Bridge Publications is doing their best to encourage people to share their honest opinions about Dianetics on Amazon.
Of course, this is a stacked deck. They ONLY send this out to scientologists.
It appears they are doing a pretty good job. For Dianetics to have a 71% 5 star rating, it means that 71% of the reviews have been done by scientologists. Because regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the fundamental principles of Dianetics, there can be no doubt that it is NOT clearly written and is a tough read (assigning the difficulty in reading the book to “misunderstoods” is silly — it is objectively not easy to read) and it asserts a lot of things as “proven fact” for which there is no evidence.
This is a way scientology games the system.
Just a bit of a throw away for Sunday.
I must have read Dianetics in the mid 70’s. It gave me impression that Hubbard was in a hurry and didn’t care about his writing. I had read American writers like Twain, Poe and Hawthorne and of course I knew the choice of words and the spelling was very different from British English. I was shocked by his carelessness in writing, but I was convinced that it would be wiser to cure man’s aberration in order to make the world a better place rather than going through Lenin’s play-book. II did a comm course, the Basic Study Manual, The Student Hat etc. and the Dianetics Course of the time (HSDC probably), at the end of which I found myself in a Hotel room just by Paris Org auditing a real PC. It was quite something, writing all what she had to say and using my new wooden E-Meter. following the needle reactions. What really surprised me was that a person I barely knew would tell me such intimate things. I think abreactive therapy has its value because it is better to talk and unearth the sorrow of the past than burying it deep within yourself. I think auditors get some good results because they are good people and they are able to listen. On the other hand I am convinced Hubbard never did any serious research and there is no “standard tech” at all. I had some good experiences while listening to people: I was driving a car with a singer friend on our way to a concert in a beautiful château. when I asked why she didn’t leave her two girls with her parents so that we could rehearse more easily I felt there was a huge mental charge and just by listening carefully and communicating with her, she ended up telling me that she had been abused by her father as a child, that she had never told her husband or anyone else about this and after some emotional outbursts she felt very relieved and after we arrived to our destination, she sang beautifully. Well I know it was squirrel tech because I was driving at the same time but in that case it had a positive outcome. In spite of those positive experiences I would not ever recommend to anyone to explore the labyrinth of Hubbard’s prison of the mind. As Jesse Prince once said It’s all full f booby traps … an infinite mine field to make you a willing slave of the Master.
I had a little trouble digesting Histories (Herodotus) at age 12. I found dianetics an indigestible mess at age 18. It really made no sense. In hindsight I was right as it is false.
After a push to get people to leave reviews, all they could get was a little over 700? Very telling
Someone MUST get this information to the 4chan community.
They will make scientology rue the day that they decided to ask for one-sided positive reviews of Dianetics on Amazon.
As a group “hive mind”, the 4chan community is brutally efficient attacking its targets, much much more effective than any attack plan of scientology.
Message Received
Reading Dianetics reminds me of watching an Ed Wood movie. Nuff said.
Plan 9 from outer space?
I don’t think that’s fair to Ed Wood.
The first I heard of Dianetics was reading a newspaper interview with John Brodie, quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers. He mentioned it in one paragraph. He was having a good year and attributed it to getting rid of a memory regarding an accident he had to his throwing arm ,using Dianetics.
I was 15 yrs old at the time. A few years later I started seeing TV commercials for the book. By the time I was in my 20’s I was very depressed and needed some help. I started reading self-help books that dealt with programming the subconscious with affirmations. After trying that with no results I went to the mobile library and checked out Dianetics.
It was a difficult read but I got through it, looking up every word I didn’t understand ( which were a lot.)
I had decided that I needed to be “released” from painful upsets from the past. I liked the attributes of “clear” but I would settle for being released from past upsets that were causing me problems in present time.
A Dianetic mission had just opened in my town so I went there and got auditing. The price was very reasonable at $225 for a 12 1/2 hour intensive. My first session was amazing. I went through a gamut of emotions, had “boil off” and came out of it feeling very clean. No engrams were run. Just a present time issue and a few earlier similar things that I remembered from my childhood.
I did more intensives during the next 2 months on weekends spending just over $2000. I no longer was depressed and had gotten rid of a “failed purpose” and was excited to get on with life. I was a believer!
I realized if I was to go “clear” by this method then it would take me years and lots of money. I was satisfied with the results I had and wanted to be on my merry way. The mission said I should take a scientology course, so I did a basic course for about $75. Then another, then another. Whenever I finished a course, the last step on the routing form was to sign up for your next course.
I felt guilty if I didn’t continue on because I had been helped by Dianetics, so I continued taking courses. I became a volunteer staff member for awhile. Then one day I asked our registrar how much would it cost to go all the way up the bridge. She scheduled a “tech estimate”. I came in for the estimate and instead of seeing our registrar, I was in a room with a 2 guys I had never seen before. One guy was in a Sea Org uniform and the other was an FSM. They were trying to reg me for over $100,000. When I told them I didn’t have that kind of money, they asked me how much I had. Under much pressure I mentioned l had about $20,000 in savings. I ended up purchasing auditing through “clear” and training to the class IV internship at the local org about 30 miles away. The next day the mission registrar accompanied me to the bank and I withdrew over $20,000. I felt sick to my stomach. I had committed to something I didn’t know much about.
The next 7 years saw me on org lines. Then AO lines. I attended the protest against the Wollersheim trial, I was also at the LRH birthday event after his death where they premiered the L Ron Hubbard and Friends record album with the celebrities on stage. I was constantly doing scientology. I was trying to find an easy way out without “blowing”. I was half in half out mentally.
