WARNING : for any seeking recovery or any info on beneficial mental health practices , I do not have any formal education on this subject and in fact have no college education at all .
This is in response to a question: Why did Scientology founder Ronald Hubbard claim to create the ideas he plagiarized from abreactive therapy and hypnosis which he recombined and renamed to present as Dianetics?
I believe he did this for several reasons.
First, he found hypnosis unpopular with the public and wanted to pretend his technique was not hypnosis.
Second, he didn’t create or own or improve on abreactive therapy and it was already under the province of psychiatry and evaluated thoroughly as a failure that seemed to temporarily improve some patients but in truth hurts them and far more often creates heightened suggestibility and dependence in the patients.
This information was readily available and if he was honest about Dianetics he would have been prohibited from practicing psychiatric treatment without a proper degree and especially practicing techniques that were already discredited before he stole them.
Third, he relied on his own claim of genius for discovering the principles behind Dianetics to give him what he termed altitude aka prestige.
He read books on hypnosis and the idea that a hypnotic operator must have altitude is present through Dianetics and Scientology indoctrination. It’s a fundamental in fact.
“Any time anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude…if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject…he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as a hypnotic suggestion….With parity, such as occurs between acquaintances, friends, fellow students and so on, there is no hypnotic suggestion” (Education and Dianetics, 11 November 1950, Research and Discovery, volume 4). Ron Hubbard Source Jon Atack
Here’s a longer excerpt:
ALTITUDE INSTRUCTION
“In altitude teaching, somebody is a ‘great authority.’ He is probably teaching some subject that is far more complex than it should be. He has become defensive down through the years, and this is a sort of protective coating that he puts up, along with the idea that the subject will always be a little better known by him than by anybody else and that there are things to know in this subject which he really wouldn’t let anybody else in on. This is altitude instruction … It keeps people in a state of confusion, and when their minds are slightly confused they are in a hypnotic trance. Anytime anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude. There are ways to create and lower the altitude of the subject, but if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject the same way, he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as hypnotic suggestion.” (Hubbard, Research & Discovery, volume 4, p.324)12
"One error, however, must be remarked upon. The examination system employed is not much different from a certain hypnotic technique. One induces a state of confusion in the subject by raising his anxieties of what may happen if he does not pass. One then “teaches” at a mind which is anxious and confused. That mind does not then rationalize, it merely records and makes a pattern. If the pattern is sufficiently strong to be regurgitated verbatim on an examination paper, the student is then given a good grade and passed."
[End Quote]
Ron Hubbard lecture 29 August 1950, “Educational Dianetics.” Source Arnie Lerma
So, Hubbard wanted to establish himself as the authority on Dianetics and Scientology!
He wanted to confuse people and with altitude suggest a stable datum to align them, and take them out of that confusion via a hypnotic implant!
Quotes from Ron Hubbard on the Confusion Technique:
[Quote]
"Now, if it comes to a pass where it’s very important whether or not this person acts or inacts as you wish, in interpersonal relations one of the dirtier tricks is to hang the person up on a maybe and create a confusion. And then create the confusion to the degree that your decision actually is implanted hypnotically.
The way you do this is very simple. When the person advances an argument against your decision, you never confront his argument but confront the premise on which his argument is based.
That is the rule. He says, “But my professor always said that water boiled at 212 degrees.”
You say, “Your professor of what?”
“My professor of physics.”
“What school? How did he know?”
Completely off track! You’re no longer arguing about whether or not water boils at 212 degrees, but you’re arguing about professors. And he will become very annoyed, but he won’t know quite what he is annoyed about. You can do this so adroitly and so artfully that you can actually produce a confusion of the depth of hypnosis. The person simply goes down tone scale to a point where they’re not sure of their own name.
And at that point you say, “Now, you do agree to go out and draw the water out of the well, don’t you?”
“Yes-anything!” And he’ll go out and draw the water out of the well."
[End Quote]
Ron Hubbard Lecture, 20 May 1952 “Decision.”
source Lermanet.com
So, according to Hubbard redirection of attention can confuse someone enough to achieve the depth of hypnosis. But that’s what his having the student always look for something to resolve that isn’t what he’s having trouble with does. He’s utterly confused. Hubbard had more to say on confusion and hypnosis:
“A confusion can be defined as any set of factors or circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate solution. More broadly, a confusion is random motion.”
“Until one selects one datum, one factor, one particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The one thing selected and used becomes the stable datum for the remainder.“Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built fromone datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” – Ron Hubbard, The Scientology Handbook
RON THE HYPNOTIST
Structure/Function: 11 December 1952 page 1
(Taped lecture from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures)
“All processes are based upon the original observation that an individual could have implanted in him by hypnosis and removed at will any obsession or aberration, compulsion, desire, inhibition which you could think of – by hypnosis.“
Hypnosis, then, was the wild variable;
sometimes it worked,
sometimes it didn’t work.
It worked on some people; it didn’t work on other people.
Any time you have a variable that is as wild as this, study it.
Well, I had a high certainty already –
I had survival. Got that in 1938 or before that. And uh…"Ron Hubbard
L. Ron Hubbard, author of the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and founder of the Church of Scientology, was a science-fiction writer before penning the book that would launch his fame. Dianetics is a self-help book published in 1950 which claimed to include new and unique theories on how the mind works. Hubbard claimed that this work was totally unprecedented; "Man had no inkling whatever of Dianetics. None. This was a bolt from the blue." (1) So there would be no doubt as to the originality of his ideas, Hubbard wrote that "dianetics borrowed nothing but was first discovered and organized; only after the organization was completed and a technique evolved was it compared to existing information." (2) According to Hubbard, some philosophers of the past helped provide the foundation of Dianetics, but the remaining research had been done "what the navigator calls, 'off the chart.'" (3)
Dianetics became a New York Times bestseller in 1950, and has since sold many millions of copies.
Was this a totally unique theory of the mind wrought from Hubbard's "many years of exact research and careful testing," (4) or was it a loose composite of already existing theories mixed with novel, unproven ideas? This paper proposes to show that, despite Hubbard's claims of originality, many of the ideas in Dianetics were already existing and even in vogue before Dianetics appeared. Either Hubbard really studied other works before he wrote Dianetics, or he wasted years of his time re-inventing the wheel.
