Self Sabotage in Scientology

Scientology has tons, literally, of policies and bulletins and tapes requiring abusive, fraudulent and criminal behavior from Scientologists. Lots of us get frustrated when we have worked to recover from Scientology and looked at the indoctrination we went through with a critical eye, a skeptical eye and realized the mountains of evidence are readily available in Scientology doctrine and history.

Policies like this and hundreds of others are not secret or high level esoteric knowledge. Scientology is jam packed with these, so the media and government officials should look at a snippet of these materials and the very real record of crimes by Scientology leaders Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige and realize the game hasn't really changed. It is extremely unlikely to change.

Scientology cult members when presented with these materials either say "I have never seen this", or "you are taking that out of context, you do not understand Scientology" or my favorite "you don't have the fucking rank to ask that question."

They cannot face criticism of Scientology because Ron Hubbard created preemptive prejudices against criticism. Just as it is in this policy Hubbard used repetition and variation of the claim that "critics always have crimes" or "critics are paid to be critics and have a money motive" claim to discredit criticism by getting Scientologists to equate ALL criticism with a prompt to attack the attacker with shifting automatically from listening to criticism to discrediting the critic. This is the genetic fallacy and hasty generalization (aka glittering generalities and name calling) combined.

It is terrible critical thinking to ALWAYS disregard criticism and without any evidence or independent judgement to render the verdict that criticism is wrong and the critic cannot be listened to.

Hubbard presented this idea again and again. It is in the tone scale, Science of Survival, Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, Keeping Scientology Working and many, many policies and bulletins.

It is a cornerstone of Scientology and in my opinion has to be doubted or cast aside for a Scientologist to be able to escape the prison of the mind. When it is deeply enough indoctrinated into the mind a Scientologist will have an automatic reaction of rejecting external criticism of Scientology and will criticize themselves for doubting Scientology and believe they have misunderstood words or unhandled out ethics of are in a lower ethics condition or are abberated for doubting Scientology or Hubbard.

This is why it is so hard to escape Scientology indoctrination once a sort of event horizon of indoctrination has been crossed.

When you automatically reject external evidence against Scientology and automatically discredit all critics it is hard to reach you but when you defend Scientology and Hubbard over your own feelings, thoughts, experiences and observations you are a fanatic and zealot. You are both the jailed and the jailer.

Here is a policy from Scientology that is an example of this:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 AUGUST AD13

Central Orgs
Sthil Students

SCIENTOLOGY FIVE PRESS POLICIES

(Tech Dir to Star Rate Examine HCO Sec and Assoc Sec. any HCO Exec Sec and any Special Programmes Director on the Theory and Practical of this Policy Letter and report to me when so done.)

This HCO Policy Letter modifies press policy.

We do not care if Scientologists communicate to the press but if they do there are certain points to keep in mind.

Certain vested interests, mainly the American Medical Association, a private healing monopoly, wish to do all possible harm to the Scientology movement over the world in order to protect their huge medical-psychiatric income and desired monopoly which runs into the tens of billions annually. In their congresses they complain that we and people like us cost them 1.1 billion dollars a year that they don’t receive. Their sole interest is income. Reference: Minutes of various AMA conferences. Almost all our bad publicity and attacks are authored by two men, one named Keaton, the AMA press man, and one named Field, their head of “investigation.” These men flood bad tales about Scientology into press, magazines, radio, TV. Their sole interest is a medical psychiatric monopoly for the AMA. They blind the public to the fact that the crimes of psychiatry are medical crimes, not crimes of mental healing. The medical-psychiatrist is a very small part of the world of psychiatry. They want it all for physical medicine.

The sole reasons for attack are money and monopoly. If ethics entered into it they would clean up their own failures.

Their publicity goes overseas. The FDA is used by these people and FDA releases are sent overseas.

I don’t care whether anyone thinks this shouldn’t be or thinks it isn’t right. It isn’t. It’s just fact and we have the evidence in black and white.

We have always had policies of leaving healing alone and not attacking medicine and other areas of psychiatry. Our pay for this is receiving continual bad press.

Medical doctors practicing psychiatry are peculiarly vulnerable. Their physiological technology belongs to the 19th Century. It has innumerable crimes on its hands. Hitler and Stalin held power through medical psychiatry. They associate themselves chiefly with the rich and powerful.
They therefore cannot stand up to any heavy attack. Further they have many averts.

We are modern, 20th Century. We are of the people. We hate Fascism and brutality. We are the new replacing the old. We have passed the test of survival. Despite 13 years of attack we have survived. Therefore we must have something and we must be all right. So much for the justice or truth of such attacks.

THE REPORTER

The reporter who comes to you, all smiles and withholds, “wanting a story,” has an AMA instigated release in his pocket. He is there to trick you into supporting his pre-conceived story.

The story he will write has already been outlined by a sub-editor from old clippings and AMA releases.

He probably knows as well as you do that you are decent and effective.

He has no power whatever to alter the pre-conceived story he has been ordered to write. If he were audited or otherwise totally convinced of the great value of Scientology he would still write the same critical story. If he didn’t he would probably get sacked. So the time you spend trying to convince him of your decency and effectiveness is wasted time.

He wants a story. The only ways to handle him are to eject him or to give him a story that he thinks is a story. There are no half-way measures.

If he publishes outright lies sue his paper for libel if you like, but don’t be afraid of what he will write. Central organization income usually rises during bad press campaigns. So he can’t really harm you whatever he does or says. Your job minimum action is to refuse to be led into utterances that can be misconstrued.

Contrary to what he may want to believe, press doesn’t always mould public opinion.

No bad product sells, no matter how much advertising it buys or how much good press it has. Bigger than press is word-of-mouth. If advertised products don’t have good word-of-mouth they don’t sell.

We have good word-of-mouth and will continue to have it as long as we give service.

So good service and being decent are superior to even good press. Be decent, then, and give good service and good press or bad press, we’ll still make it.

We prefer no press because it slows our word-of-mouth amongst the people.