I realized the only way out for me was if I had no more money to spend, no more lines of credit to draw on.
After spending $94,000 I tanked out. I couldn’t pay my union dues for where I worked so the union threatened to have the company fire me. I borrowed $300 to pay about 6 months of back dues. The registrar at the org couldn’t understand how that could have happened, you know, what with me being upstat and all. Anyway I did a couple extension courses, then I just stopped sending the lessons in after the course supervisor went to AO for some training. I changed my phone number and that was the end of my scientology experience.
I’ve since learned that Hubbard had taken Dianetics from Sigmund Freud’s abreaction therapy. Too bad there wasn’t a book called “Abreaction” by Sigmund Freud. It would have saved me a lot of time and money,
Thank you Carl. Your experience and the sharing of it provides a light for others to see further with and use .What we write and comment on all helps advance the truth about the true nature of the cult of Scientology. Good to meet you.?
Nice to meet you to Ann. I know a lot of people here dismiss Dianetics, but it did help me. At the time I had never heard of Freud’s “abreaction ” therapy nor do I know if it was in practice then or now. In the last couple months I’ve found out so much about Hubbard that has made my stomach turn.
I sought out Dianetics for help,which I was satisfied with. I paid for it and figured that would be the end of it. I didn’t realize that was the entry point into the labyrinth called Scientology. The pressure was unbearable, I found myself paying for shit I didn’t even want just to get out of the reg cycle. I kept denying I was in a cult because I still had a regular job and lived where I wanted.
I would never recommend Dianetics because it’s a bait for the hook of Scientology.
I hear you and really understand. Even my last two years in the Sea Org @ Asho Fdn, I put up with abuse and all kinds of S### from the Gurdians Office Intel because I keep Ron Aiding myself by saying I must must have pulled all this in I am a traitor to Ron & The Sea Org. I denied for months until I could no longer deny my life and sanity were at risk,so I planned my escape. So very glad you found your way out too.?
Some folks who post here feel compelled to discredit everything about $cn and characterize any success they had in auditing as being due to the placebo effect. But I, like you, continue to value the lasting gains that I made in my early auditing, which also served to draw me further into the cult as well.
But now, more than three decades later and with years of serious study under my belt, I can very clearly see that what worked for me in $cn was what Elron misappropriated from others, such as Freud’s abreactive therapy, and re-titled with his own made up jargon to disguise its origin. Those early wins served to bait the long con which is $cn and put me off the scent of identifying this rotten scam for what it is for several years.
My biggest win in $cn was getting out, but I did learn some hard but very valuable lessons from the experience which has served me well in succeeding years in spotting scams and scammers for what they are BEFORE getting sucked in by them.
Thanks for telling us your story!
Let me understand—–So reading LRH book Dianetics is the way IN??? I heard about the book but never did read it…Lucky Me !
Carl, so the tech helped you a lot at first, before the organization made helping itself more important than helping you. This is the good and bad of Scientology in a nutshell.
Yes the tech helped me at first, then the organization helped itself to my money, my time, my life.
off topic:
This stupid thing popped up on a newsfeed today. GAK.
Squirrelly thing – “performers” and “doers” … and SP/PTS.
……..
after being disgusted at this tripe on my newsfeed, I got a bit of a chuckle out of the Ugly Robot Scio people depicted. Cartoon people can’t blow and get declared and ruin a video.
and of course, there’s no mention of Hubbard. Don’t want to scare them off before we get them in the door.
https://youtu.be/O9_EHU5BKnQ
Dianetics was a very tough read and did not much interest me… Painful is right. I heard a still-in Scientologist say recently that when they read it in the 1970’s, the person thought, “This isn’t the solution.” citing its ridiculousness.
Like most people, I was more interested in the spiritual which is probably why the religion was invented–aside from the tax benefits.
To comment on the video SFN posted ” The 4 Types of Team Members You Can Hire,” the “performers” and the “doers,” at about 1:04 minute, along comes the “less effective doer.” What struck me right away was that the guy looked like he was in a wheelchair!
Discriminate against the disabled much?
Typically, yes. Ever see a wheelchair at an event?
That would be “out-PR.”
Oh, I forgot, “Dianetics can handle that.”
That’s probably why we didn’t see them…. Ahem…
I went to Amazon and wrote a review. I consider it an honest success story, well….. an honest anti-success story. Try it, you too may feel better afterwards.
For what it’s worth here is my review:
Crappy book. I was forced to read to continue courses in Scientology. It was full of assertions without facts, grade school grammer and tacky prose. Of course the supervisors blamed me for misunderstood words, overts on Ron, and such. So happy to have continued beyond it, and the Scientology litany in my quest for truth and enlightenment. Oh, I note Hubbard bought a school and issued himself a PhD. Factually he failed college
Jim, is this the actual review that you wrote on Amazon? 🙂
yep
Jim, that is not such a bad thing, you see, but if other people go there and start drooling in their reviews things like “Scilons” “L. Ron Faggo” or “Mr. Flubbard” to name a few, it takes away from the integrity of the review. I wrote one as well. An honest one. I just left out the HE&R. 🙂
Thanks Mike…I just wrote and posted this review on Dianetics…
This book began the fraud and insanity of Hubbard using false research and taking credit for others ideas by changing their name. Whatever good a person receives from following Dianetics procedure they should thank Freud and others in Psychosomatic Psychology. Yet Hubbard ideas of prenatal engrams is such garbage it makes me sick. Worse all in his book he personally debunks himself admitting only medicare results could be achieved at best as until a person uncovered the implants of alien races millions of years ago as he shared in History of Man 2 years later, no real changes would occur. Yet this book is thick and burns well if you need something to help light a campfire!
