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

Scientology’s Credo of a True Group Member: Part 3

We’ve been looking at L. Ron Hubbard’s “Credo of a True Group Member,” the policy behind Scientology’s “us vs. them” mentality. Let’s get through the last few points.

“13. On the group member depends the height of the ARC of the group. He must insist upon high-level communication lines and clarity in affinity and reality and know the consequence of not having such conditions. And he must work continually and actively to maintain high ARC in the organization.”

Note: The last sentence is italicized in the original.

This deals with the Scientology concept of ARC (Affinity, Reality, Communication), which LRH said is the key to human communication. (It’s high-falutin’ hogwash, which I picked apart in The BS of ARC). The point of this point is that group members always have to put on a happy face, no matter how bad things are going or how much doubt they have. This is part of the reason you always see videos full of happy, smiling, over-enthusiastic Scientologists (who turn all snarling and nasty when Anonymous turn their own cameras on) – they are being True Group Members! This goes hand in hand with the points I talked about in Part Two, in which group members may not “enturbulate” leaders, and if they do choose to exercise their “right” to object, must do so loudly enough for all the other members to see that they are not going with the program.

“14. A group member has the right of pride in his tasks and a right of judgment and handling in those tasks.”

Another one of my favorites. If you’re given something to do, you have the right to be proud of it. This alleviates the group member from having to make any moral judgement about whether the task the are carrying out is right or wrong in the first place. Don’t judge your own actions, just be proud that you did your job! Same deal with having judgement in how to handle it… what about judgement as to whether you should do that task in the first place? Nope, no need to worry about that. (“Ours is not to wonder why…”) And what makes this latter point all the more poignant is that it contributes to Scientologist’s conception that they are free to act as individuals, when in fact they conform to the thoughts and actions dictated by L. Ron Hubbard.

Not that it matters, because in the “group” of Scientology, this point is routinely ignored. Hubbard wrote policy on how to do everything, from the way questions are worded to how the org is to be cleaned. In a Scientology organization (or an “admin tech” company), one is “hatted” in how to use equipment. Few Scientologists dare exercise their “right” as a group member to try to find a better way.

“15. A group member must recognize that he is, himself, a manager of some section of the group and/or its tasks and that he himself must have both the knowledge and right of management in that sphere for which he is responsible.”

More intelligent-sounding bullshit that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The idea is that you must take ownership of whatever little scrap of responsibility you are given. Take my earlier examples of my old-car group or my monthly poker game. Am I a “manager” of some section? No way. I do nothing to help with organization of the car group and my specialty is playing bad hands of poker, not organizing the games, so how, per LRH, am I a “true” member of the group? Now, I know how a Scientologist would answer this, because I have had similar discussions: They would say that I “manage” my individual hand of cards or the old car that I own. Well, I suppose that’s true – but it has nothing to do with the spirit of the point LRH was making, which is that one must feel one is in a managerial role, even if one is just doing shit work to feed the machine. But Scientologists will go to great lengths to make LRH’s bullshit seem workable and true, even when it isn’t.

“16. The group member should not permit laws to be passed which limit or proscribe the activities of all the members of the group because of the failure of some of the members of the group.”

Man, I love this one. Remember, this was a quarter-century before LRH would go into hiding while his wife and a few other expendable accomplices went to jail for Scientology’s crimes. Reading this, I can’t help but think that even as early as 1951, LRH knew that in order to make his scam succeed, he’d have to skirt the law to get around the objections that Dianetics was already facing. Today, this serves Marty and the Indies well as an argument for prosecuting the practitioners of Scientology policy, without bringing the policies and creeds that led to such activity under the scrutiny of law. This is impossible and illogical, but Hubbard never let reality get in the way of a good con.

“17. The group member should insist on flexible planning and unerring execution of plans.”

In other words, get it done no matter what. Another constant theme in Scientology: “Make it go right.” Doesn’t matter if the plans are flawed, or illegal, or morally wrong, or a PR disaster, as Scientology plans often are; a group member is not to question, but is to simply insist that the plans are executed unerringly. This helps to explain the extraordinarily high number of foot-bullets fired by both the Church and independent Scientologists.

Last one:

“18. The performance of duty at optimum by every member of the group should be understood by the group member to be the best safeguard of his own and the group survival. It is the pertinent business of any member of the group that optimum performance be achieved by any other member of the group, whether chain of command or similarity of activity sphere warrants such supervision or not.”

This is the grand finale, and it’s a good one: Not only must everyone must do their best for the group, but they must insist on similar standards for others. This helps explain the rationale behind “crush regging,” the relentless harranguing for money and the berating of those who don’t give ’till it hurts: Everyone must do what they can for the group. Indies love to blame this behavior on David Miscavige, but there we see it in LRH’s words: It’s part of being a True Group Member.

LRH was right about one thing: This level of commitment is necessary for the survival of the group, or at least the group of Scientology. Unless everyone works together to hold the scam of Scientology together, it’s bound to fall apart… as it already is. People leave Scientology when they see the truth through the cracks.

But Hubbard was wrong when he said that the survival of the individual relies on the survival of the group. If my poker group breaks up, or if Emma closes down ESMB, the individuals who make up those groups will be just fine. And if Scientology comes to an end – all of it, not just the organized Church – I have no doubt that the members of that group will be much, much more able to survive.

ML,
Caliwog

A closer look at an LRH lecture

Shit… interrupted by Rathbun again.

Marty’s recent post, Why Cold Steel and Scientology Don’t Mix (don’t ask me what that means… if I didn’t know how Scientologists abhor drugs, I’d think there was something more wacky than tabbacy in those cigarettes he smokes), Marty quotes from an L. Ron Hubbard lecture called The Fact of Clearing.