However, bad press is no catastrophe. So the reporter cannot really hurt you and is nobody to be feared. Pitied, rather — for if he does write what he really feels, he’ll get sacked. That’s what makes him sick and cynical. He may know you’re decent and effective and yet he’ll have to go write what he’s told to write.

Even if you handed this policy letter to him and he said it wasn’t true, he’d have to write stories that follow the points below.

So actually he’s on a spot. He’d have to sell out the human race if his editor told him to.

But he would write a different story if he found one that fitted his pattern of requirements.

STORY RULES

If you want to give him a story he will publish you have to know these rules, for they are the rules he follows.

The rules of newspaper writing today are very exact. And this is probably a far better analysis of the rules than he has, so you could surely win.

To be printed, a story must contain one or more of these things:

1. HARM (Blood, violence, damage, death, scandal)
2. SEX
3. MONEY
4. BIG NAMES
5. The story must be written to INVALIDATE something.
6. The story must contain a CONTROVERSY.
7. A story must contain TWO OPPOSING FORCES. Dialectic Materialism is the basic philosophy used by the society at this time. This philosophy is crudely stated in the following statement: “It takes two opposing forces to produce an idea.” The Scientologist recognizes this as RIs in a GPM but it is real to editors as TRUTH.

Therefore a great story to a newspaperman contains nearly all of 1 to 4 above and 5, 6 and 7.

This is the formula on which modern newspapers operate. They don’t publish any other kind of “news story.”

You could be elected Queen of the May and the headline would be “Controversy Rips Queen Election. Sexual bias Hinted.”

If you inherited a billion happily from an uncle who loved you, and were all set to help the millions with it, the news story would be “Foul Play Hinted in Uncle’s Death. Rights of Heir Challenged. Sex Life Probed.”

And that’s the is-ness of the entheta called news.

This sounds like criminal gossip mongering. It is. But it’s also the total formula of news in this century. It’s what the editor believes sells papers. It may not even do that but they believe it does. And the publisher, hounded by economics, must sell papers to stay alive.

A SCIENTOLOGY LIABILITY

If you give him any story at all, the reporter must wind it into the above formula or it won’t be published. He may not even be after you or mad at you. He just has to write “a story” along the above lines.

If you talk only about Scientology, according to 7 he must furnish another terminal, so he adds in “the public” and makes Scientology oppose “the public interest.” He has, then, no choice but to make Scientology dangerous to the public.

As he has a rule in 1 about Harm, and he can find no blood, he is driven to inventing something that harms something or has harmed something.

In 2 he must have sex so he has to invent some sex.

In 3 he has to talk about our fees because Money is a great story requirement.

In 4 he has to have names and so has to use my name as the best one known regardless of all the other people in Scientology.

In 5 he has to make 1 to 4 invalidative of Scientology if that’s the only item there and he expects the public to buy his papers so he can’t invalidate the public.

In 6 he has to imagine something questionable or just say we’re controversial as he must have a Controversy. This makes things “timely and interesting” for his editor.

And as I said above, he has to have two forces so he is driven to use the public as the other one to “oppose” Scientology.

Therefore by the very nature of news writing and the singleness of Scientology you get bad press unless you release good press stories of your own guidance.

It is naive to expect good press. Press isn’t going to pat anyone on the head. It’s going to follow its rules of “what is a story” 1 to 7 above.

Unfair though it may seem, that’s still the is-ness of it.

A GOOD STORY

The best story you can hope for from modern press would have to have all the above elements.
This sounds deadly for us. But it really isn’t. All we have to know is their formula, release our own stories using it and be sure it isn’t us to which they assign the blood, sex, money and names. Let it be somebody else’s blood, sex, money and names.

Actually we are pretty dull on the first four points. We’re too decent, we give too much service.

They have to imagine bad things to get them in at all.

So let’s use their formula if we want press but with a more accurate viewpoint.

DRILLS

First you should glance over some daily papers and satisfy yourself that the news formula above is factual to get some practice and to see how varied the resulting stories become. You will find you can determine where a story would be placed in a newspaper by the number of requirements and the magnitude of one or more of the requirements. And you will be able to predict how long any story will last by seeing how many requirements it fulfills and to what degree.

And you’ll be a news analyst. A columnist’s story is the exception. He is against things. But he still follows other requirements too. Thus if we were simply against things we would most likely be columnist type news, not headline.

It’s a good drill. Once you’ve done it press won’t ever scare you again. And you can be cause over it.

Take the front page news stories and a pencil. Check off in any one story as many as you can of story requirements 1 to 7 above by number and the first letters of the requirement.

It’s an amusing game. You won’t find many missing in any one story and you’ll find that those that go front page for days: have all of the requirements.

Call that “Something A”. We’re against it or them.

1. Explain how harmful “Something A” is.
2. Explain the sex aspects of “Something A” or omit.
3. Give figures as to the huge sums connected with ”Something A”.
4. Give the big names connected with “Something A” and what’s wrong with them.
5. Be sure to Invalidate “Something A”.
6. Explain that “Something A” is controversial and exactly what about it is controversial.
7. As mentioned above be sure to define that you as a force oppose “Something A” as a force and you have a fully designed “news story”.

Now and then a skilled press hand can get an idea which has pure INTEREST value. This is essentially a theta story. And in a sane society mostly these would get published. But on releasing them in the present society immediately 1 to 7 gets added to such a story. Take my Tomato Story. “Vegetables react on an E-Meter.”

Essentially then bodies and vegetables were both of the same order of response. This I made into “Do Tomatoes Feel Pain?” and got International Press. But before a week had run the following elements had been added 1. Crazy to think so 2. Pretty Girl inspires love in a cabbage 5. Probably not 6. Controversial. They couldn’t manage to increase 4 beyond my name and 7 they couldn’t quite manage. It went however and went on for two years with everybody from the U of Texas to the US Government getting in on the act.