I read dianetics in two languages, first in Russian, when I was brought to the org by my brother and bought it. I didn’t understand 2/3 of it but I was told that when I finish introductionary courses and bottom of the bridge I will be perfectly clear to me what a marvelous book it is. No sheet. But I stayed on board.
Second time I tried in English, may be just the translation was poor and outtech, so all the diamond were just lost in translation? So during the business trip to states a walked in the Boston org and bought another copy (+science of survival, I made a bookstore officer really happy). Still it was full of crap and I was confused again, but as usual I blamed myself.
Funn fact, one of my scientological “friends” noticed English versions of the books on my shelf and wrote a KR on me. He wasn’t sure was it appropriate or not to have them. Later My ethics officer made very clear that it was out ethics to have such books because I can’t fully confront them without rtc approved translation.
Quite a few of the claims about the wonderful things this book will accomplish are rather vague and difficult to quantify. However, “relationship troubles” usually produces much clearer external evidence.
So let’s have a show of hands: Who wouldn’t want LRH’s marital track record? Or who wouldn’t want to cast aside their children (as well as the pesky issue of supporting them) once one is ready to move on to the next spouse? Now, communication may be the universal solvent. However, communication with one’s fed up spouse works even better after kidnapping one’s child and promising to cut them into little pieces. Plus, imagine how much more compliant a spouse becomes after you tenderized them with a few well-placed physical blows. Tellingly, almost the entirety of LRH’s family didn’t hang around to avail themselves of the patriarch’s great teachings!
Then again, a lot of all this messiness can be avoided if one decides to follow Miscavige’s example and banish the spouse entirely. Once that was out of the way, wouldn’t you know it: Most of the rest of the family voluntarily removed themselves without having to be asked. A couple of them even penned book about the experience; naturally, full of praise for DM’s relationship skills!
Or how about Cruise’s relationships? Surely, what kind of wife would not want to be with a man of his celebrity, glamour and dough? By scrupulously applying LRH’s “tech” Tom struck out three for three. If that weren’t enough, he managed to make the landscape of his former families into even more of a mine field with disconnection, SP declares, and banishments.
If these are the relationships of the leading examples of Elron’s “tech,” what hope is there for us lesser beings? Even if we ignore the fact that this book enjoys ZERO support outside of the few remaining in the cult, are THESE the results we aspire to for our relationships?
right on!
When Hubbard introduce SHERMSH – or whatever…was that one of his sci go books?
It was a rough read for me. Took me three weeks in 1972. At the time I was thinking strongly about getting into the Peace Corps, (young and impressionable and not looking at all the angles) so as I read this I saw that I could stay in the same place and still do good. My family was really relieved I wasn’t going to go off to Africa or some very remote place–they were really trying to get me to see how tough it would be…. unsanitary conditions, a tiny bit of money or none at all, bad food, possibly being unwelcome with the locals, not seeing me again for a long time….sound familiar? LOL…. Some Sea Org places I went to later on filled that bill.
If my family wanted to rescue me from something it should have been that blind “must help everyone except myself” self-destructive attitude. Man I needed an intervention! But back in that day it was looked upon favorably that one would want to help people to that degree. So that way of thinking about myself got me snagged for many years.
After escaping and watching TV sometimes I found out that there are others who do a retrogressive, repetitive therapy. It was effective. Techniques have been demonstrated on TV, with never a mention of Hubbard. Lots of other books too of course. Maybe the scatterbrain writing style of DMSMH came about as Hubbard read other books and stuck those techniques into his own–insisting it’s all his own idea.
I enjoyed the results I got with Dianetics (and the versions as it was refined)—too bad the craziness, greed, ego and evil surrounding any possible good it can do is so overwhelming that the scales are tipped against it, probably forever. At least there are other practitioners who can get results too.
Such an interesting mind set that he seemed to have………
.If YOU believe THAT (Dianetics)…..I have a BRIDGE to Sell YOU…
Seems to have worked for decades….many bought into that Bridge & regret it…
Clever.
I’ve always had a good vocabulary, reading at a collegiate level in 5th grade, for instance, and devoured good sci fi before that, but D:MSMH, IMO, is only barely readable, and then only if you’re really good at the “willing suspense of disbelief” required. Additionally, I can’t remember having read any Hubbard stuff before I tripped down the SCN rabbit hole. STILL haven’t found any of the “Doc Methuselah” stories he seemed so proud of.
A google just now found a Wiki that indicated the collection of stories was published in 1970. Well, I was buying at the time, a frequent visitor to that famous SF bookstore on 6th Avenue while I did the HSDC & levels at NY org. No “Doc” there, certainly not a best seller. They DID have a British imprint of an out-of-print E.E. Smith novel I’ve since learned never to loan out – – It’s never come back home: “Galaxy Primes”. Now, THAT’s good storytelling.
Try “the Lensman Series” by E.E. Doc Smith. You can get a lot of Smith’s material on Nook in a big bundle. I’m reading that again. ‘Love the stuff. Remember this was written around 1950, but is still relevant today.
I loved that series! Some of the best science fiction ever!
I stop and think today, what or whoever posted me to join The Sea Org after reading Dianetics which I did in 24 hours during college exam week thereby flunking all my courses. I hated grades as might be deduced. My point being looking through the sunlight at that book now, what a tangled spider web Ron wove. I do feel there had to have been a trigger word in that tome when combined with the lore of The Sea Org then, shot me right into the Love missile slot & I signed that contract. Throw away for Sunday perfect Mike. And the same phrases I used in my letters about DMSMH I see recycled again, although I added my own spin when I wrote or routed someone to buy it. Glad those days are in the reat view! Long gone. ?