Although there are no reference notes in Dianetics to see what are Hubbard's ideas and what are borrowed, we can quickly eliminate the idea that Dianetics appeared "from the blue" by Hubbard's own statements. In Dianetics itself is the statement that "many schools of mental healing from the Aesculapian to the modern hypnotist were studied after the basic philosophy of dianetics had been postulated." (5) Alfred Korzybski, Emil Kraepelin, Franz Mesmer, Ivan Pavlov, Herbert Spencer, and others are mentioned as resources in Dianetics, so we must assume Hubbard was crediting these people to some degree. He must certainly have known, then, of at least some of the research from his time which will be mentioned in this article. Hubbard in other settings acknowledged Sigmund Freud (especially through Commander "Snake" Thompson), (6) Count Alfred Korzybski, (7) and Aleister Crowley (8) as contributors to his ideas on the human mind. In a speech in 1950, Hubbard stated that he had spent much time in the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital medical library in 1945 during a stay for ulcers, where "I was able to get in a year's study." (9)
In fact, most of the theories and ideas in Dianetics can be found in scientific literature previous to the first publishing of Hubbard's theories. Parts of Dianetics, for example, have striking resemblance to two articles found in Volume 28 (1941) of the Psychoanalytic Review..
Dianetics theory posits the existence of engrams. These are memories of events that occur around us when our analytical mind is unconscious, and they are recorded in a separate area of the mind called the reactive mind. A seemingly unique theory in Dianetics is that these memories begin being stored "in the cells of the zygote--which is to say, with conception." (10) These engrams can cause problems for the person throughout life unless handled through Dianetics auditing.
Dr. J. Sadger, nine years before the introduction of Dianetics in 1950, wrote that several of his patients were not cured of their psychological problems until he had taken them back to their existence as sperm or ovum. He declared that "there exists certainly a memory, although an unconscious one, of embryonic days, which persists throughout life and may continuously determine an action." (11) Sadger spends much time explaining how his patients' memories of the time when they were zygotes or even sperm or ovum had affected their adult behaviors, noting that "an unconscious lasting memory must have remained from these embryonic days." (12) There were "unmistakable dreams" of being a sperm in the father's testicle.
Engrams, those unconscious memories of Dianetics, are said by Hubbard to be stored in the cells of the body and passed on to their clone cells and finally on to the adult being. Hubbard claimed to discover that "patients sometimes have a feeling that they are sperms or ovums... this is called the sperm dream." (13) It was impossible, he claimed, to deny to a pre-clear that he could remember being a sperm. But Sadger wrote about this first, and Hubbard could well have read this in his "year's study" at Oak Knoll Hospital.
Another coincidental discovery of Hubbard and Sadger was that mothers often attempt to abort their child. Sadger states that "so many a fall or other accident of a pregnant woman is nothing else than an attempt at abortion on the part of the unconscious, not to mention those cases where the mother seeks to free herself more or less forcibly from the unwanted child." (14) Hubbard concurs; "Attempted abortion is very common," (15) and in fact "twenty or thirty abortion attempts are not uncommon in the aberee." (16) Again, not an idea "from the blue."
Life in the womb was not very kind, according to one of Sadger's patients: "Perhaps when father performed coitus with mother in her pregnancy I was much shaken and rocked. Shall that have been one reason that I so easily became dizzy and that all my life I have had an aversion even as a child from swings and carousels?" (17) Hubbard, in a similar vein, insists that the mother "should not have coitus forced upon her. For every coital experience is an engram in the child during pregnancy." (18) "Papa becomes passionate and baby has the sensation of being put into a running washing machine." (19)
There are at least three other similarities like the "sperm dreams", commonality of abortion attempts, and fetus discomfort during parental sex. This seems quite a coincidence, but it is not known whether Hubbard read Sadger's article. Suffice it to say that these are major ideas in Dianetics, but they are not new ideas.
The second article under discussion from Psychoanalytic Review deals with the unbearable conditions during birth and the affects of these in later life. Grace W. Pailthorpe, M.D., argued in this 1941 article that patients should be psychoanalyzed more deeply into the period of infancy, or at least to the 'trauma of birth'. Otherwise no lasting therapeutic effect could be expected. Birth has traumatized all of us, she declares, and these unconscious memories drive us in our adulthood. "It is only when deep analysis has finally exposed the unconscious deviations of our vital force" (20) that we can recover and enjoy life.
In Dianetics, the reader is left with the impression that the ideas of birth and pre-birth memories and traumas, multiple abortion attempts, and fetal discomfort in the womb are new discoveries. As can be seen, this is not the case. And there are many other impressions of "new" and "unique" that are incorrect as well.
With Pailthorpe's article, for example, we can also note the dramatic similarities of Dianetics with simple Freudian psychoanalysis. There is in both the return to past times in the patient's life to search for the source of his or her current problems. Once these problematic memories are discovered and treated the problems vanish. In Pailthorpe's article we have a man who was hopelessly traumatized by the events at his birth. He was cruelly kicked out of his "home" in the womb, and his resistance to this was assumed to be the cause of the immediate traumas of the nurse's and mother's attentions (which were "painful to the child's sensitive body" (21)). These traumas caused headaches and social disorders in adult life. Psychoanalysis discovered the causes (birth trauma) and when these were brought to the conscious level with their meaning explained, the headaches and social dysfunctions were alleviated.
Dianetics follows this line of reasoning to a great degree. According to Hubbard, engrams (past traumas) are discovered in the pre-clear's past, and bringing these engrams into consciousness (from the reactive to the analytic mind) alleviates the disorder. Hubbard claims that after auditing people (he had the pre-clear lie on a couch in Freudian imitation), "psycho-somatic illness...by dianetic technique...has been eradicated entirely in every case." (22)
A theory in psychoanalysis known as abreaction is so similar to Dianetics (and preceding it by many years) that it must be mentioned in more detail here. A 1949 article by Nathaniel Thornton, D.Sc., gives a brief overview of abreaction and his views on its value. Abreaction began with Freud and was considered early on to be "one of the very cornerstones of analytic therapy." (23) This is a method of freeing a patient "from the deleterious results of certain pathogenic affects by bringing these affects back into the conscious mind and re-experiencing them in all their original force and intensity." (24) A patient of one of Freud's colleagues, under hypnosis and "with a free expression of emotion" (25) was freed of all her psycho-somatic symptoms using abreactive therapy. Pierre Janet is credited in the article with utilizing abreactive therapy to restore painful memories to consciousness and thus relieving a patient's symptoms. A patient being treated with this method must continually work through such painful memories until the patient "could accept the fact that the original experience no longer loomed up as a threat to him." (26)
Thornton concludes that abreaction is a useful tool simply because "confession is good for the soul", and that talking to someone about one's problems is almost always therapeutic.