They are starved for ideas. They are scarce, as you could imagine from a philosophy like Russian Dialectic Materialism. Therefore the press nurses and continues old stories. They look for but do not expect to find new stories. My last press boy (after I’d batted a theta International Press story out for the third time in a year, all carefully figured out) said “But one can’t think of a Tomato story every six weeks!” He didn’t believe it was possible to
think of new ideas and also believed that it was impossible to get press.

It’s always possible to get press. The hardest press to get is theta press because it’s too far from the modern formula. You and I know that theta flows faster than entheta. That makes one wonder what makes newspapers circulate at all. For their formula is enturbulative and therefore unlikely to go far.

From this we can assume, then, that they seek enduring stories, not interesting or communicating stories. So adding time to a story is always good.

“We are always getting A type cases. They must stop this continual selling of A.” “It takes years to make a real professional Auditor.” “We have been trying for years to stop A.”

A campaign against vice is always good news. Gets lots of mileage. Because it adds up to all seven points, usually.

To create a news story often requires that you take action. The action need not outlast the news value of the story.

This is a special programmes sort of job. Example: Teenage girl shows up in HGC who has been beaten and raped by teenage boys at High School and withholding it since. Audit it out, get parents to okay investigation, call in press.

Release story of vice and crime at local High School with the org doing the investigation. On subsequent days:

Criticize laxity of police. Criticize principal. Finally find more teenage sex cases. Just day by day deal off a new action to the press. String the story out. Take an action, hold a press conference. Put students on meters. Put teachers on meters. Get parents to sue. Finally advise school hire a permanent mental consultant and give daily mental exercises to “teenage mobsters”. Then wrap it all up and skip it. You’ve made something evil become something good attained-Scientology in Schools.

You make a calendar of coming events, one day one action. One action one news story. And string it out.

Exercise: Do a story design and calendar for “Scientology Ministers demand FDA prove sterility pills aren’t sex stimulants.”

That’s press. You cause it. You don’t just receive it.

And all press must be calculated at the reality level of the newspapers, not the public.

Most press agents (public relations counsels) don’t understand press. They often act only to prevent it. Or they try to use me 24 hours a day to specialize on 4. Or they want “stunt press” — like Bernard McFadden’s parachute jump into Niagara Falls at the age of 70 or some blonde swimming the Channel. This has small value and is chancy press.

And preventing press is also chancy for one is only at effect.

If you really want “good” press, get some element that fits all seven of the above requirements, plan an exact series of actions, do them in exact sequence and release a press story for each action. The press will love you.

Now, does it occur to you that it is this exact action (poorly done) that is being undertaken against us by the AMA.

Ah, you learn fast! But the difference is theirs is toward a sordid goal.

This is an analysis of current press. It is released to help understand our press situation and our problems.

I am not condoning the current state of press. I am just giving you data about press and requiring that if you want press or have to handle press it will be successful in this current society only if handled with the above elements firmly understood.

Using these Scientology FIVE data we could be front page 100 days out of every year.

RON HUBBARD

Jon Atack - Scientology Expert

Here are a collection of quotes from Scientology expert Jon Atack. He left these comments in the comments section of The Underground Bunker.

I have to say that I found  Jon Atack to be the top Scientology expert I have found in my opinion. I was in Scientology myself for twenty five years. I have spent several years and hundreds of hours trying to understand what Scientology actually is and its true history and methods and results.

I must give my highest possible recommendation to the work of Jon Atack. I found his articles at The Underground Bunker blog in the Scientology Mythbusting series to be crucial to my own mental emancipation from Scientology indoctrination.

I have to add the book Let's Sell These People a Piece of Blue Sky. It is in my opinion the definitive history of Scientology. Most detailed, most fact based, most accurate information possible on the subject.

I also add the articles Possible origins for Dianetics and Scientology, Hubbard and the Occult, The Total Freedom Trap, and Never Believe a Hypnotist. These are all relatively short and jam packed with crucial information you may never discover otherwise.

Possible origins for Dianetics and Scientology has one of the finest collection of quotes regarding the plagiarized nature of Scientology possible. Essential for understanding Scientology.

Hubbard and the Occult describes the occult origins of Dianetics and Scientology and strikes right to the heart of the matter.

The Total Freedom Trap has a terrific brief description of the way Scientology controls people.

Never Believe a Hypnotist has a fabulous collection of quotes from Hubbard himself who portrayed Scientology as free from hypnosis but contradicted his own statements on the matter dozens of times and demonstrated a profound knowledge of the subject in hundreds of remarks on hypnosis itself. Even a pathological liar cannot hide one thing - they HAVE the information they state - so when they say something you know they have the information, whether they believe it or not. Hubbard knew a great deal about hypnosis, otherwise he couldn't have said the things he did.

And if he understood what he said he likely knew that he was describing hypnosis as having specific phenomena and results in several quotes in extreme detail then denying that very same information in other quotes. Truly necessary to understand Hubbard and Scientology in my opinion.

Now we get to the main topic of this article. I will put Jon Atack quotes from his comments at The Underground Bunker with my own statements mixed in.


Jon Atack

"Shocking to realize that Scientology is actually a method of putting a parasitic cloned identity into control of the existing personality. The thoughts are all Ron's thoughts - those thought terminating cliches that prohibit self-determinism."

My comments:

This is really summing up what Scientology actually does - it is an attempt to make Scientologists thralls - mental slaves - to Hubbard by getting them to have thoughts, including certainties and purposes and goals which Hubbard gave them through Scientology indoctrination.

Jon Atack

"Hubbard was doubtless a fan of the despicable Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where we discover that the double triangle is a symbol of the Antichrist (Hubbard's perceived role, according to OT VIII). There is so often another strand of meaning underneath his proclamations."

"So, for anyone who is concerned, please read Norman Cohn's exceptional expose of the fraudulent creation of the Protocols, Warrant for Genocide."

"And, yes, the Brainwashing Manual was a deliberate attempt to follow in the footsteps of the fraudsters (probably in the Russian secret police) who created the Protocols. He dictated it to Henrietta de Wolf, with both Nibs and John Sanborn present, so it isn't even necessary to point out the significant discrepancies (as I have elsewhere), but it does of course mention 'the Church of Scientology' which is impossible, as the lecturer, Beria was dead before even Hubbard's secret first registration of that entity, in December 1953."