LRH recorded countless hours of lectures, about which Scientologists rarely think critically (if they do, they often stop being Scientologists). But I think we protesters don’t look carefully enough at them either. Because as complex, verbose, and overwhelming as LRH’s droning speeches are, they’re about as substantial as an office building made of dryer lint. Let’s take a closer at the speech Marty quoted and see. Heeeeeeeeeere’s Ronnie:

“Man definitely has a right to certain happiness. He isn’t going to experience that right under the circumstances of his own past. He can’t. He’s too wound up in this and that.”

Not even halfway through the first paragraph, and we’re already knee-deep in the bullshit. Man can’t experience happiness? Really, Ron? Sorry, Scientologists, but I’m happy. I have a lovely spouse, a fulfilling job, enough money to pay my bills, and the freedom to write about the causes I care about. And yet here’s Hubbard, the man who says there are no absolutes, saying I can’t experience happiness.

“It’s not the mores of the society that prevent him. It’s all of these delusions about how bad the other fellow is.”

This is typical Hubbard, subtly trying to engender fear of the outside (“Wog”) world. Note the choice of words – not “how bad people are,” but “how bad the other fellow is.” He’s talking about us. (Newcomers might think I’m reading too much into this, but once you read or hear enough Hubbard, you’ll see that this is a frequent tactic – supposed examples of crazy non-Scientology behavior that anyone with half a brain can see are bullshit.)

“You have police because other people are so bad.”

Again with the demonizing of the world! Funny, because Scientology says it believes that man is basically good. In fact, I believe Hubbard said “Man is basically good, but Man can act badly.” But now he’s saying people are bad? Which is it, tubby?

“I investigated police one time. I became a cop. That’s the best way to investigate something — become it for a while, you know? You can go too far with that sort of thing.”

Hubbard? A cop? Yup, it’s true… well, sort of. Hubbard was a rent-a-cop.

Back in the late 40s, the Los Angeles Police Department sometimes sub-contracted security-officer duties to third-party detective agencies. These “Special Officers” had to be licensed by the LAPD, and Hubbard was. They got badge numbers, ID cards (you can see Hubbard’s here; clearer scan at this Church site), and could even carry guns, but had no power to detain beyond a citizen’s arrest. Hubbard’s card, issued in 1948, indicated that he worked for the Metropolitan Detective Agency, not the LAPD, but that doesn’t stop this Church site from claiming, “In 1947-1948 Hubbard served as a Special Police Officer with the L.A. Police Department.” Nor does it stop LRH from claiming that he became a cop. (Marty did say we weren’t supposed to take LRH literally, right?)

Incidentally, according to Russel Miller, author of Bare Faced Messiah (based on documents gathered by Gerry Armstrong while putting together a biography for Hubbard), Elron spent most of 1947 scraping out a living as a sci-fi writer, begging the VA for benefits, and taking classes at the Gellar Theater Workshop (maybe he played a cop?). In 1948, though, he did find himself at a police station… but on the wrong side of the desk. He was charged with petty theft for writing a bad check in San Luis Obispo county, some 200 miles north of Los Angeles.

Question for Ron: When you said “You can go to far with this sort of thing,” did you mean someone who briefly worked as a security guard claiming he was a police officer?

“But where do we have, in essence here, a cave-in of the society? What could cave the society in? Well, all you’d have to do is have a police force and a society would start caving in.”

Got that? Every society with a police force is going to start caving in. Any day now. After all, Hubbard would know, right? He was a cop!

Seriously… I know Scientologists are willing to swallow a lot of bullshit, but how the fuck do they buy into something that is so obviously false?

“Why? The police force constitutes a constant reminder that men are evil, which is a constant reminder that we must agree with these evil men. Do you see how this would work? Neat little trick.”

No, Ron, I don’t see how that would work. Even if I bought the first part about police force reminding us that men are evil, how do you make the leap to “we must agree with these evil men”? There is no logic there. But chances are Hubbard said this in a lecture that stretched on for hours and hours, and no Scientologist, eager to progress up The Bridge to Fund Ron’s New Bluebird Motorhome, is going to stop to pick these little nits.

This is a good time for a quick tangent: What happens if you do stop the tape and ask an instructor how Ron could say something so utterly false? Well, according to The Tech, you must have misunderstood a word. So you’ll be forced to work backwards, get quizzed on your vocabulary, look up stuff in the dictionary, until they find your “M.U.” Maybe some definition of “agree” or “evil” or “with” that will make Ron’s illogical logic make some semblance of sense. The exercise will be long and tortuous enough that you’ll quickly learn not to disagree again.

“Now, that doesn’t say that we are so starry-eyed as to believe that at this time we could dispense with all police. Or could we?”

Uh-oh… I feel a pitch for an all-Scientology world coming on!

“Now, you have to make up your mind which way you’re going to go with a society if you’re thinking about a new society of one kind or the another. And if you say, ‘Well, this society would be totally unregulated,’ then we would be proposing an anarchy. And all the anarchists tell us that the only way a society would work as a total freedom without government would be if everyone in it were perfect.

“All of the anarchists?” Flunk for making a generalization. (Hubbard said that people who speak in generalizations like that are supressive persons. Maybe he was right!)

“Well, I don’t know whether we propose — when we talk about a cleared society — whether we propose or not to have an anarchy. That’s beside the point. That’s up to the people who get cleared.

Translation: “This is a big issue that would require thought and discussion. I don’t want you thinking, because I want to keep your hands in Scientology and my hands in your wallet. And I don’t want to discuss, because that would take me away from my next point, which is…”

But I don’t think you’d wind up with an anarchy. I think you’d wind up with a much finer level of agreement and cooperation because I think you’d then be able to realize the rest of the dynamics.