"Auditing" in Dianetics is a virtual clone of abreactive therapy. Auditing basically is searching through a person's past until an engram is discovered, then continually reexperiencing the event when the engram (painful memory) was instilled "until the pre-clear is no longer affected" by the memory. (27) Hubbard takes abreaction to an extreme and declares that once a person has removed all his engrams, then Dianetics has done its job and an almost god-like human results. Once again, the similarity of an already existing theory on the mind is presented as a great discovery in Dianetics.
Alfred Korzybski, mentioned in passing in Dianetics, (28) owes a debt to Hubbard for making his theories well-known, according to some former followers of Dianetics. Bent Corydon, a former Mission holder of Hubbard's Church of Scientology, has made a convincing comparison of Dianetics and Korzbyski's writings, demonstrating that there is in essence little difference between many aspects of the two. (29) In support of this comparison, it should be noted that there was a "Korzybski fad" (30) sweeping through the science-fiction community in the 1940's, of which Hubbard was a member, and that Hubbard, as mentioned above, had stated the contribution Korzbyski made in his research.
Corydon also mentions the book The Mneme published in 1923 by Richard Simon, wherein not only the idea of engrams, but the very word itself is used. The word "engram" is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary as deriving from Simon's book.
Cybernetics, published in 1948, (31) compares the human mind to the newly developing technology of computers. Dianetics also tells us to "consider the analytical mind as a computing machine." (32) Cybernetics speaks of "affective tone" scales, (33) as does Dianetics in a remarkably similar vein. (34) Cybernetics was a very popular work at the time Hubbard was writing Dianetics.
We have seen that many of the ideas in Dianetics which were claimed to be unique were in fact current in the study of the mind at the time of, or just before, the introduction of Dianetics. It is difficult to see whether Hubbard had studied some of these works during his "many years of exact research," (35) but as mentioned previously he does acknowledge other researchers. At any rate, no book is written in a vacuum, so we may conclude from the evidence that Hubbard was aware of at least some of this research previous to writing his work. Barring acknowledgment somewhere by Hubbard, or a list of articles and works he had read, we can only guess as to the others.
It seems safe to conclude that the theories presented in Dianetics did not arrive "out of the blue" as claimed, but were instead a synthesis of previous, uncredited works. In that case, is there any reason to discount the ideas in Dianetics? There certainly is. There are outlandish, unsubstantiated claims made by Hubbard, including the possibility that cancer may be cured by Dianetic processing, (36) that colds and accidents can be eradicated, (37) IQ improved, (38) life extended, (39) and total recall enjoyed. (40) None of this is proven in any way other than constant mention of previous research. The problem with this research is that there is no tangible evidence of its existence. Hubbard in a lecture stated that "my records are in little notebooks, scribbles, in pencil most of them. Names and addresses are lost... there was a chaotic picture...." (41) A certain Ms. Benton asked Hubbard for his notes to validate his research, but when she saw them, "she finally threw up her hands in horror and started in on the project [validation of research] clean." (42) He was putting this into the hands of valid researchers "whose word can't be disputed" so Dianetics could be legitimized by the scientific professions.
Unfortunately, none of Hubbard's claimed research, nor those of his valid researchers can be found today, if they ever really existed. And if the methods and statistical results of the supposed research are not available, they cannot be checked and duplicated as the scientific method calls for. Anyone can make as many outlandish claims as he wants, but the research must be accessible and reproducible to support those claims if he brandishes scientific validity.
Dianetics is designed as a how-to manual for psychoanalysis. Anyone who reads the book should be able to perform Dianetics auditing and help his fellow man become "clear". "Dianetics is not being released to a profession... it is insufficiently complicated to warrant years of study in some university." (43) It is better to audit someone, said Hubbard, regardless of how well, than to not audit at all.
But this seems a bit reckless. Auditing can produce "tears and wailings," (44) and "a patient...that...bounces about, all unconscious of the action." (45) Regardless of the auditor's abilities, and regardless of how traumatic a session becomes for the pre-clear, "If an auditor...can sit and whistle while Rome burns before him and be prepared to grin about it, then he will do an optimum job." (46) This sounds more like quackery than therapy.
Children often have engrams that are restimulated by their parents. Hubbard states that it may be necessary to remove the children from their parents if this is the case, until the engrams are processed. (47) Here again we have Hubbard making an outlandish proposal of splitting families in order to produce healthier people.
The cells of the zygote, according to Dianetics theory, record sounds during a period of pain (Hubbard often uses a husband beating his pregnant wife as an example, such as "'Take that! Take it, I tell you. You've got to take it!'" (48) From this engram we are to believe that the child grows up to be a thief. Cellular recordings of sounds by the cells can even be in another language unknown to the adult or child and still cause similar problems. All of this, again, has no evidence accompanying it, and without such evidence it may as well be classified as mere science-fiction.
We have in Dianetics a work by a science-fiction writer who claims to have created a totally new and foolproof handbook of the mind with no documentation to prove his claimed research. This book has been actively sold by Hubbard's Church of Scientology for many years, and yet it is simply a synthesis of already published ideas with bizarre, unsubstantiated claims thrown in. The theories in this book, other than those found in previous works by others, have never been scientifically validated, and in fact, one attempt came up dry. (49) There is little scholastic or societal benefit to be derived from this work. S.I. Hayakawa put it well in his review of Dianetics: "The appalling thing revealed by dianetics about our culture is that it takes a 452-page book full of balderdash to get some people to sit down and seriously listen to each other!" (50)
Quoted in L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?, by Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1987) p. 262.
L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (Los Angeles: American Saint Hill Organization, 1950), 12th printing, paperback, August 1975, p. 340. (Henceforth Dianetics.)
ibid. p.400.
ibid. p. ix.
ibid. p.122.
Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah (N.Y.: Henry Holt & Co., 1987), pp.230- 231.
L. Ron Hubbard, cassette tape, "Introduction to Dianetics," Dianetics Lecture Series 1. 1950. Bridge Publications, Inc.
Stewart Lamont, Religion, Inc.: The Church of Scientology (London: Harrap, 1986) p.21.
"The History of Dianetics and Scientology" cassette tape.
Dianetics, p.130.
Dr. J. Sadger, "Preliminary Study of the Psychic Life of the Fetus and the Primary Germ." Psychoanalytic Review July 1941 28:3. p.333
ibid. pp.343-4.
Dianetics, p.294.
Sadger, p.336.
Dianetics, p. 156.
Dianetics, p.158.
Sadger, p.352.
Dianetics, p.158.
Dianetics, p.130.
Grace W. Pailthorpe, M.D., "Deflection of Energy, as a Result of Birth Trauma, and It's Bearing Upon Character Formation." Psychoanalytic Review July 1941 28:3 pp. 305-326, p.326.
ibid. p.307.
Dianetics, p.91.