Edit. Possessed me to join SO.
I surely do understand!
Recently I suddenly realized that there was one simple thing that I did that lead to be exposed to scn. I too immediately joined up, forsaking the next 40ish years of my life.
Had I not done that ONE thing, I probably would never have even heard of scn, or if I had heard of it, it would have been much later and I would have been older and less impressionable. (foolish)
I was stunned by the “sliding door” aspect. Like, decide to stop for a coffee, and whammo. Goodbye Life.
….
I’m glad you’re out and posting, Ann. You’re such a nice lady.
What a kind and Sweet comment secretfornow. I am very grateful I got out & can post, it means so much to me. I think your ” sliding door aspect ” about Scientology is very astute. ❤️to you.
Young impressionable minds without much life experience is what organizations like this go after. Not much life experience, a person with a kind caring gently heart & mind that wants to help mankind and WHAMO, they’ve got you hook line and sinker.
Many lovely people get duped into unknowingly getting taken advantage of, and many hang in there because it is ALL they have known & will ever know because you are not permitted to know anything else.
As we mature, we may begin to question certain aspects of our beliefs which means in a sense we’ve begun to achieve “Critical Thinking”. YOU saved yourself “secret”….you got out and began a different life where you are in control.
CONGRATS my friend!
Never could get past the weird assumptions of DMSMH. The Freudian process of looking at chains of associated events, which can lead to an underlying cause (basic) will yield results from time to time. It’s called looking. It’s called therapy.
It’s called self analysis. It’s called inspecting our lives by looking within at basic causes. L Ron Hubbard is NOT the creator of looking into causes of pain and suffering. But his disciples have been imprinted by Ron that it is the best process, the most unique and that Ron was the ONLY ONE to ever learn these things; Altitude Instruction. They claim this delusion even though they have not effectively studied anything else. The assumption of Scientology superiority is pure………….
arrogance and ego.
A sign of insecurity and need to perceived as special. Just like Hubbard.
Scientologists seem to think that when there is critical thinking about the lies of Hubbard’s claims that we are at the same time invalidating the actual help that it can give from time to time. And that this criticism is somehow a danger to the truth of Scientology being accepted. That is incorrect. The scientific process looks at everything. It cares not for the emotional attachments, to absolute claims based on lies, that apologists have as their operating assumptions. These emotional attachments with the superiority of Hubbard’s techniques, not a true scientific debate, is what fuels the anger and moral outrage of apologists.
No matter the great talent that Ron had for articulating fallacious scientism, the truth of the matter is still:
1) lies about reasearch
2) lies about curing ALL disease
3) lies about increasing IQ
4) lies about making a clear
5) lies about being able to erase all psychosomatic ills
6) lies about Ron’s delusional knowledge of attempted abortion being a major source of aberration. (Maybe what Ron meant was the time he attempted abortion on Poly with a coat hanger. See Playboy interview with Nibs. Nibs said he was six when he saw his dad do this)
The Volcano that Ron chose for the cover, to Ron critics, is evidence of Ron’s mental delusion of considering that people will be restimulated by Xenu and space aliens and thus buy more books.
The modern science of mental health seems to have been a bit lacking with Ron, when Ron chose suicide to overcome his problems with mental health at the end of his life.
Just because a person can go within and resolve some issues with Ron’s thinking techniques does not invalidate the truth that Ron’s techniques also lead to ignorance and delusions. And these delusional doctrines are a danger to our culture. A danger to the family unit. A danger to the sanity of our fellow citizens.
We are at last at a place where the Ron critic has more power than the black ops thuggery of Ron’s deviant church doctrines.
What a relief!!
Speaking of Xenu and delusions:
Someone from a past wife-time told me that at Saint Hill in the early days the Seo Org actually dressed up as people from the Galactic Confederacy.
My x wife told me that they wore silver boots (Flash Gordon?) and astronaut type jump suits.
Maybe Ron was attempted to restimulate OT 3 so people would flock to him in mindless processions of naive, sincere paying customers.
The only thing that got restimulated is probably a huge WTF??? Are you people insane??
And so the great attempt to restimulate our society with Sea Org dressed as OT 3 Loyal Officer space people fizzled out and was relegated to the historical trash bin of Ron’s schizoid make believe.
For those who claim the sanity of original Scientology please click Tony’s link below to see Yvonne (loved that women) and Scientologists dressed up like alien space implanters. (I think they wear those hard hats in case the frozen thetans fall on their heads.)
Those psycho inspired costumes also haunted the cover of Dianetics: The Evolution Of a “Science”. Evolution of a science? A science that views verification of claims an enemy of mankind.
Correction: the Sea Org were dressed up as Xenu servants. Not Loyal Officers. Maybe the silver boots were a fashion option. Implanters can be fashionable also. I don’t want to be labeled as belittling implanters. Even implanters want to look good.
To onlookers: Ron thought by presenting the symbols of OT3 on book covers and dressing up Sea Org as OT3 demented astronauts that he would increase membership by restimulating the worst engram in the universe. People would flock to his world of make believe.
He wrote Battleship Earth with the same intention: when folks get restimulated by a Hollywood feature film about OT3………………….. they will flock to my hyper-controlled-hpno-mind-fuck and then……………..
EARTH WILL BE OURS!!!!!!!!!!!
MWWWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ALL MINE….. MY PRECIOUS!!!!!!
More “workable technology” tossed on the garage heep of history. And voted the one of the worst movies of all time by most critics.