Translation: The world would work better if everyone was a Scientologist. No more insanity like wogs who can’t be happy because their town has a police force.

“The cops are there only because the rest of the dynamics aren’t there! So, if you put those back into society, then you’d get a society.”

Translation: Buy more Scientology, get others to buy more Scientology, and your problems will go away.

So that’s my take on a segment of an LRH lecture. Now, let’s be frank: There’s nothing I’ve written that you couldn’t have come up with yourself. In fact, I’ve probably wasted your time by making you read my shallow insights. Sorry about that. My point is that this is another way we can communicate with Scientlogists – just get them to look more closely at what LRH says and see how little sense it makes. It’s not easy; the ol’ fraud convinced his customers that he really did all this “research,” and you’ve got people like Marty who take this paper-thin bullshit as gospel.

But if you can get them to examine even one line – maybe that bit about how a society with police will cave in – well, maybe you can put a crack in the facade. Just a little hairline crack, maybe… but we all know where that can lead.

ML,
Caliwog

Scientology’s Credo of a True Group Member: Part 2

In Part One, we started looking at how LRH used the Credo of a Group Member to keep Scientologists looking inward, never outward. Let’s continue, shall we?

“6. Enturbulence of the affairs of the group by sudden shifts of plans unjustified by circumstances, breakdown of recognized channels or cessation of useful operations in a group must be refused and blocked by the member of a group. He should take care not to enturbulate a manager and thus lower ARC.”

This is an important one. The first sentence basically charges group members with keeping others in line and moving in the same direction – no flying off on tangents. The second sentence, couched in Scientologese, says not to give bad news or negative feedback to the group leader, for fear of reducing Affinity, Reality or Communications (in other words, good feelings. Read more in The BS of ARC). I have learned this one through experience, by the way – being frank with management about problems and obstacles may be welcome in most companies, but it is severely frowned upon in Scientology organizations.

And this plays an important part in the next point:

“7. Failure in planning or failure to recognize goals must be corrected by the group member, for the group, by calling the matter to conference or acting upon his own initiative.”

Okay, got that? If the group isn’t going in the right direction, it’s the responsibility of the group member to do something about it. BUT – what about point #6 which says that a group member “should take care not to enturbulate a manager and thus lower ARC?” So acting upon one’s own initiative and telling the boss where he or she is going wrong violates the Credo, but not doing so also violates the Credo. This is an example of the contradiction that is frequently found in Scientology policy – and I happen to think that Hubbard did it intentionally.

But wait, it’s about to get more convoluted:

“8. A group member must coordinate his initiative with the goals and rationale of the entire group and with other individual members, well publishing his activities and intentions so that all conflicts may be brought forth in advance.”

So wait, if you see something wrong, you’re supposed to take your own initiative… but you must first coordinate it with the group. In fact, you must publish it for the whole group to see.

See what LRH did there?

He started with all this rah-rah shit about how you are a key part of making the group succeed, and if you see the group going wrong, you are obligated to say something. But you have to make sure everyone knows about your disagreement, which gives them the opportunity to decide that you are violating the first point in the Credo by not approximating “the ideal, ethic and rationale of the overall group” or by “enturbulating” the group leadearship. And so the hunter becomes the hunted! When you do see something wrong and point it out, you run the risk of being labeled as “against us” rather than “with us.”

SP declare, anyone?

“9. A group member must insist upon his right to have initiative.”

Except that initiative, as the earlier points make clear, can get you in trouble. On the surface, this sounds like a cry for individual freedom. In practice, it means that if you’re going to put your head up, you must raise it high enough so that when the axe swings, it gets chopped off.

“10. A group member must study and understand and work with the goals, rationale and executions of the group.”

In other words, you must know the reasons why the group does what it does. Fair enough.

“11. A group member must work toward becoming as expert as possible in his specialized technology and skill in the group and must assist other individuals of the group to an understanding of that technology and skill and its place in the organizational necessities of the group.”

This one seems pretty innocuous, but it takes on its own meaning when applied to Scientology. Because, of course, being an expert in the “specialized technology” and “assisting others” means immersing yourself in the religion… and in Scientology, the only way to do that is to spend money or volunteer your time and labor. (And at the time Hubbard wrote this, it was all about money, not labor – the Sea Org was a few years off.) So we can translate: “If you want to be a true member of this group, open your wallet.”

“12. A group member should have a working knowledge of all technologies and skills in the group in order to understand them and their place in the organizational necessities of the group.”

This goes hand-in-hand with #11. The fact is, it’s complete bullshit. Can I be a member of my old car group without an intimate knowledge of my car’s inner workings? Of course I can. Can I be a part of my first-of-the-month poker group without being an expert poker player? Of course I can, and in my case, my fellow group members are all the richer for it.

So why did LRH include this obviously-false point? I would think the answer is just as obvious: As with #11, in order to be part of the Scientology group, you have to spend money on Scientology.

We’ll finish off the last six points of the Credo in our next installment.

ML,
Caliwog

Science catches up to L. Ron Hubbard

When I set out to write my series on the Credo of a True Group Member, I promised myself I would spend a straight week writing about LRH tech and not get distracted by any Marty Rathbun fuckery. But then he posted Life After Death and the Scientology Axioms, and it’s so farging funny that I just… can’t… help… myself!

Here’s the gist of the post: Marty starts off with a few of LRH’s “Axioms” – I’ll get to those in a minute – and then cites a pair of articles by Robert Lanza as evidence that LRH was right. Robert Lanza is an acclaimed doctor who has made great strides in the field of stem cell research. He is also a proponent of “biocentrism,” the theory that biology is the highest of the sciences and that the presence of life is what brought the universe into existence, and not the other way around. It’s a belief that loosely aligns with LRH’s idea that “thetans” (spirits) “postulate” the universe into existence.