My comments

Hubbard's interest in the abhorrent Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery is beyond disturbing in itself. His plagiarism from such a disgusting work is troubling.  His own creation in that tradition of The Brainwashing Manual is an important part of Scientology history.

Jon Atack

"There were 28 books attributed to Hubbard (and, no, I'm not counting again), outside of the Tech, OEC, Flag Orders, R&D and so forth. Hubbard wrote only one of those books (DMSMH). Science of Survival was compiled by Richard de Mille from dictaphone discs of Hub's rantings (I've even seen and heard one of the discs!). He also compiled How to Live Though an Executive (and gets a credit in the earlier editions). Alphia Hart is credited in 8.80, and was likely responsible for several other works, before defecting and running the wonderful Aberree (which please see on line). From 1954, most of the compilation was done by John Sanborn - up to 1978, when he saw one of Hub's bank statements and realized that he'd been scraping by on $5 a week for 25 years to inflate Hub's bank account. Like Ryder Haggard, Hubbard could not stand to reread his own work. Or, to put it another way, he couldn't finish a 'cycle' of action (a characteristic he attributed to SPs)."

"The books have been mightily inflated - I have first editions of most, and Problems of Work, Intro to Scn Ethics and Fundamentals of Thought are simply pamphlets that grew spaces in reytpesetting."

"Early journal articles were often written by others, who, as with David Mayo's OT V material, had their names deleted later. Paul Twitchell - founder of Eckancar - was such a one. On the point of Mayo's OT V bulletins - I've compared the old and the revised packs (using not just my OT powers). We were told that those of us who had the Mayo version had been damaged and the revisions had put things right. The only revisions were the removal of his evidently incredibly suppressive name. The text remained the same. So, Professional Auditor's Bulletins and the like are at times misattributed."

"Much material - indeed most - derives from recorded lectures. Hub would rise at noon, ask his assistant's opinion on a topic (and, yes, I spoke to several people who quite independently told me about this - from Jo Scott in 1954 to John McMaster in the mid-60s) and then give his own version of their answer, often along with a bogus autohagiography, in his daily lecture. These add up to between 3000 and 3500 lectures. From these some bulletins were extracted."

My comments
The true history of Hubbard's plagiarism is important to document, so these remarks have great value in my opinion.

"At the end of his life, as he descended into dementia (and thus the vistaril found by the coroner in his blood after his death), every word he said was recorded and ferried to Ron's Technical Compilations unit (or RTC, as it used to be known, before the acronym was recycled). A messenger would stand by with a tape recorded to make sure that not one precious word, sigh or fart was unrecorded. Some of this became 'advices' or 'orders' as we real people think of them."

My comments
Hubbard's descent into dementia was a vital truth - Hubbard was subject to the same vulnerabilities and decline as all too normal humans. 

Jon Atack

"The point is that Hubbard's output was immense and grotesque, with very little substance, much of it foolish, false or plain dangerous. If everyone's utterances were recorded in this way, the Guinness Book of Records would be packed with 'literary output'. He was also a shameless plagiarist, changing the odd word here and there (check the Tech Dictionary's 'price of freedom' to find who actually said it first)."

"There is an excellent book called Voices of Protest about Charlie Coughlin and Huey Long, back in the thirties in the US. Coughlin is said to have had the largest radio audience of all time - you could walk from one end of NY to the other without missing a word of his sermons, because so many apartments were tuned in. He was a Catholic priest and a big fan of Hitler. Those sermons are the template for Hubbard - if you substitute 'psychs' for Jews in Coughlin's bigoted litany - which was Jews, communists and bankers. His phrasing is so similar."

"The actual source of Hubbard's own belief seems to have been his own guru - Major Arthur J Burks - who describes the 'litte its' as he called them in a book called Monitors, where the 'redhead' is mentioned (we know from Hubbard letters that he visited Burks in 1948, in Georgia, while he was doing the series of deep trance 'experiments' that would become Dianetics)."

"Hubbard was very much the produce of his times. He was a neophyte of the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosicrucians (AMORC confirmed this for me), where he found the idea of a series of graded steps to Utterness (curiously, a Rosicrucian told me that OT III is very much stolen from them - he'd done both versions - and that the RTC symbol is the Masonic 'grave of fire' - the 34th grade of the Freemasons, where, so I was told, Masons are finally told that they worship Baal - Behelzebub - not his brother Jehovah - wild stuff)."

"I've come to believe that Hubbard actually never had an original idea - one of the Dn axioms tells us that dreams are an imaginative reconstruction of events, and I think that he just 'alter-ised' ideas. I was able to trace many, many such - see Possible Origins for Dianetics and Scientology."

My comments
I have come to agree with the idea that Hubbard likely never had an original idea in his life. I recall a reference I read while in Scientology in which Hubbard gave advice on writing. Hubbard's advice was to go to bars that sailors and men who had wild adventures went to and to listen to their stories and encourage them to tell their stories and encourage them so you could  take in these stories.

This advice is really appropriate for the plagiarism of stories and not actually writing original work. Hubbard in his doctrine used ideas incredibly similar to those of Hitler and substituting the psychs and suppressive persons for Jews to be used as scapegoats via lies just as Jews were used in Nazi propaganda with incredibly similar propaganda.

Jon Atack

"Often as not, believers can talk themselves out, given enough time. There's a story in a text on attachment therapy, by John Bowlby, where a 16 year old who was abandoned by his mother at birth, tells his counsellor that he's going to save enough money and travel to the US and find her. Rather than pointing out any of the obvious difficulties, the counsellor simply encourages the boy to talk. It took months, but, eventually, the lad realized that his plan was impossible. And people do, but if you are aggressive and conflictual, the ego defences go up and the belief is actually strengthened. Which is why protests can be harmful for those locked inside the belief system - even when the protestors are friendly."