Best to you all.
http://tonyortega.org/2016/04/06/lucia-ribisi-ditches-scientology-and-says-of-famous-dad-giovanni-hes-questioned-it/comment-page-1/
One must remember the impression then hit TV Shows like Star Trek & Battle Star Galactica with “Commander Adama (Lorne Green after leaving Bonanza)… & Captain Apollo (now that name sounds quite familiar)..were having on young minds. Lets not forget their enemy…the CYLONS…(a bit familiar sounding too)…& then Dirk Benedict at Starbuck…(no no not the coffee)…..
Space exploration was the newest of the new interest in the mid 60’s , and with that the possibility of aliens….along with supposed alien space craft sightings, alien abductions, alien space craft crashes…..drew an interest into ANYTHING that was well, like Xenu etc….
A science fiction write had a field day creating his own story line to embellish & have a cult foillowing as the TV Shows did……..enough said.
We were indeed ripe Ballet Lady. I so agree with you.
I believe one early Halloween @ Asho & Asho Fdn a Sea Org member did have the Flash Gordon boots and belt kind of thing. I was still Ron-aided so thought all that flash was sparkly and shiny until a few years later I became aware that they were all costume phantoms from Ron’s World. Love to you & yours Brian. ?
Hey Ann!
What make believe insanity. To be able to convince normal people that if they dress up like characters from the OT3 incident that they will sell more books and reg more people is flat out bat shit looney tunes.
The power Hubbard had over the minds of Scientologists was total. It was total by design.
And if you saw something strange and wanted to look, Ron concocted punishment and thought reform to deal with you.
The Scientologist was implanted on purpose to self dead agent. Ron accomplished this by cementing in stone, by way of mental association and identification, the idea of being EVIL with the idea of being Critical.
By collapsing these two definitions, Ron accomplished a psychological manipulation whose end result is the suppression of free thinking on the 1st, 3rd and 4th dynamics.
The greatest damage that Ron perpetrated on us was the destruction of our free thinking with Ron’s psy ops doctrines.
He did this consciously. He did this with great planning. He did this because he was master at manipulating meanings and values.
His mastery of these is evidenced by the fact that being a critic of Scientology IS AN EVIL BEING TO THE SCIENTOLOGIST. They believe it because he said it.
He accomplished his mission: destruction of freedom. He destroyed it utterly with these doctrines. Walk up to any Scientologist and say,”Hi, I’m an SP”.
Then just sit back and watch their face. Their facial expression and attitude is triggered by these sick doctrines which he implanted on course materials. Debate and free exchange of ideas are dead, nada, destroyed.
L Ron Hubbard has commited psychological crimes on the minds of his students. It’s why they act so strange and psychologically violent.
They were taught to be the firewall between his false claims and public scrutiny. They were implanted to be violent against any who look at Ron.
Ron says he is trying to teach us to look. But try to really look and you are sent to the thought reform punishment gulag that he created just for you.
David Miscavige is simply an ignorant simpleton with a flare for control and power. Ron’s paranoid and psy ops doctrines on critics built the mind of David Miscavige. It built his character. It gave him a philosophy of violence.
If DM never became a Scientologist maybe he would have just ended up being some unknown wife abuser.
But armed with the brutality that inhabited Ron’s mind and put in writing, Miscavige becomes a destroyer of family and friends in his 3rd dynamic.
The cause of this craziness is Ron himself. He was and always will be SOURCE.
Brian,
I respectfullly disagree that Scientology “built” David Miscavige’s character or “gave” Miscavige a “philosophy of violence”.
If he hadn’t joined the SO, or if he hadn’t joined Scientology, he’d be bullying and abusing others in some other area.
I would go so far as to say that his Sea Org environment run on LRH’s suppressive Sea Org policies nurtured the evil qualities he already had. Very possibly LRH himself “made him right” about being violent and abusive in order to get things done.
That said, I believe that SPs or true sociopaths are born, not made.
Miscavige is a bad seed, a born bully. His rage and cruelty were there from the beginning.
This is the cruel creep that slapped his pre-clear, a girl, yet! when he was – what?…14 years old?
Think of that – who slaps their PC?
There was something wrong with him, mentally, if still in somewhat germinal form.
A bad seed. My opinion. Fine if you or anyone disagrees.
I think it was both: bad seed and whack job gardener.
I agree with you. He is who he is. But Ron taught him weapons of destruction on a very deviant level.
Ron made him worse. Ron gave him religious justification for brutality.
And brutality resonated with DM as a desirable quality.
After all, we don’t want to be lacking in ruthlessness. Look what happened to Manuela! Must learn how to brutalize with no remorse.
Brutality with no remorse is the essence of the learning in Bolivar.
Ron’s writings are a major source of the the DM personality. Straight up!
“Ron made him worse. Ron gave him religious justification for brutality. And brutality resonated with DM as a desirable quality”.
Well said, Bri. Totally agreed.
Made this morning. Thank you Brian, a keeper of a post for me. ???
I meant both of yours but Hey Ann made this morning.?
❤️??
I read DMSMH before I got into Scn in this life. I bought it at a grocery store and I hid the copy so no one would think I was nuts. I read it and had cognitions but never audited on Dianetics. Many years later it was determined that I went clear in Wichita in 52, so no more Dianetics for me. Since a lot of auditors were not Clear, I could not be audited by them. So, I could not answer the survey properly, but it did end up getting me into the SO so it was effective from that viewpoint.
Had I not read DMSMH I would have missed out on the joys of being on staff such as no sleep, little time off, wrong indications false “Justice”, getting AIDS and no medical care resulting in being more dead than alive, being held prisoner; having my wife ordered by the Captain to end cycle on me as I would soon be dead and countless more and some good things like knowing some of you all and having plenty of stories to tell.