Marty links to two of Lanza’s articles, Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says Yes and Is Death An Illusion? Evidence Suggests Death Isn’t The End. (If Dr. Lanza owned L. Ron Hubbard’s album The Road To Freedom, he’d know that “Death is only an invention.”) Here’s the over-simplified version: Since what we experience of the world around us (sights, sounds, smells, etc.) is actually our brain’s interpretation of stimuli, and since experiments seem to indicate that the act of observing an experiment affects the outcome, then the universe around us is actually our own creation; and since fields like quantum physics have shown that many of our scientific theories break down at a certain level, science is wrong about the nature of life and all bets are off. Dr. Lanza’s opinions have met with mixed reactions; personally, I think they’re a bit too simplistic, indicative of the human need to come to firm conclusions rather than accepting that there are things we can’t quite understand. (It’s the same phenomenon that leads to our belief in God.)

Anyway, back to Marty, who uses these two controversial articles as proof that science is finally catching up to Hubbard. Wait, let me use his own words, because the jab at the organized Church makes them even funnier:

“Is it not a travesty that corporate Scientologists would be burned at the stake (figuratively) if they were to dare to even take a peek at such a magazine? Is it not a travesty that Scientology Inc is busy using the billions you have donated to them to stage public demonstrations of their flat earth mentality while science catches up with L Ron Hubbard?”

Lesson learned: Do not drink soda while reading Marty’s blog. My nostrils still hurt.

(Marty’s “burned at the stake” comment stems from the fact that the articles appeared in Psychology Today, which Scientologists are about as likely to read as Pedophelia Today. Shame, though, since Scientologists usually grab right onto anything that purports to prove Hubbard right. That said, given the scientific community’s mixed reactions to Lanza’s biocentrist theories, the Church might be smart enough to think twice about casting their lot with him.)

Marty’s evidence is the first ten of Hubbard’s “Axioms” (if you don’t want to read them on Marty’s site or a Church site, here they are in PDF). The Co$ says the Axioms are “truths which are proven by all of life and which represent the most succinct distillation of wisdom regarding the nature of the human spirit.”

In fact, they are made-up baloney that rely on a) careful redefinition of words and b) the utter certainty that Hubbard knew what he was talking about, and wasn’t just a blowhard who couldn’t tell an ion from an eon.

Let’s look at a couple of examples:

“AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC. Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.”

One could spend hours arguing the intellectual merit of this. (A jellyfish has no brain; it can perceive but probably not postulate. So does it lack a life spirit? Or is each jellyfish inhabited by the spirit of some poor fucknob who meant to inhabit the body of a dolphin, but missed?) However, to accept this as a “truth” is completely and totally absurd. There is no proof and no way to prove it. But that doesn’t matter to Scientologists, who accept what Hubbard says as fact.

“AXIOM 4. SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION.”

Not according to Webster’s dictionary it isn’t. It amazes me how a man so obsessed with dictionary definitions was so willing to abandon them when it suited his purposes to do so. Scientologists do the same thing; tell them LRH was a fraud, and they’ll whip out their dictionary, look up “fraud,” and explain why, even if Scn is a scam, LRH isn’t, by definition, a fraud. But give them something ridiculous like “Space is a viewpoint of dimension” and they’ll buy it without question. Unfuckingbelievable.

“AXIOM 9. CHANGE IS THE PRIMARY MANIFESTATION OF TIME.”

Sounds legitimate and defensible. But there are a host of other theories about time, and ironically, both of the Lanza articles Marty mentions cite an argument, based on an experiment, that time is more liquid than we thought, and that change can occur irrespective of time. But I don’t want to get into an intellectual debate, because that is another Scientology tactic: Argue the minutiae of something until your audience’s brain turns to mush and they just accept it, assuming that the reason Hubbard’s arguments make no sense is because Hubbard is smart and they are stupid. (Considering they’ve probably just paid $1,000 for a “course” that involves screaming at ashtrays, they might be right.)

“AXIOM 10. THE HIGHEST PURPOSE IN THIS UNIVERSE IS THE CREATION OF AN EFFECT.”

I love this one, because after nine axioms that can be explained away, Hubbard drops in this non-sequitor. I’m tempted to say that I could just as easily claim that “THE HIGHEST PURPOSE IN THIS UNIVERSE IS THE CREATION OF A PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY SANDWICH,” but Hubbard apologists will dismiss that as a “glib” non-argument. Fair point, so let’s try this:

I would argue that since Hubbard’s axioms say that change is the primary manifestation of time, and a change in relative position of particles is a natural occurrence, then the creation of an effect is not the highest purpose, since effects are a by-product of the passage of time. A higher purpose would be to impose one’s own order on the universe – to stop the effects of time. So I would say that the highest purpose in the universe is the cessation of an effect.

That makes sense, right?

Of course it fucking doesn’t. I made it up without the slightest bit of thought. But because I can talk my way around it, it seems to make sense. I always talk about Scientologists mistaking verbosity for intelligence. There we are, I’ve just made it work for myself. (Give me a grand and I’ll give you an ashtray to scream at.)

Let’s get back to Marty’s premise: The fact that someone wrote an article in 2011 that happens to correspond with some of Hubbard’s writings does not lend even the slightest shred of legitimacy to his theories, let alone prove the absurd idea that science is “catching up” to L. Ron Hubbard. Both Lanza’s and Hubbard’s theories are questionable, and Hubbard wasn’t the first one to think of them, although he would like his followers to think he was.