Nathaniel Thornton, D.Sc., "What is the Therapeutic Value of Abreaction?" Psychoanalytic Review 1949 36:411-415. p.411.
ibid.
ibid. p.412.
ibid. p.413.
Dianetics, p.206.
Dianetics, p.62.
Corydon and Hubbard, Jr., pp. 266-269.
Albert I. Berger, "Towards a Science of the Nuclear Mind: Science-fiction Origins of Dianetics", Science Fiction Studies, 1989, vol. 16:123-141. p.135.
Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics; or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1948).
Dianetics, p.43.
Wiener, p.150.
Dianetics, p.323ff.
Dianetics, p.ix.
Dianetics, p.93.
Dianetics, p.92.
Dianetics, pp. 90, 193.
Dianetics, p.170.
Dianetics, p.417.
L. Ron Hubbard, cassette tape, "What Dianetics Can Do," Dianetics Lecture Series 2. 1950. Bridge Publications, Inc.
ibid.
Dianetics, p.168.
Dianetics, p.253.
Dianetics, p.278.
Dianetics, p.179.
Dianetics, pp.154, 155.
Dianetics, p.212.
Jack Fox, Alvin E. Davis, and B. Lebovits, "An Experimental Investigation of Hubbard's Engram Hypothesis (Dianetics)," Psychological Newsletter 1959, 10, 131-134.
S.I. Hayakawa, "From Science-fiction to Fiction-science", Etc.: A Review of General Semantics, 1951 Vol. 8 (4) 280-293. p. 293.
I am emailing you as a friend and fellow Scientologist. As we enter a new year, it is hoped that 2012 can be a year of great dissemination and a year of real progress up The Bridge for all Scientologists.
Although I am not in the Sea Org right now, I served in the Sea Org at Flag for 29 years. 17 of those years were as Captain FSO. I am a trained auditor and C/S as well as an OEC, FEBC and DSEC.
I am completely dedicated to the technology of Dianetics and Scientology and the works of LRH. I have seen some of the most stunning and miraculous results in the application of LRH technology and I absolutely know it is worth fighting to keep it pure and unadulterated.
My husband and I are in good standing and we are not connected with anyone who is not in good standing. We have steadfastly refused to speak to any media, even though many have contacted us.
But I do have some very serious concerns about out-KSW that I see permeating the Scientology religion.
I have the utmost respect for the thousands of dedicated Scientologists and Sea Org members. Together, we have come through everything this world could throw at us and have some real impingement on the world around us. I am proud of our accomplishments and I know you are too. However there is no question that this new age of continuous fundraising is not our finest moment.
LRH says in HCO PL 9 Jan 51, An Essay on Management, “drop no curtains between the organization and the public about anything.” -LRH
Based on this policy I am communicating to you about some situations that we need to do something about within our religion, within our group.
Actions that are either not covered in policy or directly violate LRH policy and tech include the extreme over-regging and fund-raising activities that have become so much a part of nearly every Sea Org org and Class V org as well as every “OT Committee”. This fundraising is not covered anywhere in LRH policy.
Hardworking Sea Org members and the dedicated staff of orgs around the world aren’t choosing to do these actions. Nor are the OTs. I am sure they would be more than happy if they could just get on with direct dissemination of Scientology as they have done for so many years.
But the truth is that this is being driven from the very highest echelons within the Scientology structure and clearly there is a lot of pressure to make targets that are being set.
The IAS: The IAS was created unbeknownst to LRH in 1984 by Marc Yager and David Miscavige. This was supposed to be based on LRH policies on the subject of membership and the HASI, however the IAS is nothing like the membership system described by LRH which only has two memberships and is covered in HCO PL 22 March 1965 “Current Promotion and Org Program Summary, Membership Rundown” and states:
“There are two memberships…”- LRH
LRH lists there the INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP and gives its cost at 10 pounds sterling or $30 US. He also lists a LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP which is priced at $75 US. There are no other memberships or statuses approved or known to LRH.
Furthermore, membership monies are supposed to go directly to the org where the membership is signed up, and the money used for dissemination by that org, in that area. This is covered in HCOPL 1 Sept 1965R Membership Policies.
“It all goes into the HCO Book Account in the area where the membership is brought and is not part of the organization’s weekly gross income. Membership monies go to dissemination”.- LRH
Currently membership monies are held as Int reserves and have grown to well in excess of a billion dollars. Only a tiny fraction has ever been spent, in violation of the policy above. Only the interest earned from the holdings have been used very sparingly to fund projects through grants. In fact many of the activities you see at IAS events are not actually funded by the IAS, but rather by the Scientologists involved.
Think about it, how many ads disseminating Scientology, Dianetics or any Scn affiliated programs have you seen on TV? Heard on the radio? Seen in newspapers? I haven’t seen one in the 4 years I have lived in San Antonio, Texas, the 7th largest city in the US. How many have you seen?
Donating anything more than a lifetime membership to the IAS is not based on LRH policy. The article “What Your Donations Buy” (The Auditor, The Monthly Journal of Scientology No. 51, 1970) is clearly talking about how the church uses your donations for Dianetics and Scientology services. Next time you are asked to donate outside of services, realize that you are engaged in fundraising and ask to see something in writing from L. Ron Hubbard that this is something he expects from you as a Scientologist.
New Org Buildings: LRH also never directed the purchase of opulent buildings or the posh renovations or furnishings for every org.
In fact, if you read HCO PL 12 March 75 Issue II, “The Ideal Org”, which is what this program has been called, and nowhere in it will you find 20 million dollar buildings or even any reference to the poshness of org premises at all as part of LRH’s description of an “Ideal Org”. Instead, an Ideal Org was one that delivered and moved people up The Bridge – something that is not part of this “Ideal Org” program.
LRH says in the PL that an Ideal Org:
“would be clean and attractive enough not to repel its public” – LRH.
This is all it says about the state of the building.
As a result of this off-policy alteration of the Ideal Org PL, we have the majority of top OTs, now deemed “OT Ambassadors”, heavily engaged in fund-raising activities that include “bingo”, “pirate dinners”, “knitting classes”, “hay rides”, and many other activities strictly revolving around raising funds for the required multi-millions of dollars to fund their “Ideal Org”. As part of this, people around every org are now asked to donate to their local “Ideal Org” instead of their own services or their own Bridge.
LRH says in HCO PL Org Ethics and Tech:
“GET RID OF DISTRACTIONS FROM SCIENTOLOGY in your org. Baby-sitting or raffle tickets and such nonsense.”-LRH
Yet these distractions are rampant as they are being used as fund-raisers to get money for the huge quotas being issued to fund the “Ideal Org”.