I would like to get some more auditing before I die. I was getting auditing by Trey Lotz and it was going very well. I understand that many of you think that I am a fool for wanting anything to do with LRH tech but I figure the worst it could do is kill me and that is not that big a deal.
Trey is a good auditor and his pcs love him.
I sent an OT 7 to Trey to get auditing a few years ago. He appreciated it. He was still into Scientology and I thought Trey may help. He did. ( I hope this puts to rest the untruths that Ron apologists claim that I hate all things Scientology)
There is nothing wrong with some of Ron’s regimented and controlled forms of thinking (auditing). Sometimes we all need an a kick start to inspect our lives.
But the outcome of Ron’s regimented thinking techniques seems to be that it’s a Russian Roulette with our capacity to think clearly.
And there is evidence that Ron’s controlled thinking techniques can lead to mental unhealth.
Brian: “I sent an OT 7 to Trey to get auditing a few years ago…I hope this puts to rest the untruths that Ron apologists claim that I hate all things Scientology.”
You say that and then follow it with your usual attempt to negate the whole thing: “But the outcome of Ron’s regimented thinking techniques seems to be that it’s a Russian Roulette with our capacity to think clearly. And there is evidence that Ron’s controlled thinking techniques can lead to mental unhealth.”
marildi, hopefully Brian will provide his own answer, but I want to point out that from my perspective, there is an important nuance here that merits being taken into consideration more often.
Just because something seems to work for once person, or can be recommended in one specific case, does not mean that it works for everyone or can be generally recommended. You can look up the logical fallacies related to generalization for further explanation of this principle.
It seems that Hubbard in particular, between his haphazard research and his utilitarian disregard for harming people (“never fear to hurt another in a just cause,” Scientology being the ultimate just cause), wasn’t too concerned that his procedures and processes might do damage in a significant number of cases, and there is evidence of a relatively high level of negative outcomes – probably the reason that Hubbard and Scientology, despite their vast resources and professed interest in “science,” and the enormous value that positive research would have in making their case, have never performed or submitted to proper analysis of their actual results. As I’ve pointed out before, this problem with some seemingly impressive results but an unacceptable level of adverse outcomes was exactly what happened with abreaction therapy, which had to be abandoned, but upon which Hubbard nonetheless based Dianetics and Scientology auditing. Many medical treatments and procedures have had similar problems, even initially being hailed as “miracles” (as were Thalidomide and Fen-Phen, for instance), but later turning out to have such downsides that they either had to be banned outright or limited to use only in special cases.
PM: “Just because something seems to work for once person, or can be recommended in one specific case, does not mean that it works for everyone or can be generally recommended. You can look up the logical fallacies related to generalization for further explanation of this principle.”
Umm…I’m well aware of the logical fallacy of generalization – and have pointed out more than once that none of us is able to produce valid research statistics on success rates.
As for the rest of your post, it consists of unsubstantiated conjecture and assertion, as well as faulty comparison. Sorry but this is not valid discussion material, it’s just fancy rhetoric.
marildi, the points I made may not be formal proofs, and they may be uncomfortable to confront, but they are certainly “valid discussion material.” Acceptable (versus unacceptable) levels of adverse outcomes, in particular, is a critical point in judging the efficacy of any therapy or treatment – and of determining if it even should be practiced or used at all. Hubbard’s and Scientology’s attitudes towards that (or their failure to consider it) and their tolerance for levels of harm (likely breaching normal and scientific standards), are also quite relevant.
If you want to be formal about it, the fundamental principles and efficacy of Dianetics (and Scientology) have been disproven by the only actual scientific studies done, so unless you can come up with valid new empirical evidence, any arguments you (or others) make in support of Hubbard’s formally disproven and discredited work, are “just fancy rhetoric.” Both the CofS and the independent community have failed you (and many others) by not taking advantage of a long span of time, and vast resources of money and manpower, to try to provide the sort of evidence and research that is due.
PM: “…the fundamental principles and efficacy of Dianetics (and Scientology) have been disproven by the only actual scientific studies done…”
Which fundamental principles of Dianetics and Scientology are you referring to? The possible logical fallacy that comes to mind is Begging the Question, which is “committed when someone attempts to prove a proposition based on a premise that itself requires proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
As regards efficacy being disproven, what exactly was disproven? My 2 Cents already debunked the so-called test of Dianetics auditing where the “auditors” grossly violated the Auditors Code.
Also, please cite your sources as to the scientific studies.
marilidi, citing the longstanding research that debunked Dianetics (and Scientology) should hardly be necessary, as fundamental to the subject is and established as it is. But here it is:
“it was concluded that:
1.dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon intellectual functioning;
2.dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon mathematical ability; and
3.dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon the degree of personality conflicts”
Fischer, Harvey Jay. “Dianetic therapy: an experimental evaluation. A statistical analysis of the effect of dianetic therapy as measured by group tests of intelligence, mathematics and personality.” Abstract of Ph.D. thesis, 1953, New York University
“In the performance of this experiment the cooperation of the Dianetic Research Foundation, Los Angeles, California, was secured.”
“the engram hypothesis was not substantiated by this experiment.”
Fox, J.; Davis, A.E.; Lebovits, B. “An experimental investigation of Hubbard’s engram hypothesis (dianetics)”. Psychological Newsletter, New York University. 10 1959, 131-134
This is the research that has stood as authoritative for over half a century, unchallenged. Any critique (such as My 2 Cents’) is spurious and invalid unless it cites new studies done to equivalent or better scientific standards; any non-expert and un-evidenced complaints about the longstanding research fall into “Sharpshooting” or other logical fallacies.