That said, I will accept that science is catching up to L. Ron Hubbard when they prove the following theories, which you can hear in Hubbard’s own words:

• Space is warm, not cold
• Lung cancer is caused by not smoking enough
• There is intelligent life on Venus
• There are freight trains on Venus
• Blindness is caused by guilt, and sight can be “turned back on” with auditing

ML,
Caliwog

Read more about Hubbard taking legitimate concepts and completely fucking them up in Positioning, Misunderstanding Of.

Scientology’s Credo of a True Group Member: Part 1

I’ve talked a lot about Scientology’s “us vs. them” mentality. Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard realized early on that in order to keep people in the scam, he had to keep them facing inwards and give them a way to reject outside influences. Hence the Credo of a True Group Member, which he wrote in 1951, shortly after the establishment of Dianetics. (Marty Rathbun and other independent Scientologists also believe in the Credo.)

Scientologists unquestioningly accept the Credo as gospel — but let’s go through it point-by-point and see what it really says. (You can read the original at this Church of Scientology site.)

“1. The successful participant of a group is that participant who closely approximates, in his own activities, the ideal, ethic and rationale of the overall group.”

In other words: Conformity is paramount. In order to be a member of the group, you must mold yourself into the group ideal. This is one reason so many Scientologists sound alike, and often (subconsciosly?) mimic the behaviors of LRH – they emulate his writing style, use the same phrases he wrote into policy (Marty does this all the time), and even disregard the dangers of smoking cigarettes.

“2. The responsibility of the individual for the group as a whole should not be less than the responsibility of the group for the individual.”

This may sound noble, but in fact it’s one of the most dangerous aspects of the Scientology mindset. People ask how well-meaning Scientologists could lock Lisa McPherson in a room and allow her to starve to death. Well, here’s their excuse: The group was “taking responsibility” for the individual. Rather than turn her over to the “evil psychs” who could have helped her, the Scns administered Hubbard’s Introspection Rundown. Hubbard famously said “We’d rather have you dead than incapable.” That’s exactly what happened to Lisa McPherson, thanks to a group of Scientologists following Hubbard’s Credo of a True Group Member and “taking responsibility” for Lisa.

“3. The group member has, as part of his responsibility, the smooth operation of the entire group.”

Again, the idea here is that if one is a member of a group, one must be fully committed to it. This sounds noble, but it just isn’t true. Example: I own an old car. I belong to a few online owner’s groups for that car. I do nothing to contribute to the “smooth operation.” I don’t help run the board. I can’t contribute much knowledge. I just stop in once in a while and ask questions like “How the fuck do you loosen the fucking power steering pump when the fucking bolts are hidden by the fucking air conditioning compressor? Fuck!” (If anything, I’m sowing discord!) Does that mean I’m not a member of the owner’s group? According to LRH, I’m not!

“4. A group member must exert and insist upon his rights and prerogatives as a group member and insist upon the rights and prerogatives of the group as a group and let not these rights be diminished in any way or degree for any excuse or claimed expeditiousness.”

I love this point, because it shows LRH at his most devous. He starts out talking about the group member’s rights, but that’s not really the point he’s making – this is really about the good of the group. The meat in this sammy is that every member must fight for the rights of their group, which Scientologists do with vigor. (Funny that LRH wrote this so early in Scn’s history — he must have known how much controversy his then-fledgeling con was going to cause.) But it’s that first innocent-sounding bit – actually, just the fact that it’s there – that gives us some clue to LRH’s thought process, that he was even then trying to hide his true motivations from his own followers. Sneaky little fucker, wasn’t he?

“5. The member of a true group must exert and practice his right to contribute to the group. And he must insist upon the right of the group to contribute to him. He should recognize that a myriad of group failures will result when either of these contributions is denied as a right. (A welfare state being that state in which the member is not permitted to contribute to the state, but must take contribution from the state.)”

Okay, first, he’s wrong about a welfare state – as far as I know, there is nothing in the welfare system of any country that prohibits members from contributing, or requires them to take benfits. Even the most right-wing conservative knows that, and yet Hubbard spouts off this wee bit of bullshit, and his followers just buy it. Remember when Debbie Cook said she was ignorant of her legal rights until she hired a lawyer? Well, this is why – she just blindly believed in what LRH and Scientology told her.

As for the rest… “exert and practice his right to contribute to the group”??? Fuck me. What LRH is saying is that working for the group is a right that might be denied or taken away if not constantly used. Well, yeah – if you have a job at a company and you don’t do it, you get fired. But that’s not about rights, its about responsibilities – and LRH seems to be trying to get his followers to confuse the two. This is just another way of getting Scientologists to feel obligated to contribute – if they don’t, they’re not exercising their rights! (What a fucking load, but you have admire the genius, or at least the tenacity, of a con artist who could come up with this shit.)

I’m going to stop here, because this article has gone on long enough, and the next to points of the Credo are closely entwined. Tune in tomorrow to see more of how LRH uses the group credo to enforce conformity and supress bad news.

ML,
Caliwog

Scientology and government: Who is the real hypocrite?

In his blog post Scientology Inc’s Secular Invasion of Washington, D.C., Marty rightfully calls out the Church of Scientology for trying to push Scientology initiatives on the government:

“The hypocrisy of David Miscavige and his Scientology Inc arms knows no bounds. The following church of Scientology Office of Special Affairs (OSA, dirty tricks, propaganda, and bribery unit) documents it. The document outlines a plan to buy a ‘secular tech invasion in D.C.’, through yet another commission based lobbyist.” — Marty Rathbun

Whoa, easy there, Marty. Hypocrisy? You should know better than anyone that getting involved in the government was one of the goals of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Proof, numerous examples of it, exist in Hubbard’s own policies. What say we take an in-depth look at the history of $cientology’s government involvement?