My comments
This advice is really good. It is consistent with ideas cult expert Margaret Singer has presented in YouTube videos and John Stuart Mill elaborated on in his book On Liberty. People need to express ideas to evaluate or even fully form them. This is particularly relevant regarding Scientology recovery.

Alexandra Stein elaborated at length on the use of trauma in the form of fear without resolution - terror - to overwhelm cult members and impair the integration of emotional information and rational thought in her book Terror, Love and Brainwashing.

She described how the reintegration of the separate parts of the information the cult member holds is needed and can be accomplished via independent and critical thinking in the form of discussion and writing about the cult  experience, about things that leave the cult member confused or mystified or interested or concerned that they cannot understand or appreciate or feel what they should be able to regarding something from their cult experience in my opinion. This is not the same as abreactive therapy or Dianetic auditing. It is something entirely different. 

Jon Atack

"I agree, save with the notion that Hubbard was not cruel and manipulative 'at best'. We picked up accounts from early childhood on, researching Blue Sky and Bare-Faced Messiah and he seems to have been both cruel and manipulative by nature. As with most sociopaths, he was capable of charm, and there are still followers who spent much time with him and are sure that it was the Sea Org that sent power to his head, but how about the 1955 The Scientologist: A Manual on the Dissemination of Material, where he puts forward the notion of ruining 'utterly' any unlicensed practitioner by using the law to 'harass'. He was vindictive. That he kidnapped Alexis, and kept her from her mother (whom he had tortured, as he did his first wife) for three months is hardly credible. But it happened only months after he released his world saving cure."

"Power does indeed tend to corrupt (and absolute power absolutely so), but Hubbard was out to con from the very beginning. When he switched from deep trance hypnosis after DMSMH was commissioned, with no light trance work at all, he simply explained to Don Rogers that hypnosis was unpopular. The moment before they opened the doors to the first foundation, he turned to Don and said, 'Let's sell these people a piece of blue sky.'"

"He started out a pathological liar (as accounts from those who knew him in the 30s and 40s show - watch this space for more like the Forest Ackerman interview - we have plenty yet to come) with a very weak ego. He couldn't bear criticism and longed to be adulated (forget the Code of Honour!), as many people have told me over the years (John McMaster couldn't believe how narcissistic Hubbard was, but in that case it took one to know one). He was a sick man - physically and mentally - and a dangerous one. That doesn't mean I don't think he could have been redeemed. I wept at news of his death, because I had some silly idea that I might sit with him in prison and help him back to reality. Oh, well."

"But as you say, and Judge Breckenridge said before us, Scientology is the 'alter-ego' of Hubbard, and under DM has become even more destructive."

My comments
These are important details about the unbelievable history and character of Hubbard.

Jon Atack

"But much of my work is very specific - it is necessary to understand that the particular teachings of a group are bogus, not simply the mechanics of exploitative persuasion. So, Scientologists have to consider the 'truth question' as Professor Johs Aagard put it and reflect on 'ARC' or the '8 Dynamics' to realize that it doesn't actually make sense. Otherwise, they can spend years approaching it from the point of view of Lifton (which is essential) or attachment theory (also full of insights). And, I've dealt with about 600 ex Scientologists and seen many who were messed up by counselling, because counsellors thought they could generalise or use more hypnosis on severely hypnotised people. The pivotal factor in recovery is comprehension and that often comes from understanding the precise nature of the trap, rather than subscribing to anyone's notion of 'counselling' or model of the universe. I've seen enough people take back their lives to be very, very sure of this."


My comments
In my own efforts to recover from Scientology and witnessing those of others I have found that this is a core principle for escaping the influence of a cult. It is something that must be known well and practiced without fail.

Scientology and other cults rely on the use of all the eight criteria for thought reform by Robert Jay Lifton. To undo the mystical manipulation in the life of a person the deception of the technique that persuaded that particular person, or techniques, often must become revealed and exposed for the mundane phenomena it truly is and the doctrine it was alleged to prove likewise exposed as lies.

This is particularly difficult with Scientology because Scientology used hundreds of methods based in hypnosis while most cultic groups use between two and a half dozen such techniques. Finding which method persuaded a particular person and when and which ideas it proved to the person is extremely difficult.

Scientologists come to believe hundreds of false ideas buried in the thousands of terms in the loaded language of Scientology. They include thousands of contradictions, including Orwellian reversals and statements and definitions that directly are opposite to one another. Sifting through all the experiences and ideas in a mind indoctrinated in Scientology is extremely difficult, particularly if the person still believes in Hubbard's character or the concepts in Scientology.

The language often reinforces a belief in Scientology. This belief often has its foundation in mystical manipulation - normal experiences.  Two prominent examples are Scientology indoctrination which uses confusion and relief of it by adopting Hubbard's definitions as stable data to alleviate confusion, but this is not the enlightenment it is portrayed as and mental and emotional phenomena encountered in auditing is also interpreted in Scientology as miraculous and beneficial. It uses techniques plagiarized from hypnosis which produce euphoric trances and sensations of floating, which several training drills in indoctrination produce as well.

Many other specific techniques in Scientology serve the same function. The influential power of such experiences often is the foundation of the hold Scientology has over a mind. Without removing the mystical manipulation of these specific experiences in the mind of a particular person freeing them from Scientology is almost impossible and often only partly successful if at all.

How can someone reject what they experienced as see inspiring miracles ? And still believe was a miracle and thus still have a deep drive to believe in the concepts and language accompanying what they experienced as miracles in their own life ?

These false miracles occurred, but are known in hypnosis as false memories, sensations hypnosis often creates and trances too, all of which increase suggestibility in some cases and greatly impair independent and critical thinking.

