be sure. And yet Marty is letting the conversation take place! I added my own comment, we’ll see if it escapes censorship.

ML,
Caliwog

Mike Rinder is full of shit

Since Marty Rathbun has been so quiet of late, I’ve been reading Mike Rinder’s blog with interest. It’s always been obvious to me that Mike is a Hubbard apologist. Like Marty, he blames the evils of the Church on David Miscavige; like Marty, he knows full well the policies that were written by LRH; unlike Marty, he is not trying to make money from auditing, so he doesn’t have the same motivation to white-wash Hubbard.

It’s too bad, really — I’ve always kind of liked Mike. Marty has been an unapologetic thug, but Mike seems to be a bit of an underdog… although he did spend years running OSA, the Church’s spying, harassment and dirty tricks division.

So, anyway, I saw a glimmer of hope when Mike’s blog entry of December Fourth (The Texas Showdown) said:

You will see in my declaration that was filed today that I cited some little known LRH references that may surprise some readers of this blog. It’s not all sweetness and light and “My Philosophy”. People no doubt will still try to justify that they are “misapplied” and “taken out of context.” I ask that you simply read them for what they are and compare what has been reported about the activities taken against the Rathbuns. This IS the “tech” that is being applied.

Holy shit! thought I. Perhaps Mike was coming around?? I read his declaration in the Monique Rathbun case. And as all of you who read it will know… I was disappointed.

Mike posted a couple of policy excerpts from 1972, but doesn’t attribute them to Hubbard. (And it’s possible they were written by Hubbard operatives; that did happen.) But, as always, the blame remains squarely on David Miscavige. Even when he mentioned Lisa McPherson, he blames Miscavige for handling “her case” and not Hubbard for instructing his followers that the cure for a psychotic break is to lock someone in a room and not talk to them.

Now, maybe I’m being too harsh, or too impatient… rewriting negative policies from the pre-Miscavige era is a baby step. Still, there’s nothing in here that states what seems so obvious to me, but is missed by so many people: Miscavige is running the Church according to Hubbard’s rules.

Mike should know better. Even after all Hubbard has done to him (from beyond the grave, no less!) he insists on protecting the Ol’ Fraud. God bless his deluded little soul, and may he some day truly escape from Scientology.

ML,
Caliwog