Early on, LRH realized that governments would make lucrative customers. His first speculation about getting involved in government came in August 1951, when he published An Essay on Management:

“Certainly it is true that ruling, as Group Dianetics concerns itself with government, is a specialized art and craft not less technical than the running of complex machinery, and certainly, until Dianetics, more complex.. .In Group Dianetics, should its results continue to bear out its tenets, one is looking at the general form of the government of the world. That government will not extend, as administrator, out from the Dianetic Foundation. But the Foundation will probably train the personnel that governments send to it and will probably be the advisor to all governments.”

— L. Ron Hubbard, An Essay on Management, The Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin Vol. 2 #2, Aug. 1951

Although it may have been tongue in cheek, Hubbard did refer to a Scientology-controlled government as early as 1954:

“Seeing that Scientology can embrace a science, a religion, a psychotherapy, one of the wittier DScns* recently invented Scientocracy, which is ‘Government of the people, by the thetans**.'”

— L. Ron Hubbard, Basic Procedures, Professional Auditor’s Bulletin #25, April 30, 1954

* DScn: Doctor of Scientology, a made-up degree awarded by Scientology.
** Thetan: Scientology word for the self-aware spirit.

A year later, in P.A.B. #48, Ron’s wife, Mary Sue, talked about “Ron’s Project” to hound influential citizens, including members of government, until they “submit” to Scientology training, all while avoiding public scrutiny:

“Maybe someday we can realize Ron’s Project. Very few know about it, but someday he hopes to have every auditor in the field ‘who is worth his stuff as an auditor’ on the HASI* payroll. They would be given some person — someone in high government position, someone in the arts, someone in religion—people who are in the public eye and who supply thousands morale in the forms of good public works, books, paintings, humor, spiritual aid, to bird-dog until they submitted to [Scientology] processing. These auditors could then simply process and promote without depending upon public approval or financial support which is dependent upon public approval. Maybe someday we can accomplish this. It is a goal worth working toward.”

— Mary Sue Hubbard, The Way Ron Works, Professionl Auditor’s Bulletin #48, Marty 18, 1955

* HASI: Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, forerunner of today’s International Association of Scientologists (IAS), the organization that all Scientologists must join in order to take services from the Church. (More about IAS and HASI)

And in 1956, Hubbard first proposed that they go to governments (by opening a Church in D.C.), and then that the governments would come to him:

“…we are in Washington [D.C.] to get ourselves sorted out to make sure that we get in good with the government….”

— L. Ron Hubbard, “Scientology U.S.,” Operational Bulletin #16, Feb. 7, 1956

“We should add to this the Washington Foundation and train free classes. We should offer these free classes various leaflets, having to do with what good civilized government is, and we hope eventually to open up something like the Washington School of Government and, who knows, make it mandatory to go to that school before taking office.”

— LRH memo “Test Results,” May 8, 1956

By 1957, Hubbard was definitely seeing potential dollar signs. In HCOB 20 March 1957, INCOME SOURCES, Hubbard’s list of potential moneymakers includes “Possible government contracts.”

And what would a Scientology government be like? Hubbard gave us a hint in a 1960 bulletin entitled “Interrogation”:

“…the answer to passive resistance is for the government to passive strike against any district from which it occurs. No water, lights, pay, government or service. Simply use the same tactic back. Don’t use guns, cordon the area off and shut off power and water.”

— LRH, HCOB 30 March 1960, INTERROGATION

As we know, Hubbard’s attempts to get the U.S. government to buy into Scientology were never taken seriously. The Fed quickly saw Hubbard for what he was: An ignorant, power-hungry con man. And just as he did when he was rejected by the psychotherapy community, Hubbard grew bitter. Though he was no friend of government to begin with, Hubbard’s tone began to change. A few of many, many examples:

“I audited an official of a government after a dinner party for two hopeless hours one night… I shamefully and vividly recall now that, not touched by me, his idea of help was to kill off the whole human race!”

— LRH, HCOB 21 April 1960, PRESESSION PROCESSES

“Politics died with Victoria. Government is no longer done that way. It’s done not by appeals to men but appeals to their bellies and their fears. The world is now controlled by economic groups who debase laws and rewrite texts and so make slaves.”

— LRH, HCOB 19 Sept. 1960, CAPTIVE BRAINS

“If the crimes committed by a government in one single day were committed by an individual, that individual would be promptly put in a cell and probably even a padded cell.”

— LRH, HCOB 19 July 1980, CRIMINALS AND PSYCHIATRY

Still, hope sprang eternal in L. Ron’s ample Thetan breast. When he reorganized the marketing arm of his corporate structure, called the Public Division, he mentioned the role of the leader (called the Public Executive Secretary, or PES) in caps, and it included getting involved in government:

“The full functions of the new departments are expressed in the purpose of the Public Executive Secretary. TO HELP LRH CONTACT AND PROCESS THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC BODIES AND TO MAKE AND GUIDE THE GOVERNMENT OF A CIVILIZATION.”

— LRH, HCO Policy Letter of 16 Oct 1967, THE PUBLIC DIVISIONS

Two years later, in HCO PL 29 January 1969, he refined his organization and spread this duty out over three positions. Again, he used the same verbiage: “To make and guide the government of a civilization.”

Then, in 1970, Hubbard established the famous Guardian’s Office, predecessor of today’s Office of Special Affairs (remember Marty’s description of OSA as Scientology’s “dirty tricks, propaganda, and bribery unit”*). Per HCO PL 20 May 1970, the GO was charged with “Press relations, Government relations, Opposition group relations, Troublesome relations.”

(* It always amuses me how rarely Marty mentions that his right-hand-man Mike Rinder used to run OSA. Back in Mike’s days, OSA wasn’t the clown-college it is today — it was a ruthlessly efficient spying and harassment organization. Just ask Mike’s former victims.)