“If the org slumps… don’t engage in ‘fund-raising’ or ‘selling postcards’ or borrowing money. Just make more income with Scientology. It’s a sign of very poor management to seek extraordinary solutions for finance outside Scientology. It has always failed.”
“For orgs as for pcs, ‘Solve It With Scientology’.
“Every time I myself have sought to solve financial or personnel in other ways than Scientology I have lost out. So I can tell you from experience that org solvency lies in more Scientology, not patented combs or fund-raising barbeques.”
HCO PL 24 February 1964, Issue II, Org Programming, (OEC Vol. 7, p. 930)
The point is that Scientologists and OT’s need to be training, auditing and disseminating to raw public- not regging each other or holding internal fundraisers.
Out Tech: Over the last few years we have seen literally hundreds and hundreds of people who were validated as clear using the CCRD as developed by LRH now being told they are not Clear. This included hundreds of OTs who were then put onto NED as a “handling”. LRH clearly forbid any Dianetics to be run on OTs in HCOB “Dianetics Forbidden on OTs”. This is out tech. This entire technical “handling” was directed personally by COB RTC and was done on thousands of OTs. But it was based not on an LRH HCO Bulletin, but rather based on a single C/S instruction where LRH C/Sed one pre-OT who had not achieved the state of clear but was mid OT III and not making it. LRH directed a solo handling that the pre-OT was to do to get himself to achieve the state of Clear. This LRH C/S taken out of context was then used to implement a technical handling that was in direct violation of an LRH HCOB.
This and other “technical handlings” done on Solo NOTs auditors created great expense and hardship on Solo NOTs auditors around the world as they were made to do these handlings to continue on the level.
Then there are the “fast grades at Flag” that no other org has. How can it be that Flag has been delivering grades differently to the rest of the world for the last 3 years? Whatever the problem is, the fact is that having “fast Grades” at Flag creates a hidden data line and is a HIGH CRIME and the subject of an entire policy letter called HCOPL “TECH DEGRADES” which LRH has placed at the start of every Scientology course.
More recently the fad seems to be that nearly everyone needs to “re-do their Purif and do a long objectives program”, including many OTs mid Solo NOTs.
There is nothing wrong with doing objectives, but it is a clear violation of HCOB ‘MIXING RUNDOWNS AND REPAIRS” to have a person mid a rundown or OT level be taken off it and placed on an objectives program.
Solo NOTs auditors are also being made to get their objectives from a Class IX auditor at great expense as they are not being allowed to co-audit.
Flag has made many millions of dollars on the above listed out tech handlings because OTs mid Solo NOTs are forced to get these out-tech actions to be able to get back onto and stay on the level and complete it. Not to mention the spiritual effects of the out tech that this has on each OT.
I myself was subject to these out tech “handlings”, including extensive FPRD mid Solo NOTs. It took its toll in many ways, including physical situations I am still dealing with today. So I have some reality of the hardship caused.
LRH Command Structure: LRH left us with a complex and balanced command structure, with our orgs led by the Office of ED International. This office was considered so important that LRH created a special management group called the Watch Dog Committee whose only purpose was to see that this office and the other needed layers of management existed. LRH ED 339R speaks of this extensively as the protection for our Church. But these people are missing. And not just some. As of just a few years ago there were no members of the office of ED Int on post, not to mention top execs throughout the International Management structure.
You may have also wondered… where is Heber, the President of the Church? What about Ray Mitthoff, Senior C/S International, the one that LRH personally turned over the upper OT Levels to? How about Norman Starkey, LRH’s Trustee? What happened to Guillaume – Executive Director International? And Marc Yeager, the WDC Chairman? What happened to the other International Management executives that you have seen at events over the years?
The truth is that I spent weeks working in the empty International Management building at Int. Empty because everyone had been removed from post. When I first went up lines I was briefed extensively by David Miscavige about how bad all of them were and how they had done many things that were all very discreditable. This seemed to “explain” the fact that the entirety of the Watchdog Committee no longer existed. The entirety of the Executive Strata, which consisted of ED International and 11 other top International executives that were the top executives in their particular fields, no longer existed. That the Commodore’s Messenger Org International no longer existed. All of these key command structures of Scientology International, put there by LRH, had been removed.
There were hundreds and hundreds of unanswered letters and requests for help from org staff, written based on LRH ED 339R where LRH says that staff can write to these top executives in the Exec Strata for help. But this is not possible if all these execs have been removed and no one is there to help them or to get evaluations and programming done to expand Scientology.
Well, after that I got to spend some quality time with Heber, Ray Mithoff, Norman Starkey, Guillaume, as well as the entirety of International Management at the time, who were all off post and doing very long and harsh ethics programs. These have gone on for years and to the only result of that they are still off post. There is no denying that these top executives have all gradually disappeared from the scene. You don’t see them at the big events anymore or on the ship at Maiden Voyage.
David Miscavige has now become the “leader” of the Scientology religion. Yet what LRH left behind was a huge structure to properly manage all aspects of the Scientology religion. He put a complete and brilliant organizational structure there, not one individual. There never was supposed to be a “leader” other than LRH himself as the goal maker for our group.
There is a situation here and even if you have not been to the International Management Base you should be able to see that over regging and frequent tech changes are not OK and you have a responsibility to do something to Keep Scientology Working. You should be able to find and read the references on membership in OEC Volume 6. Find and read the HCO PL entitled “The Ideal Org” (Data Series 40). Find and read the references on org buildings, including HCO PL 24 Aug 65 II, Cleanliness of Quarters and Staff, Improve our Image. Also, HCO PL 17 June 69, The Org Image.
If you don’t want to make waves or put yourself in danger of being taken off the level or denied eligibility, then there are some simple things you can do. First and foremost, withdraw your support from off policy actions. Stop donating to anything other than your own services and actual Bridge progress. Simply demand to see an LRH reference that says you are required to make other such donations. No one will be able to produce any references because there aren’t any.
Stop supporting any of the activities that are being done to forward off-policy fund-raising in your area.
LRH says what he expects of a Scientologist – that is what he expects you to do. In fact he put it in HCOB 10 June 1960 Issue I, Keeping Scientology Working Series 33, WHAT WE EXPECT OF A SCIENTOLOGIST. Read it and follow it.
The other thing you can do is to send this email to as many others as you can, even if you do it anonymously.
Please keep this email among us, the Scientologists. The media have no place in this. You may wonder why I have not written a KR and gone about my business. The answer is, I have. But there is no longer anyone to send that KR to.
But you can and should write reports and bring off-policy to the attention of local org executives and local Sea org members.
We are a strong and powerful group and we can affect a change. We have weathered many storms. I am sorry that I am the one telling you, but a new storm is upon us. It’s waves are already in the media and the world around us.