These experiences give the persistent, deeply held beliefs in Scientology that often serve to anchor the entire persistent belief in Scientology which is difficult to throw off. It is like a root which must be found, examined with the exact right information for a particular person and exposed. It is like a weed whose root must be fully destroyed to stop the weed. To be clear people often do not need merely to understand theories on hypnosis in general but need to understand what truly happened to themselves as individuals in their own indoctrination in specific persuasive moments. They often need to understand that the moments of seeking miraculous results in Scientology were not enlightenment from indoctrination or transcendent experiences from auditing but very normal mental and psychological phenomena long understood as results attainable in hypnosis or meditation or from the use of drugs or in some cases virtual reality equipment or sensory deprivation equipment, and not truly miracles or overcoming human limitations.

Hubbard framed these experiences of euphoric trances, strange sensations, alternating confusion with anxiety and alleviation and other difficult to understand experiences in his terms as going through changes to improve themselves and overcome limitations. It seems plausible to some people as worries are set aside in many of these experiences which can seem like a permanent alleviation even though it isn't truly. And many of these experiences lessen critical and independent thinking and increase suggestibility, so the suggestion that they have improved as he suggested is accepted and considered proven by the entire experience as its existence is genuine but the interpretation of its meaning is a fraud, a story of Hubbard giving miracles where he gave none. This is an essential tie that binds, the root of the weed, that must often be found and destroyed in the mind of the individual person to strip it of strength.

If this can be achieved achieved with an ex cult member for the primary influential experiences of mystical manipulation a person was persuaded by and they can realize these alleged miracles were misrepresented mundane experiences with no real proof for the doctrine they are tied to then the foundation of persistent persuasion is often rooted out and destroyed.

In Scientology in particular it is often a first requisite. If these experiences aren't addressed in the life of an individual they may never recover. They are often certain of these experiences as miracles and that holds the entire house of lies Hubbard created in their mind as a prison of belief. If this essential task of finding these experiences and realizing that more mundane explanations (found in the eight criteria for thought reform by Robert Jay Lifton, the ideas from Margaret Singer in Cults In Our Midst and my own descriptions in the mind control posts at Mockingbird's Nest blog on Scientology) are the truth occurs then often ex Scientologists still need a tremendous amount of work in removing the loaded language with its thousands of terms, tens of thousands of definitions and hundreds of concepts and mottos. These need to be questioned, doubted and rejected. A person often is extremely upset, overwhelmed and confused as this process occurs. Extreme anxiety and cognitive dissonance can come crashing down on a person going through this process. They often have to come to taking the entire Scientology vocabulary and reclassify it as false and this can be extremely difficult for people. Scientology uses many techniques to make indoctrination that is built to last.

But knowing that the work of people like Lifton and Singer shows what is being done and Scientology can be undone by understanding this and the successful efforts of people like Him Atack is a tremendous step forward. It can be an indispensable cornerstone of successful recovery from Scientology. 

Jon Atack

"Sorry, Cialdini's Influence is the very first book I recommend to anyone who wants to understand how we are influenced. Pratkanis and Aranson's Age of Propaganda comes next. Both are excellent guides to selling and the perils thereof."

My comments
Excellent recommendations. Both are books I read and highly recommend. I wrote long series of blog posts on Age Of Propaganda, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Subliminal, Terror, Love and Brainwashing, the BITE model by Steven Hassan and several other books that really help people to understand influence and cults.

Jon Atack

"For me, the horror is realizing just how easy it is to let go of the implanting. Once you've realized that Hub was a pathological liar - and the evidence is overwhelming, compare any two of his own autobiographies (I checked almost 30 against each other and no two are the same...) - and that he was a braggart who was usually ill both physically and mentally, and that he wanted to be deified (oh, come on!) then it is time to let go, and letting go simply means realizing that not a word he said is to be trusted. But then, right at the start he talked about checking everything 'scientifically' and then presented never a single scientific study (the only attempt was at the LA Foundation in 1950, where he admits to using 'pain drug hypnosis' in a failed attempt to recover an 'engram'). Very much like the Wizard of Oz when the curtain is pulled back - Hub was a little man, standing on a stool yelling through a megaphone."

My comments
For context you should understand that Jon discovered many people do not recover from Scientology. Not in weeks, months or decades but they COULD HAVE. If they were helped by Jon or someone with a similar approach they might have, but tragically many thousands of ex Scientologists never get this help or are lucky enough to find the right article or book to snap them into doubting or questioning the ideas Hubbard sought to implant in them. 

Jon Atack

"There are other courses based upon the work of others, partly because so much was simple a reworking of other people's stuff (see my Possible Origins for Dianetics and Scientology, and Jeff Jacobsen's earlier paper) and also because he used other people's books. So Positioning is a misunderstanding of Reiss and Trout (interesting that Trout was paid a fortune to point out he serious mistake of calling it a religion rather than a therapy - see Jeff Hawkins excellent Counterfeit Dreams). Cutlip and Center provided the PR 'tech'. Much of the management system derives from the Taylor system. Then there are the intelligence books, lovingly crafted into the Information Full Hat, along with various Hubbard directives about how to break the law. And of course the highly revealing Freud Worcester Lectures, where the original Dianetic technique is described in some detail (including charge, chains, repeater technique and even unconscious trauma) and Freud's explanation for abandoning it - it doesn't help the person, but increases dependence on the therapist. Worst of all, the hypnosis textbooks that explain his fundamental method. "

"Les Dane is appalling..."

My comments
Here Jon gives us great advice on what Hubbard stole from where and who. All of this is pure gold to me.

Of particular note are Jon's article Possible Origins for Dianetics and Scientology and The Hubbard is Bare by Jeff Jacobsen. These two stand out as superb essays on the plagiarized ideas Hubbard stole. Jam packed with details in each.

Also worth noting is the original Dianetic technique doesn't help the person and increases dependence on the therapist. And hypnosis textbooks explain his fundamental method. 

Jon Atack

"Although there are about 2000 hypnotic techniques in Scn they are all based around the same simple notions - visualization, false memory induction, repetition, fixation, mimicry and confusion. And they make people high for the requisite three days, as the trance fades (then they are PTS and have to get another fix)."