Your responsibility now, particularly if you really care about the subject, is to come up with new, valid research. I’d suggest starting with the Dror Center in Israel, which certainly has the independence necessary to perform it; it’s even possibly that there is already an effort underway, which you could support. I look forward to hearing from you about this in a couple of years, when you can contribute something concrete.
In the meantime, you can provide your “witness” (to use a religious term) about your experience; but to be responsible you should do so under the caveat that it runs counter to the research, could just be placebo effect or one of several phenomenon of coincidence (include the error of attribution – see that cognitive bias), and that what you think helped you could harm some others. And it should be noted that pursuing the subject with the CofS has significant risks and downsides, but that even doing so with independents carries some risk of harm, and involves subjecting oneself to treatment by practitioners who may not be properly trained in dealing with mental health issues that might exist or arise.
I value your contribution about some of your experiences, and perspectives, and realize that you may well be an individual who got something out of your experience with Scientology. But it’s time to say “enough” about your seemingly endless rhetorical and fallacious support of that which currently stands disproven by evidence that you don’t have the ability or grounds to properly challenge.
There is probably a conversation to be had about the “good” that some experience in Scientology, which I don’t think we address or handle as well as we might (though some of my ideas for proponents, are above) – but I think we should pick that up on a future topic, when it becomes relevant.
Okay, I found the two papers you cited and looked them over. As regards the first one, for starters, there’s nothing in it that assures me the auditing was done standardly, including such crucial things as application of the Auditors Code or TRs. (I’m pretty sure this was the same “test” My 2 Cents got firsthand data about that debunked it.) The second paper wasn’t actually a test of auditing but of a hypothesis regarding the engram.
In any case, even if these experiments were valid (which I have no reason to believe, as they weren’t ever replicated or peer reviewed), they were tests of the tech of 1950 Dianetics – hardly a test of the Dianetics tech of today – much less Scientology tech, as you claimed above. The tech of each was revised and improved over the decades.
So much for the “research that has stood as authoritative for over half a century, unchallenged.” (Or were you just trying to snow me? 🙄 )
Anyway, PM, I’m done with this.
I’m taking a Miraldi break. Please feel free to talk amognst yourselves. ?
Interpret this in anyway your intelligence and experience dictates.
Brian ??
You’re not a fool, Bill Strauss. Something works, or it doesn’t. Something helps, or it doesn’t. That’s the simplicity of it. Auditing and training helped me too. Others it didn’t help. Obviously.
Perhaps we could all lighten up a bit and agree on something Frank Sinatra said: “I’m for whatever gets you through the night” 🙂
Most of Hubbard’s scientology books on Amazon seem to follow the same pattern. Around 70% five stars, 20-something percent 1 star, and not too much in the middle. Not a lot of nuance in the reviews. 🙂
At last, something on the way Dianetics was written. Hate to use Scientologese here, but the biggest withhold and continuous lie I’ve ever told/had (apart from once smiling about NOTs) concerning my time with the Cof$ was “reading” or trying to, the book Dianetics. Plus putting up with the facade of how it is wonderful and is going to save the world etc. It is a terribly written book!
I don’t really have anything against the type of therapy it alludes (kind of) to, two people talking about their experiences to relieve past burdens isn’t exactly exclusive to Dianetics but ohhh my, being forced to read that book was a severe punishment in itself. It made no sense, didn’t follow along any logical pattern and NEVER set out the procedure with any semblance of sanity. Turning every page felt like stabbing yourself in the eyes with hot nails.
I’ve had to study some pretty dry, lifeless publications in my time, like we all have but Dianetics tops the list as the most painful. It’s just another example of how hypnotized Scientologists are, to say that that is a great book is pure crap! Plus the most glaring outpoint I’ve ever seen concerns DMSMH – I’ve never met anyone who could use or apply the procedures as it delineated to be done in that book, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON! Maybe there are some that can, but they sure were never invited to any of my birthday parties.
I had zero difficulty reading and understanding DMSMH. I didn’t necessarily believe all of its details. But the basic idea made total sense to me and the hope that engendered motivated me to learn more, get some auditing, etc. Later at the mission where I was Deputy ED we required Comm Course students to read 89 pages of excerpts from DMSMH. That combination was extremely effective in getting new people to cognite that they’d found something worth their further participation.
My experience was virtually the same as yours.
If it’s so easy to read and effective, why is the Cof$ in so much trouble then? How come there’s NEVER been enough auditors of it? Where aren’t there Dianetics groups springing up everywhere?
If you can read it, get wins from it, great & good luck to you but as years as a sup in the Cof$ it gave more students trouble trying to use study tech on it than any other writing, except maybe Simon Bolivar. I gave students reading DMSMH a wide berth from checking them too closely for application if a student was studying it on course (I had no idea how to run the procedures in it). It was an tech overt I intentionally committed but I was happy as hell when they finished it. Even Hubbard “degrades” the book technically later on by the simple fact it completely outdated itself within the first year of him forming an organisation based on it. I’ve never known it to be a HGC procedure. Book One in beginning scenarios yes, but as per that book I’ve never seen anyone use the file clerk technique – EVER! It’s the most squirreled procedure per the original writing ever produced by Hubbard.
I just think it was a gross error of Hubbard not to go back and rewrite the thing with so many professed advances he had made since its publication. But the claims he made in it were so far fetched perhaps he couldn’t for moral or embarrassment reasons. I don’t buy the idea of having to closely following the tech development line as a necessary part of applying the subject and why earlier stuff is so important, it’s a mind numbing technique. Scientology has never operated on common sense, just Hubbard! Geezers “streamlining” became a buzz marketing line for Scientology over many decades, it sold more of their stuff. Another example of the hypocrisy contained and written into the Cof$ materials and actions imo.