The truth is that as a Scientologist you are more able, more perceptive and have a higher integrity. Scientology is supposed to allow you to “think for yourself” and never compromise your own integrity. And most certainly LRH held every Scientologist responsible to KEEP SCIENTOLOGY WORKING.
I am not trying to do anything other than affect a change in serious off policy actions occurring. My husband and I have most of our family and many many good friends who are Scientologists. I have not been real interested in sticking my neck out like this.
However, I also know that I dedicated my entire adult life to supporting LRH and the application of LRH technology and if I ever had to look LRH in the eye I wouldn’t be able to say I did everything I could to Keep Scientology Working if I didn’t do something about it now.
We all have a stake in this. It is simply not possible to read the LRH references and not see the alterations and violations that are currently occurring.
You have a very simple obligation to LRH. Don’t participate in anything off policy, and let others know they should not either. If every person who reads this email does nothing more than step back from off-policy actions we would have changed direction. If we took all that energy and directed it into auditing, training and raw public dissemination, we would be winning.
And that is what I wish for you and all of us as we ring in this new year.
Over the last few days both Tony Ortega and Mike Rinder have presented stories about the immense recent decline of Scientology.
At The Underground Bunker Tony Ortega has a report that Scientology organizations have been on a steep decline over the last couple of years as many have closed for seven months and they now have extreme measures in place to prevent Covid from spreading and this has resulted in many people, possibly thousands or tens of thousands, of people leaving Scientology and not being replaced.
Mike Rinder had a report on the decline of the stats of New York org and these are equally grim.
Plainly speaking, Scientology may have perhaps two to ten thousand members left, worldwide.
That's not enough to do much of anything. They are not going to be filling orgs, they are not going to be having a significant positive impact on any community or being very good at ever even faking it.
Maybe, David Miscavige can make Flag look viable if he puts a lot of eggs in that one basket, but I don't think he has enough people to do this successfully with a half dozen orgs and certainly not with all the Sea Org management orgs and service orgs and the regular orgs. It's just not feasible.
I think he's focusing on Flag in his efforts to get whales to buy up the property in Clearwater Florida so he can pretend Scientology is expanding.
I think he has no other answer to the decline of Scientology except to make more meaningless statistics for empty buildings and products that no one wants to give a facade of expansion for his rapidly hollow endeavor.
He is probably trying to fool both the wealthy and famous people still in Scientology to avoid the negative publicity they could generate and also put forth enough of a fake effort to use some of the billions that Scientology has in cash and real estate for purposes he can pretend are charitable. Making lots of books and courses for Scientology seems kosher as does building an endless array of cathedrals, even if no one wants the materials and the big shiny buildings are almost all nearly entirely empty and actually not helping anyone in any way.
It's remotely plausible that this way of spending some part of his billions and billions and billions in assets is intended to help Scientology survive or expand. It just needs to fool the people who frankly want to be fooled, meaning they already have reasons why the lies are easier to accept than reject, they are predisposed to preferably believing what Miscavige is selling over doubting or rejecting it, so they won't look too deeply.
The big question of course for critics of Scientology is if these recent reports are supported by a lot of good evidence and the new reality becomes a Scientology in steep decline, much like Christian Science with many empty reading rooms and virtually no growth in many decades, what will WE do?
Several court cases still loom, but if Scientology is settling into a shell of its former self, a nearly dormant husk and it is not going to be very active, outside of perhaps Clearwater Florida and a handful of other places in any significant way, then what is left for us to do?
I still sympathize with people who want to be reunited with family members in Scientology and hope they can reconcile with them and that people can escape the grip of Scientology but if they are not going to be much of a threat anymore, what is left to be done?
I just don't know. The subject has a different meaning for people who were in the group for years and had their lives severely negatively affected than it does for most people who are simply curious about it.
I think for myself and a lot of others it may be shifting to a much, much smaller part of our lives.
Where did L. Ron Hubbard get the idea that life is a game?
My personal opinion on this is he got it the way he got most of the ideas in Dianetics and Scientology. He plagiarized it.
Hubbard at his typewriter in his later years.
Numerous experts have noted that Hubbard plagiarized hundreds of ideas and presented them as his own. He took special interest in the occult and hypnosis when he created his own cult.
Hubbard had been a cult member himself before founding Scientology.
He especially liked the work of Aleister Crowley.
I think he took the idea of presenting life as a game from earlier cults and presented it as his own.
In a lecture from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures Hubbard acknowledged Crowley's influence and in the 39th lecture of the series, known as the gamemaker tape, Hubbard described how one would make a game.
I wrote a blog post that lists then analyzes key quotes from that lecture.
It's been said that in the very earliest years of Dianetics and Scientology Ron Hubbard wasn't as good at hiding his intentions as he would later become. I examined the transcripts of several tapes Hubbard made in the early fifties and some from the sixties as well. I found the tape from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course numbered 39 that described the games maker actually outlined how he created Scientology in extreme detail.
Here's a group of quotes from that tape that describes this with a commentary afterword.
The MEST universe would have you believe this is the only game there is anyplace in the whole of anything. That’s not true! Not even vaguely true.
Games are going on with all kinds of rules, terrific interest levels and so forth. All right, I’m going to read off for you this paper just so we’ve got it on the tape. How many minutes we got? – five minutes. That’s plenty.
"The aberration above time is ‘there must be a game’. Now there’s a postulate up there, ‘there must be a game’ and there’s an interest level and therefore it enters into a flow. And ‘there must be a game’ and ‘there must not be a game’. So you have the Un-maker of Games quite as important as the Maker of Games."
Now we get "The rules of games are as follows: Limitations on self and others, obedience to rules, unconsciousness of rules to add reality" – we pretend the rules are real.
"ARC with others to play. Pain as a penalty which will be obeyed" – you have to have a penalty that will be obeyed. Otherwise, nobody will stick with the rules.
"Agreement to rules and penalties is necessary to continue a game." And boy, are they! "Deterioration of a game until no game" – cycle of action shows you the whole game is an object with no action.
You know, the… the… the wienie finally becomes everything there is, and there is no action even to get the wienie.
"Work is admission of inability to play" – if you have to work, you can’t play, obvious. They really yap about that here.
"A game of complexity and levels" – the Tone Scale is such a game. It’s just a map of MEST universe games.
"Peculiarity or liability of a maker of game, people attempting to play the game of Maker of Games" – it’s a game itself. Your big capitalista or commissar will do that.
"The game called Maker of Games results in No Game. And the game called Unmaking Games results in a game. 8008."
