Another thought-provoking essay from Brian Lambert.
INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS: L. RON HUBBARD’S ROAD TO SUICIDE
“We are not moralists”
“I am not interested in wog morality”
L. Ron Hubbard
(Remember these quotes when reading the dictionary definitions of ethics below)
It’s possible, through this essay, that dictionaries may be considered, by the Scientologist, a suppressive source of anti-religious bigotry. These definitions prove that Hubbard altered the meaning of the word ethics.
Hubbard changed the “meaning and melodies” of the word ethics, and by so doing he distorted the Scientologist’s ability to tell the difference between decency and indecency, right and wrong, good and evil, the real and the unreal. Hubbard’s redefinition of ethics made it possible for the GO/OSA type Scientologist to consider he or she is ethical by destroying and harming people for the greatest good.
Proof of Hubbard’s redefining the word Ethics
There is a definite way of knowing that L. Ron Hubbard altered the definition of the word ethics and injected his own misunderstoods, conscious manipulation or moral depravity; or all of it, into the minds of Scientologists.
What I want to focus on is what Hubbard has alarmingly left out in his definition of ethics.What is missing in his definition of ethics is a window into the self-absorbed nature of L Ron Hubbard.
So let’s learn about ethics from the most sacred texts of the Scientologist’s source of understanding: the dictionary (My brackets used in definitions for emphasis)
These are the definitions of the word ethics:
From the Oxford dictionary:
1- [Moral] principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity – ‘a code of ethics’
2- The [moral] correctness of specified conduct.
3- The branch of knowledge that deals with [moral] principles.
From American Heritage dictionary
1-a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of [moral] values
2-The study of the general nature of [morals] and of the specific [moral] choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
From Dictionary-dot-com
1- a system of [moral] principles.
2- [moral] principles, as of an individual
From Merriam Webster
1- the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with [moral] duty and obligation
2- a set of [moral] principles : a theory or system of [moral] values the present-day materialistic ethic an old-fashioned work ethic
3- a consciousness of [moral] importance forge a conservation ethic
4- a set of [moral] issues or aspects (such as rightness)
From Cambridge Dictionary
1- the study of what is [morally] right and wrong, or a set of beliefs about what is [morally] right and wrong
From Google Wikipedia
1- Ethics or [moral] philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.
2- Ethics seems to resolve questions of human [morality] by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry, [moral] philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology.
And now for the commodore definitions
Introduction to Scientology Ethics
Ethics is reason and contemplation of optimum survival.
Scientology Tech Dictionary
ETHICAL CONDUCT, conduct out of one’s own sense of justice and honesty. When you enforce a moral code upon people you depart considerably from anything like e t h i c s . People obey a moral code because they are afraid. People are ethical only when they are strong. (Dn 55!, p. 25)
ETHICS, 1. the term is used to denote ethics as a subject, or the use of ethics, or that section of a Scientology Church which handles ethics matters. (BTB 12 Apr 72R) 2. ethics actually consist, as we can define them now in Dn, of rationality toward the highest level of survival for the individual, the future race, the group, and mankind, and the other dynamics taken collectively. Ethics are reason. The highest ethic level would be long-term survival concepts with minimal destruction, along any of the dynamics. (SOS, p. 128) 3 . ethicB has to do with a code of agreement amongst people that they will conduct themselves in a fashion which will obtain to the optimum solution of their problems. (5008C30) 4 . the rules or standards governing the conduct of the members of a profession. (HCO PL 3 May 72) 5 . ethics is a personal thing. By definition, the word means “the study of the general nature of morals and the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others.” (AND) When one is ethical or “has his ethics in” it is by his own determination and is done by himself. (HCOB 15 Nov 72 II) 6 . that which is enforced by oneself, his belief in his own honor, and good reason, and optimum solution along the eight dynamics. (PDC 37)
In all non Scientology dictionaries the word moral is predominant in the definitions. In Hubbard’s definition morality is a subject, an afterthought to Scientology ethics and something to be afraid of and controlled by.
Never, in any real world dictionaries, is the word ethics defined as a personal choice, determined by one’s own sense of right and wrong.
“Reason and contemplation of optimum survival” is not a moral choice. It’s vague and morally meaningless. It does not consider good or bad, moral or immoral. Never in any real world dictionary is “only those who are strong” a prerequisite for ethics. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were strong. What the hell does power have to do with ethics?
Decency and honesty are the requirements for ethics, not strength or power!