The GO later ran the famous Operation Snow White, an attempt to steal government records in an attempt to remove unsavory references to Hubbard and Scientology. Eleven Scientologists (including Hubbard’s wife Mary Sue) went to jail as a result. Hubbard was named as an unindicted co-conspirator; rather than stand up for his (supposedly) beloved wife, the cowardly tub of shit went into hiding and let her take the fall. He never saw her or spoke to her again – something those who are considering Scientology marriage counseling ought to know (WARNING: Co$ link).

Incidentally, despite no shortage of verifiable evidence, the Church continues to deny Operation Snow White, instead offering their own version of history (WARNING: Co$ link).

But we’re getting away from our story. Despite his growing realization that most governments recognized Scientology as a scam, he encouraged the gentle intrusion into government that Marty is blaming on Miscavige.

In HCO PL March 13, 1961, Hubbard established the Department of Official Affairs, its purpose being “The bettering of the public representation, legal position and government acceptance of Scientology.” Among its proposed actions:

“Bringing continuous pressure to bear on governments to create pro-Scientology legislation and to discourage anti-Scientology legislation of groups opposing Scientology.” — LRH

Hubbard continued:

“The action of bringing about a pro-Scientology government consists of making a friend of the most highly placed government person one can reach, even placing Scientologists in domestic and clerical posts close to him and seeing to it that Scientology resolves his troubles and case.” — LRH

And in HCO PL 6 February 1966, HOW TO INCREASE AND EXPAND AN ORGANIZATION, Hubbard includes in the duties for a “Class VI” organization:

“Overcome any local objections to your expansion or Scientology. Work on cowing dissident government authorities who seek to prevent expansion – don’t compromise.” — LRH

And then there is this more famous (and more ominous) quote:

“Somebody some day will say “this is illegal”. By then be sure the [Scientology] org[anization]s say what is legal or not.”

— LRH, HCO PL 4 January 1966, LRH RELATIONSHIP TO ORGS

So as you can see, attempting to influence government members and policies has a long history, stretching almost as far back as the first publication of Dianetics.

It is right for Mark Rathbun to denounce this sort of behavior – but it’s wrong for him to imply that the “secular tech invasion” originated with David Miscavige. Hubbard’s own writings prove that government infiltration was his idea. Miscavige and his goons are simply following LRH policy, like any good Scientologist

Marty has made it clear that he is a Scientologist, and believes in the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. And yet he’s denouncing the teachings that are bound to be unpopular with his customer base, those Scientologists who are disillusioned with the Church. Once again (and just like the Church), Marty is attempting to re-write history for financial gain.

So tell me: Who is the real hypocrite?

ML,
Caliwog

Hubbard, Miscavige and Rathbun: “Always attack”

“[David Miscavige] has one impulse that substitutes for strategy, and one impulse alone that he follows: attempt to overwhelm by force.”

So sayeth Marty Rathbun in his recent blog post, Corporate Scientology Aggression. And he’s right. What he is leaving out, though, is that the strategy of overwhelm comes from L. Ron Hubbard. It can be found in dozens of policies; here are a couple of examples:

“[M]ake enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail… find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace… Don’t ever defend. Always attack. Don’t ever do nothing.”

— L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 15 August 1960

“The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”

— L. Ron Hubbard, “The Scientologist: A manual on the dissemination of material,” 1955

One reason I started this blog was to shed the light of truth on the lies of those who would blame the evils of Scientology on David Miscavige while white-washing Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.

If you learn one thing and one thing only from this blog, it should be this: Scientologists do not think for themselves. They think the way L. Ron Hubbard told them to think.

Any practicing Scientologist, independent or Church-going, will tell you this is false.

Any ex-Scientologist will tell you it is 100% true.

It applies to the rank-and-file of the Church. It applies to Marty’s customer base. It applies to Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, and David Miscavige.

Think of David Miscavige and Marty Rathbun as political candidates. They both believe in the same set of laws (those written by L. Ron Hubbard). They simply believe in different ways of interpreting and implementing them. They are deeply embroiled in a dirty-tricks campaign, and Miscavige has better funding.

But at the end of the day, they both believe in the same thing: Hubbard’s teachings. And for all the Squirrel Buster antics, for all Miscavige’s use of the law to harass Rathbun, Hubbard’s policies are the real evil in Scientology.

Hubbard’s policies are what hurt people. Hubbard’s policies are what ruin lives.

And nothing Marty Rathbun or David Miscavige says is going to change that.

ML,
Caliwog

Disconnection is okay. Except when it isn’t. Except when it is.

Hi again, everyone!

Sooo, today Marty Rathbun posted a copy of actor and independent Scientologist Michael Fairman’s lawsuit against his chiropractor. As you probably know, the Fairmans quit the Church and were declared Supressive Persons, so in keeping with L. Ron Hubbard’s instructions, his Scientologist chiropractor disconnected from him, his wife and their daughter. The Fairmans are suing for a number of reasons, among them religious discrimination and failure to turn over medical records when requested.

Now, I imagine the reason Marty considers this news is that it would appear that the chiropractors violated their doctor-client privilege by somehow letting the Church of Scientology know that the Fairmans were clients.

I’m just a lay-wog, but near as I can see, this argument holds about as much water as L. Ron Hubbard’s Fruit of the Looms. First, if you can spell “Wikipedia,” you can find out for yourself that the Fairmans were declared SPs. And second, the Church believes in public executions, and ethics orders such as SP Declares are posted for the public to see. Bottom line, much as Marty’s crowd loves conspiracies, it won’t be hard for the defendants’ lawyer(s) to show that the Fairmans’ departure from the Church and subsequent SP declare was broad public knowledge.

But let’s get to the bigger issue: Is it wrong to refuse to treat someone because of their religious beliefs?