"There’s a game called freedom," which is what you’re playing right at this minute. "
And Games contain trickery and misdirection to win" – your 180 degree vector of Have and Agree. "
The prize of winning is making a new game" – what do you know? "Or permitting a new game to be made or making it possible for a new game to be played." Those are all prizes, and that’s all the prizes there are. "
"The necessity" – oh, of course, there’s these gimmicks, these wienies and so forth. But everybody just knows that they’re spurious as hell. Uh… „The necessity to have a new game coded before one ends the old game." Otherwise, everyone becomes a maker of games with no game.
Now, "The value of pieces. Ownership of pieces may be also the ownership of players. And the difference between players and pieces, and the difficulty of pieces becoming players"
boy, when a piece becomes a player, there’s really a hell of an upset in the game; it’ll just blow. Oh, the quarterback walks out of the football game and all of a sudden starts to run the whole football game, and nobody can tell him "No." That football game’s dead.
Now… so you’ve got to hide the rules from the pieces, otherwise this is going to happen.
"Now the caste system of game consist of this: The Maker of Games, he has no rules, he runs by no rules.
The player of the games, rules known but he obeys them. And the assistant players merely obey the players. And the pieces obey rules as dictated by players, but they don’t know the rules."
And then, what do you know. There’s broken pieces, and they aren’t even in the game, but they’re still in the game.
And they’re in a terrible maybe: "Am I in the game or am I not in the game?" Now, "How to make a piece. This is how to make a piece: First, deny there is a game. Second, hide the rules from them. Three, give them all penalties and no wins. Four, remove all goals" –
all goals. "Enforce them… their playing. Inhibit their enjoying. Make them look like but forbid their being like players"
– look like God but uh… you can’t be God.
"To make a piece continue to be a piece, permit it to associate only with pieces and deny the existence of players."
Never let the pieces find out that there are players. Now out of these you’re going to get games.
Now here’s a process that has to do with the making of games, and all this process adds up to, is you just address to those factors which I just gave you, oh, run and change postulates and any creative process that you can think of and shift postulates around, you get a whole process.
But remember, that up at the top of it there is a big postulate, "There must be a game.
“ Therefore if you want to regain the Spirit of Play, people have got to unmake postulates they’ve made all along, saying, "There mustn’t be a game. There mustn’t be a game. It can’t be a game. Don’t play with me. I mustn’t be played with. Life is serious. This isn’t a game. We’re playing for keeps. I’ll never get out of this,"
and so forth. In other words, the postulates which they’ve made to convince themselves that these are the rules and the only rules that can be played, and these that I’ve just read off to you.
I’m going to have this typed and you can figure it out more or less as you want to. I could, of course, give you even further rundown on this, if you wanted me to, but it takes… takes a little while to do so. It’s actually the backbone of what we are doing. But let’s take a break. (TAPE ENDS)
It has the blueprint for a cult. Make rules, hide them. Use claims that are 180 degrees from the truth.
He foreshadowed his later claims that life is serious.
He foreshadowed his statement that we're playing for keeps or his claim that we're playing for blood, the stakes are earth.
"We must come to orderly cause-point on every post. We must, we must, we must.
We're playing for blood. The stake is Earth. If we don't make it nobody will. We're the sole agency in existence today that can forestall the erasure of all civilization or bring a new better one. If we aren't willing to be hanged for our mistakes we'll surely fry for them."
(HCO PL 22 May 1959 Issue II CENTRAL ORGANIZATION EFFICIENCY)
Hubbard required "obedience to rules, unconsciousness of rules to add reality“ – we pretend the rules are real."
He demanded extreme obedience. He used contradictions and deep layers of complex and compartmentalized doctrine for different caste levels so no one but he knew the rules. They were unknowable to everyone else.
By having the rules be unknown they couldn't be analyzed and rejected.
It's like how in 1984 ALL laws have been cancelled. This makes it so the government CAN'T break the law as there is no law to break. The government can legally do ANYTHING to ANYONE. So too do Hubbard's hidden rules let him do anything to anyone.
Agreement to rules and penalties is something Margaret Singer noted in her six conditions for a thought reform program. Cults use a system of rewards and penalties. Hubbard certainly learned this from his participation in and study of occult practices.
"Scientology is the only game in the universe where everybody wins.
We respect the other fellow whatever his status and give him his right to win the biggest prize of all, himself or herself. That prize is won by dedicated, exact application of Scientology and full support of our mission in our organization and the public.
Organized, we can each one win the biggest prize that can be offered - a full recovery of self.
There is no greater game in the universe than Scientology, for it is the only game in which everybody wins. And that places it far above all other games and makes it the game of games where everybody gets the ultimate prize of self . . ."
(HCO PL 18 April 1965 Issue I CONTESTS AND PRIZES)
The weinie is everything statement is similar to the eventual blind obedience to Scientology. It goes from a tool to a way of life. It goes from optional servant to inescapable master. You just do things FOR Scientology.
Hubbard sought to escape work with his game. He wanted to have the pirates and bums attitude that life should just give him what he desired.
Like in his reference to pirates and bums in the first lecture in the PDC series.
If people believe in magic they can believe in a source of magic and Hubbard was only too happy to lie to claim both. He wanted it to seem detrimental to not have magical thinking and beneficial and logical to have magical thinking.
"Well, he was able to take a very grand view of all this at first. Then later on when it became serious to him . . . And you know—you know, the way to get ahead in the world is “Work hard” and “Save your money,” and be respectful, respectful and polite, and willing, and very agreeable to your superiors. This is the old formula, and yet it’s dismaying to go around and find the (quote) “captains of industry” and find out that they’re a whole bunch of pirates and bums. They were never respectful to anybody. It’s just incredible! Yet there they sit in command of large works and industries. And these fellows, they didn’t save their money. They don’t save their money. They are not cautious with their investments. They buy the doggonest things. They get into the worst possible scrapes and trouble, and seem to keep right on going and getting right out of them again." Ron Hubbard
He suggested the magical thinker wins and the other kind loses in life as a rule.
"And you sit around and say, “Well, that fellow’s going to come to grief sooner or later.” And after you’ve said that for about forty years, why, you get a little apathetic about it but you just know that right will triumph in the end. Of course the end of that track is MEST. Well, the fellow who hopes this, by the way, is already pretty well on that track and he’ll be MEST before the other fellow will, because the other fellow can still bend the MEST universe around and he doesn’t have to agree with it too much."
Ron Hubbard
Hubbard intentionally made complexity to control people. He made the tone scale to map how he alone would persuade people with a series of lies about emotions. It's entirely a fabrication from other plagiarized ideas.
He said the game you are playing now is called freedom. It's an Orwellian reversal. It's slavery.