My comments
Understanding basic methods and concepts in hypnosis which Jon laid out in tiny bite sized portions in articles in his Scientology Mythbusting series at The Underground Bunker made it so I could reflect on my Scientology indoctrination and realize Scientology is modeled on covertly using the same basic techniques from hypnosis over and over while disguising them as counseling or study or other activities that are more palatable to the public. In Scientology you use visualization, false memory induction, repetition, fixation, mimicry and confusion over and over. You call them different names and they are attached to many different lies in different contexts but these basic techniques are the foundation of Scientology.

Jon Atack

"It depends what we mean by education. If we rerigged our approach to education - rather than simply sticking rhetoric back on the curriculum - it could change the world. If kids were encouraged to think critically - following Matthew Lipman and others' ideas - by compassionate teachers (who were properly paid and highly regarded) in a creative environment, I think we could significantly reduce the impact of fanatical groups in a decade. And look at the pig flying over the horizon."

My comments
perhaps his most optimistic statement and most sweeping. Education does need some improvement and Jon has no shortage of ideas in this department. He has expressed several in interviews and at Opening Minds, well worth checking out in my opinion.

I went through 426 comments Jon Atack posted at The Underground Bunker. I picked out these as ones that I felt really should  be preserved and passed on.

I believe that Jon Atack has a lot of hard won wisdom when it comes to Scientology and many other things. Lots of people who have long watched Scientology have heard many of these ideas before but they are all worth the time to look at them again in my opinion.

Scientology Propaganda - STAND League

Here is a comment from Jeffrey Augustine (under the pseudonym J Swift) written at The Underground Bunker.

I released a Scientology Money Project article entitled The Church of Scientology Sees Bigots Hiding Under Every Bed. https://scientologymoneypro...

There are 40 articles on the STAND League website that use the words "bigot", "bigotry", "hate", or "hater" in their titles. Some of the articles are written by fake nonexistent Scientologists such as Alicia Selverson and Rebecca Blair. The compilation shows what buttons OSA thinks it has to keep pressing to do what? Convince the public that Scientology is not a malicious, hateful, bigoted, greedy, and dangerous cult?

Here are the forty hysterical headlines from Scientology’s STAND League website:

1. News.com.au—The New Mouthpiece for Leah Remini, American Bigot-at-Large?
2. The Accidental Bigot
3. Confessions of a Bigot
4. One Method of Handling a Bigot
5. Bigot-at-large Housed at THR.com
6. Is Disney Now the “Bigot” Network?
7. The Rabbi and the Bigot—A Story of Redemption
8. Gridiron Capital Siding with Bigot Remini?
9. Expose the Bigot
10. Frank Scheck Meets All Criteria of a Religious Bigot
11. Themaven.net—Wake Up! Don’t Forward the Agenda of a Proven Bigot
12. Tracey McManus of Tampa Bay Times—a Shameless Bigot
13. Bigot Mike Rinder to Headline Again for Disney/A&E Networks
14. Lenscrafters, Tell Your Ad Agency to Skip A&E Bigot Central
15. IPC—Funding Leah Remini’s Bigot Show Should Not Be Part of Your Resume
16. Hollywood Reporter Caught with Puff Piece for Bigot Leah Remini
17. LinkedIn—It Can’t Be True, You’re Supporting Pro Bigot Leah Remini? 18. Five Easy Ways to Tell If Your Post Is Bigoted
19. Slanted.com, Instead of Promoting Lies About Scientology, Why Not Get The Truth?
20. Nestlé, Please Tell A&E You Are Unwilling to Support Their Religious Hate Programming
21.A&E pouring hatred against Scientology
22. Huff Post, Posting Hateful Bigotry is Unacceptable
23. Horrible Bigotry at HuffPost
24. Decider.com, You Still Don’t Get the Message on Religious Bigotry
25. Religious bigotry and discrimination rampant at NBC Universal.de
26. Cheatsheet, Cover the Truth About Leah Remini’s Religious Discrimination
27. The Federalist: Your article is anti-religious and bigoted
28. What Is It That Bigots Hate? That You Communicate.
29. Bigotry of Hemant Mehta’s at Patheos.com
30. A&E–Profiting Off Religious Hate Campaign
31. Disney should look into A&E Networks’ Leah Remini Aftermath
32. Tampa Bay Times Harboring Bigotry and Discrimination
33. Michael Rubin, IPC’s Funding of Religious Hate Is an Injustice
34. Applebee’s—No More Support for Religious Bigotry
35. Twenty Minutes From Hate
36. Stop Hate—Don’t Discriminate
37. Stop Religious Hate Before It’s Too Late
38. What I’ve Learned About Bigotry as an Arab-American Scientologist
39. Haters Gonna Hate
40. An Inside Look at Fighting Televised Bigotry 

End quote

To understand Scientology you can look at the ideas from Scientology founder Ron Hubbard

"’Psychiatry’ and ‘psychiatrist’ are easily redefined to mean ‘an anti-social enemy of the people‘. This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of professions...The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended...Scientologists are redefining ‘doctor‘, ‘Psychiatry’ and ‘psychology’ to mean ‘undesirable antisocial elements‘...The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda."

-  Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words"

"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them."

-  Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418

Hubbard wrote: "The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible."

 That is why STAND keeps using the terms "bigot" , "bigotry" , "hate" , and "Hater." They want people to know that Scientology critics ARE bigots who hate. It is irrelevant that this is not true. They want people to believe it is true to control people by lying to them. 

Hubbard had long considered changing DEFINITIONS and changing CERTAINTIES as the way to influence people. 

SHSBC-402 Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lectures tape number 402

Of course, we go on a tradition "if you learn anything about man that will help him,

you help him with it." ...

"If you learn anything about man that you can manipulate him 

You're going to manipulate men, 

you've got to change their definitions

and change their goals

and enslave them and do this and do that. "

SHSBC-447 Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lectures tape number 447

"Now, brainwashing simply is the trick of mixing up certainties. 

All you have to do if you want to know and develop the entire field

of brainwashing as developed by Pavlov,

is simply to make somebody ..... into a confused or hypnotic state in which he can believe anything."