Answer: OF COURSE IT IS. And wouldn’t it be wonderful if the courts ruled that Scientologists cannot refuse to do business with other Scientologists who have left the Church?

Of course, that’s going to put Marty in a hell of a spot. He’s trying to preserve LRH’s true tech. So let’s take a look at what LRH says about disconnection:

“The term ‘disconnection’ is defined as a self-determined decision made by an individual that he is not going to be connected to another. It is a severing of a communication line.

“A Scientologist can become PTS [Potential Trouble Source] by reason of being connected to someone that is antagonistic to Scientology or its tenets… he either HANDLES the other person’s antagonism… or, as a last resort when all attempts to handle have failed, he disconnects from the person. He is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person.”

— L. Ron Hubbard, HCOB 10 September 1983, PTSness AND DISCONNECTION

Wow, that’s going to be awkward. Especially since Marty has defended the practice of voluntary disconnection — you remember when he turned his back on a prostitute who was getting the shit beaten out of her by a man, rather than call the WOG police. (Read his version and mine.) Marty’s defense of disconnection parrots LRHs:

“I happen to agree with LRH’s observation that with the First Amendment freedom to speak comes the corollary right not to receive communication one is not interested in receiving… I wholeheartedly advise someone disconnect from a genuine source of suppression, who despite efforts to handle, continues to suppress.”

— Marty Rathbun, Pimps, Prostitutes and Disconnection

Let’s look at this logically. One can understand that, from a Church-going Scientologist’s perspective, an independent Scientologist is “a genuine source of suppression.” Therefore, according to both LRH’s and Marty’s logic, it’s perfectly okay to disconnect from them.

Except it’s not okay to disconnect from them, because in some cases, such as this one, “disconnection” – even, as Marty terms, it “voluntary disconnection” – is illegal.

If this case succeeds, it could be a huge blow for the tech. We’ll have case law showing yet another bit of LRH’s policy that is discriminatory and illegal.

Oh, wait… isn’t Marty dedicated to upholding and protecting LRH’s tech?

Well, that’s okay. If the case loses, Marty and his sheep will point to this as proof that the Church of Scientology has paid off a corrupt judiciary. If it wins, and results in further inquiry into the illegal practices inherent in Scientology, Marty can cite it as proof that the government is corrupt and opposed to religious freedom. Y’know, just like the Obama Administration.

Either way, Marty wins. And either way, Scientology loses.

ML,
Caliwog

Related: LRH on Disconnection

Mosey: Let’s talk about KSW

I’d like to discuss something Marty said in his rebuttal to Tony Ortega’s article on LRH, specifically on the interpretation of Keeping Scientology Working. Marty sez:

b. Your [Tony’s] repeated references to and quotes on the Hubbard Policy Letter Keeping Scientology Working:

In context, again as I explained to you, outside the culture of the church that policy letter, Keeping Scientology Working, means ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” That was the meaning my wife summed up as gleaning from it…But, apparently her view doesn’t count, not when it might slow down a witch burning of L Ron Hubbard.

Actually, KSW goes way beyond that. Allow me to quote the meat of KSW:

Getting the correct technology applied consists of:

One: Having the correct technology.

Two: Knowing the technology.

Three: Knowing it is correct.

Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.

Five: Applying the technology.

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.

— L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 7 February 1965, KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING

See, Mosey, there’s more there than just “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Hubbard is saying that once you identify what the correct technology is, you must know it and know that it is right. Furthermore, you must hammer out of existence incorrect technology. In other words, you must completely eliminate ANY other philosophy.

This is part of black-and-white viewpoint that is inherent in Scientology. There is only one way to skin a cat, and that’s Hubbard’s way. Any other cat-skinning methods are invalid and you must completely eliminate them from your thinking. If you are a Scientologist, only Hubbard’s way is valid.

If what Hubbard meant was “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” then KSW would say that if you found something that works, then it’s fine.

But KSW doesn’t say that. What KSW says is, “If it ain’t broke, but it also ain’t Hubbard’s ‘correct technology,’ then get the fuck rid of it.”

KSW goes on to say that Hubbard has never had any useful suggestions from anyone; that only his technology, and his alone, has proven workable:

“I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea…

“…there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work…

“True, if the group had not supported me in many ways I could not have discovered [The Tech] either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future…

“…the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called ‘new ideas’ would have wiped it out.”

— LRH, ibid.

Get that, Mosey? No useful suggestions have come from the group. And you know who that group is, Mosey? It’s YOU. You, Marty, his customers, Mike Rinder, David Miscavige, and all those corporate Scientologists. That’s the group he’s talking about. LRH has just told you that, aside from your money, nothing you have supplied has been very useful, and in fact has been rather destructive.

And you interpret this as “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? I interpret it as “My way is the only way, and your way is useless. So don’t even bother trying.”

Now, I know LRH tagged KSW with a page or so of his hard-to-understand babble. (Although it does contain the famous sentence “We’d rather have you dead than incapable.”) So I’ll tell you what: Go back and re-study just the beginning, the parts where he talks about only accepting Hubbard’s way of doing things and the fact that Hubbard and Hubbard alone developed the only workable technology mankind has ever known. (Look at the life you and Marty are leading, Mosey. Is this really workable technology?)

You’re a smart, sensible woman, Mosey. I admire you for the way you addressed the Squirrel Busters when your husband (understandably) couldn’t keep his temper in check. Marty says you’ve never been a Scientologist, so clearly, whatever philosophy you have has been working.

Does a woman like you really need L. Ron Hubbard to tell her how to run her life?

I, for one, do believe that if it ain’t broke, you shouldn’t fix it. And I hope you never change, Mosey. I hope you stay exactly as you are, and don’t turn into what L. Ron Hubbard wants you to be.

ML,
Caliwog