"And Games contain trickery and misdirection to win“ – your 180 degree vector of Have and Agree. "
Hubbard admitted his game contained trickery and misdirection to win. He used 180 degree reversals in his lies, projection and his Orwellian reversals. He called things their opposites. His bridge to total freedom was a route to slavery. He called his hypnotic illusions truth revealed. He called a method of adding guided imagination to create false memories a method to merely listen and guide.
He called adding a cult identity clearing. He called obliterating independent, critical, linear and rational thought through high authority indoctrination study technology. He called removing the morals of a person ethics technology. He said auditing un-hypnotizes people.
His prize of making a new game is the illusion of a future as a free immortal spiritual being he claims Scientology prepares one to participate in. It's a very generous empty promise of a counterfeit dream.
"The necessity“ – oh, of course, there’s these gimmicks, these wienies and so forth. But everybody just knows that they’re spurious as hell. Uh… "The necessity to have a new game coded before one ends the old game." Otherwise, everyone becomes a maker of games with no game.
He had several references on necessity levels. He had hundreds on the deadly serious nature of Scientology. When he spoke of having the new game coded it's a sneaky method of persuasion. People think they are temporarily giving up freedom but it becomes permanent. A world without criminals, war or insanity is a very difficult goal.
The necessity – "oh, of course, there’s these gimmicks, these wienies and so forth. But everybody just knows that they’re spurious as hell. Uh… "The necessity to have a new game coded before one ends the old game." Otherwise, everyone becomes a maker of games with no game.
Now, "The value of pieces. Ownership of pieces may be also the ownership of players. And the difference between players and pieces, and the difficulty of pieces becoming players"
boy, when a piece becomes a player, there’s really a hell of an upset in the game; it’ll just blow. Oh, the quarterback walks out of the football game and all of a sudden starts to run the whole football game, and nobody can tell him "No." That football game’s dead.
Now… so you’ve got to hide the rules from the pieces, otherwise this is going to happen.
This quote really sums up why he hid EVERYTHING he really wanted. With his affirmations it becomes clear. Scientology was meant to make slaves for Hubbard that didn't suspect it for a second.
Next is the plan to have Hubbard be the games maker and his highest assistants like Nibs be players, until Nibs left him.
Hubbard went on:
"Now the caste system of game consist of this: The Maker of Games, he has no rules, he runs by no rules.
The player of the games, rules known but he obeys them. And the assistant players merely obey the players. And the pieces obey rules as dictated by players, but they don’t know the rules."
And then, what do you know. There’s broken pieces, and they aren’t even in the game, but they’re still in the game.
And they’re in a terrible maybe: "Am I in the game or am I not in the game?" Now, "How to make a piece. This is how to make a piece: First, deny there is a game. Second, hide the rules from them. Three, give them all penalties and no wins. Four, remove all goals“ –
all goals. "Enforce them… their playing. Inhibit their enjoying. Make them look like but forbid their being like players"
– look like God but uh… you can’t be God.
"To make a piece continue to be a piece, permit it to associate only with pieces and deny the existence of players."
Never let the pieces find out that there are players. Now out of these you’re going to get games.
Now here’s a process that has to do with the making of games, and all this process adds up to, is you just address to those factors which I just gave you, oh, run and change postulates and any creative process that you can think of and shift postulates around, you get a whole process.
But remember, that up at the top of it there is a big postulate, "There must be a game. " Ron Hubbard
Hubbard had a few trusted lieutenants but over time stopped trusting anyone. He became paranoid and the only player of games. High level Scientology Sea Org members were pieces. Hubbard lied to Mary Sue and his closest advisors over time.
Hubbard made pieces out of Scientology cult members by pretending there were no players. The players were people Hubbard stole ideas from. Hubbard pretended to be the only source of Dianetics and Scientology. It's always been a lie. Hubbard would excommunicate people who exposed him as having other people contribute to Scientology. He consistently used ideas from others but clamped down hard on it by the advent of KSW.
He used harsh ethics and the RPF to make broken pieces out of Sea Org members.
He went on:
Now here’s a process that has to do with the making of games, and all this process adds up to, is you just address to those factors which I just gave you, oh, run and change postulates and any creative process that you can think of and shift postulates around, you get a whole process.
Ron Hubbard
His process had many forms but added up to addressing the factors he laid out and run meaning use guided imagination aka hypnosis to change the decisions people make, the decisions they recalled making and the decisions they will make. Hubbard greatly expanded this over time to include any creative processes he can think of. That included the metered auditing taken from Volney Mathison's guided imagery therapy, the objectives taken from hypnosis and occult practices, the study tech taken from a combination of hypnosis, loaded language and psychology and even administrative technology and ethics technology too.
Hubbard continued:
But remember, that up at the top of it there is a big postulate, "There must be a game."
"Therefore if you want to regain the Spirit of Play, people have got to unmake postulates they’ve made all along, saying, "There mustn’t be a game. There mustn’t be a game. It can’t be a game. Don’t play with me. I mustn’t be played with. Life is serious. This isn’t a game. We’re playing for keeps. I’ll never get out of this,"
and so forth. In other words, the postulates which they’ve made to convince themselves that these are the rules and the only rules that can be played, and these that I’ve just read off to you. Ron Hubbard
He told people they needed to regain the spirit of play. He put games at 22.0 on his tone scale so people thought they needed a spirit of play.
He of course said it's a deadly serious activity and not some minor game we are playing in Scientology. He said we play for keeps.
Here's the heart of it In other words, the postulates which they’ve made to convince themselves that these are the rules and the only rules that can be played, and these that I’ve just read off to you.Ron Hubbard
He wanted to change your decisions so you would see his rules as the only rules that can be played. In other words his reality is the only truth and if it includes obedience to him, well that's now your belief too. Hubbard wins the minds of men. That's the game.
The ideas expressed here find there way all through Dianetics and Scientology.
Hubbard said "His spirit of play is sensation of play and is not just energy. It's a tremendous sensation. A guy has practically lost it if he's here on Earth at all ." On the PDC lectures too.
A vast amount of the ideas and quotes in Scientology in particular Keeping Scientology Working Series one are echoes of the ideas expressed here back in 1952.
I previously published Mockingbird's greatest hits, with the twenty most popular posts from the Mockingbird's Nest blog regarding Scientology.
Mockingbird's Greatest Hits
I have reached nearly two hundred posts online and thousands of comments as well. In looking back at all that I realized a very small number of posts have been consistently the most viewed and likely most helpful for people seeking to understand Scientology.
I certainly hope they are helping people. Here I will try to present the short list of the posts that best explain my ideas and can introduce you to information that I hope will help begin beneficial examination of Scientology.