Hubbard described this in the gamesmaker lecture from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures in 1952,  the 39th lecture

"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."

 POSTULATES in Scientology include, decisions, goals and purposes. 

Hubbard encouraged controlling people by redefining terms, using repetition of the new meanings and associations.

He also encouraged NEVER addressing criticism of Scientology but instead attacking the critic ALWAYS.

HCO PL 15 Aug 1960, "Department of Governmental Affairs"

"In the face of danger from government or courts, there are only two errors one can make: (a) do nothing and (b) defend. The right things to do with any threat are to (1) find out if we want to play the offered game or not (2) if not, to derail the offered game with a feint or attack upon the most vulnerable point which can be disclosed in the enemy ranks (3) make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail (4) don't try to get any money out of it (5) make every attack by us also sell Scientology and (6) win. If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend. Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best.
...
The goal of the department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high-level ability to control and in its absence by low-level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. "

To put a fine point on this here is an excerpt from a comment by Vistaril (a pseudonym which is the name of a psychiatric drug found in Ron Hubbard during his autopsy despise his alleged objections to psychiatric drugs), a commenter at The Underground Bunker:

" Of all the words used to describe Scientology, perhaps the one which Scientologists rail against most is "brainwashing". But look how the term is defined in L Ron Hubbard's Administrative Dictionary . . .

BRAINWASHING, 1. brainwashing is a very simple mechanism. One gets a person to agree that something might be a certain way and then drives him by introverting him and through self-criticism to the possibility that it is that way. Only then does a man believe that the erroneous fact was a truth . . .

. . . now, contrast and compare L Ron Hubbard's "Shattering Supression" Tech™. One will find it is littered with instructions on how to introvert people and organizations. A stark example can be found in L Ron Hubbard's HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960 Dept. Of Government Affairs . . .

. . . The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order . . .

. . . that HCOPL is compulsory reading for all Scientologists involved in Scientology's public relations and "special affairs". Yet how many Scientologists reading it realise that what L Ron Hubbard is telling them to do is to apply what he also defines as "brainwashing"? Not only that, L Ron Hubbard tells his Scientologists that applying such practices against people and organizations, regardless of the effects on individuals and their families, is not a sin (overt). Watta guy. Note also, that the general practice of Scientology is all about control and overwhelming a person and getting them so introverted they come to believe material which is demonstrably false - from the existence of Engrams right through to Xenu." End quote

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

---

Also, even earlier, in 1950: 
[Quote] 
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 Lermanet.com 

---

 He also knew that when one is confused they can feel relief (i.e. brighter TEMPORARILY) when they get an "answer", even if it doesn't address the confusion!

“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 from one 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 [ref]

“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).  Source Jon Atack 

Okay, let us look at this and sum it up. 

Hubbard tried to control people via lying. He described a process of getting hypnotic control over people by changing their certainties, getting them thoroughly confused by shifting from what they talk about to something else subtly so as to confuse them, and when they criticize Scientology to shift to attacking the attacker. 

He also wanted to change the goals and certainties people have. He saw subtly ignoring what they say and confusing people by getting attention put on something else as essential to controlling them. 

This fits his concept of brainwashing in getting people to shift to looking inward and not criticizing Scientology or Hubbard himself. It also fits his concept of brainwashing as overwhelming people with introversion to distract and confuse them. 

Hubbard wrote on using repetition to redefine terms and again shift associations. By changing emotional associations Hubbard wanted to again control people. If you could get people to like the things you wanted them to like and hate the things you wanted them to hate, especially very strongly, you could easily control them. Imagine getting them to love you and trust you and to hate and distrust your critics.  That would be powerful and was Hubbard's goal. He wanted to make it his followers' goal as well. 

Of course in Scientology indoctrination Hubbard combined having people spend hundreds of hours, sometimes thousands, getting definitions for normal English words and phrases and simultaneously accepting hundreds and hundreds of definitions from Hubbard's loaded language. His terms contain stereotypes and appeals to emotion. These are used in again a covert attempt to shift certainties by changing associations via changing emotional associations. His trick was trying to make accepting his terms, phrases, mottos and concepts as EQUALLY valid in comparison to simply learning English words. If you have people who think the ideas in Scientology are as valid as learning that the word "over", can mean "above" , in some contexts then you have gotten them to falsely equate Scientology terms to truth. 

Wikipedia defined loaded language for us:
"This is a type of loaded language .

In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as loaded terms or emotive language) is wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes. Such wording is also known as high-inference language or language persuasive techniques.
Loaded words and phrases have strong emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. For example, the phrase tax relief  refers literally to changes that reduce the amount of tax citizens must pay. However, use of the emotive word relief implies that all tax is an unreasonable burden to begin with. Examples of loaded language are "You want to go to the mall, don't you?" and "Do you really want to associate with those people?"

I am trying to illustrate that Hubbard felt you need to covertly persuade and cannot be honest. He wanted to confuse people and then insert his definitions as stable data to resolve the confusion and be grasped as stable data, not true data. That is his approach in Scientology indoctrination via word clearing and in public relations via introversion as brainwashing in his own terms terms and using altitude as an authority to control them as well.

Hubbard felt redefinitions and repetition were essential to this whole process. 

STAND in my opinion attempts to follow this tradition. Just calling someone a bigot is confusing. It doesn't explain why you are calling someone a bigot or how they are a bigot. That inspires confusion in itself. 

Then the confused person (audience for your message) must choose whether to support the alleged victims of bigotry or support the bigot, even if the bigotry alleged is itself bogus. Scientology thrives on claims that are vague, unverifiable and unintelligible. These are synonymous with confusing. 

 “If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.” ― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.

With all these references I hope it is clear that STAND is just practicing Scientology. They lie. They repeat the lies and try to use emotional language to shift the emotions people associate with Scientology and the emotions people associate with Scientology critics. They want to shift associations with Scientology to become only positive and with critics to become only negative. 

They want to use various confusing claims to influence people and repetition of those claims to make them more effective.