IY, my first reaction is to say that Hubbard didn’t rewrite the book, because he was waiting to be able to revise it with how to actually produce a “clear”….
I’m starting to think that Hubbard was a bit of a poser who relied on others for a lot of the real essentials of the “tech,” and who was stuck in a cycle of continually trying to patch up the applied tech to get it to produce the results actually promised (like the state of clear), and I’m not sure that he really even had the clarity and wherewithal to have been able to rewrite the book in a way that would have reduced errors (rather than just substituting new ones for old ones) or made more sense. To put a bit of a different spin on something often cited here, he seems to have died in about the same mental and physical condition that he started out in the Naval hospital back in 1945 – he apparently never really solved his initial problems.
You make a good point there. The state of clear has been withdrawn from cases and new processes/tech line ups issued to attain it more than once. Yet, it very much seems an authoritative opinion from above is required from within the Cof$ tech hierarchy if the state of Clear is attained or not. You couldn’t possibly rewrite Dianetics without it’s goals clarified and the precise method of attaining the Clear state presented. Yes, best leave it alone from Hubbard’s viewpoint.
There sure has been a lot of stumbling around with the ‘tech.’ But as long as the money kept flowing, the stumbles were just fine – sheeple are sheeple after all.
Yes, Hubbard’s mental and physical condition didn’t live up to being much of an example of anything really.
Hey! You need to go back to one whole post. Not on this page, but, the one before it! There are questions you need to answer! Get to it!
Yawn: “If it’s so easy to read and effective, why is the Cof$ in so much trouble then?”
The reason its not easy to read for many people is that the level of reading skills has declined steadily since 1950 and continues to decline, according to many studies.
WRONG marildi. I had EXTREMELY high reading comp. level (measured at post Grad level when I was 12) and I found it painful to read and very poorly written when I was 18.
Hey Wynski, you didn’t call me stupid or insane or deluded or anything. You must be mellowing. 😉
NO, Marildi! WAKE UP! Wynski is TOTALLY right, ALL the time. There is NO evidence to the contrary. Therefore he has NOT changed, and you are an IDIOT for thinking otherwise. The only bigger idiot is L. RON HUBBARD HIMSELF!
Wow, M2C, that’s a good impression. Spot on!
But that was the OLD Wynski. 😉
I hope you’re not implying I don’t know how to read. That would be a silly thing and disregards many aspects of first hand observations of many, many others struggling with it, plenty of those people had no trouble becoming competent auditors. ‘Dianetics Today’ (banned by the Cof$) is far more competently written book on that particular subject. Dianetics has had it’s chance, extremely bad management, greedy intentions and despotic dictatorship pretty much destroyed a potentially useful therapy. BS and now easily provably & impossible claims made in the very first book on the subject have come back to bite it severely and it was poorly written and without structure in the first place. It didn’t make easy reading at all!
Yawn: “It didn’t make easy reading at all!”
I didn’t say it was easy reading. But difficult reading isn’t always because of “poor writing.” I wish you or somebody would quote a pargraph or two as an example, because I just don’t see it as poor writing even though it may not have been easy reading.
Some books written in earlier centuries were difficult to read, IMO, and I can only imagine that the literacy level was higher back then.
As one who has read Dianetics I was only too happy to leave my review of Hubbard’s not-so-modern pseudo-science of mental health.
Len, are you the guy who was just on the Leah TV documentary? The one who used to work in the GO?
Len Zinberg, If you are the same Len who was on Leah’s 2 hr documentary last night, “the spy who came in from the cold,” then I salute you and applaud you. That takes courage to admit you did wrong. You were sorry you helped to harm Paulette Cooper when the GO did their dirty tricks Fair Game on her. Your story and your obvious regret for your part really touched me. Please know that you did a lot of good to come out and talk on Leah’s show and that you should forgive yourself. It seems from Paulette’s answer to your confession to her, that she has forgiven you. And the speaking out and whistle blowing you did really do make up for a lot. So glad you did the right thing and came forward. Good luck and best wishes to you.
“Book One” for me was Counterfeit Dreams. Couldn’t put it down. Next must read was Blown For Good. These two books contain everything one needs to know about how close one should get to Dianetics the book and scientology the religion.
Close cousin to the confidential project of getting RPF members in the early ’80s to go out and buy copies of Battlefield Earth to pump up the numbers and get the book onto bestseller lists.
The expression “clutching at straws” comes to mind. At this point the cult’s name is worse than mud and no normal person is gonna read that shit anyway, so IMO they’re just pissing in the wind.
Bridge Publications: The Fakebook for books.
Ha, ha, good one; as a musician, I have think about that for a moment. Thanks for the chuckle. But perhaps the Jamey Aebersold play-along series might be a better analogy.
I read the first four chapters of Diaretics. I couldn’t go any further.
I understand… when you gotta go, you gotta go! (we don’t want no stinking messes do we?)
Well…maybe a small one.
An acceptable, “opps,” will suffice – works for me on a daily basis!
I liked Dianetics and read it 4 times in a row. Didn’t understand all of it by a long shot by I liked it.
That said, I know a person who took 8 years to read it, as this very person (an OT Viii) told me.
I swear to God. 8 years.
When L.Ron said to go back for the word I didn’t know and I’d “understand” – I closed the book. I knew what all the words meant. Wish my child had – in the desensitizing chamber for decades now.
I’m so very sorry for your child. Hopefully they will “see the light”….and will be able to return to you, soon.Oh, I NEVER read the book…or ANY of them.
“throw away”.
Excellent suggestion for a DMSMH book review.