“Reason and contemplation of optimum survival” is not a moral choice. It’s completely vague and morally meaningless. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all applied “reason and contemplation of optimum survival.” Hubbard’s definition does not consider good or bad, moral or immoral and thus does not regulate behavior. And just look at how Scientology behaves!
“We are not moralists”
“I am not interested in wog morality” L. Ron Hubbard
For Hubbard, optimum survival was destroying enemies, making money and satisfying his narcissism. And last but not least: convincing us to help him fulfill those Hubbard survival goals.
It’s also true that Hubbard deranged the definition of the word ethics to mean a series of production formulas: the ethics conditions. A system of reward and punishment that can easily function as a concentration camp style mind control.
He destroyed the real meaning of ethics by redefining it to mean being a cog in the Scientology production machine.
Scientologists are considered to be “in ethics” or “ethical” by advancing in Scientology. They can be child molesters, get money by “unethical” means and still be considered “in ethics” if they give money to Scientology.
Danny Masterson comes to mind.
Let’s take a look at the first entry definition of Ethical Conduct in the tech dictionary above:
ETHICAL CONDUCT, conduct out of one’s own sense of justice and honesty. When you enforce a moral code upon people you depart considerably from anything like e t h i c s . People obey a moral code because they are afraid.
What Hubbard is revealing about himself here is so instructive in light of the real definition of ethics in all of these real world dictionaries.
Hubbard had no standard, outside of himself, that he judged his behavior by. It’s actually the mindset of a child who just wants what they want and DON’T GET IN MY WAY!
In all societal schools of thought, whether they be religious, spiritual or secular, there are common standards of decency, that all decent honest human beings ascribe to, and govern our lives thereby.
Hubbard’s “conduct out of one’s own sense of justice and honesty” is the definitional equivalent of Aliester Crowley’s “do as thou wilt is the whole of the law”.
This definitional rape of the word ethics is possibly one of the major mind distortions of the Scientologist, and a doctrinal source of their bad behavior. How could it not be? Morality is all about regulating behavior to be good.
Hubbard was immoral. He states it himself in these two quotes. He threw a definitional wrench into the cognitive faculties of his disciples. And that’s why they can break up families, go through people’s garbage, ruin utterly, use the legal system to destroy people, pistol whip your wife, betray all of your relations, abuse children, protect rapers and pedophiles and make slaves.
And consider themselves ethical while doing it.
Hubbard’s redefinition of ethics has caused a major distortion in people’s behavior.
Morality and ethics is all about following common standards of decency like:
- honesty
- accountability
- fairness
- loyalty
- keeping one’s word
- charity
- self regulation
- courage
- self sacrifice
Hubbard failed at all of the above. This man has no right to define ethics. He raped the definition. And just look at the behavior of the “church” of Scientology – “the most ethical group on the planet.”
They think they are “in ethics”. That is proof of Hubbard’s power to control through the redefinition of key human behavioral words.
Ethics is an extremely powerful word that represents our higher nature as human beings, separating us from lower forms of life. It represents self regulation governed by common standards of decency. Ethics is not based only on one’s own sense of good and evil, right and wrong.
For Hubbard, the manipulation of language was an evil art form. I think he knew what he was doing. This man was not a good influence.
And in the end, Hubbard’s version of ethics led him to attempt suicide by electroshock.
This man needs to continually be dethroned from his hypno-marketed messiahship and his thug organization needs to be destroyed by the truth of its true underlying moral depravity.
Study the words of L Ron Hubbard at great risk to your true spiritual and human nature. His rape of the definitions of sympathy, grief, accountability and ethics can be some of the doctrinal sources of the deviant Scientology personality.
Ethics is knowing the difference, wisely, between good and evil. Ethics is not living out of one’s own sense of justice and honesty.
Hey Dead L Ron, how’d that honesty bit work out for ya?
I think all recently out Scientologists should get some dictionaries and relearn the actual definition of the ethics.
It’s important.
Scientologists survive and people live. When people live scientologists seek to survive.
As I’ve said a few times, Tubby didn’t want ethics or morality in scientology, just the freedom to do whatever he wanted to do right then, even when it violated the rules HE wrote that he said were inviolable law.
Can you say hypocrite?: Ron did’t seem able to recognize it, or CARE if he did observe it in his own sayings and actions.
Hubbard was, like his malignant “offspring” David Miscavige, a rodent (as I read where someone else on this blog first posted that charactererization). I do really feel that’s the best one word descriptor for both of them.
Brian,
Love this essay. From the 80+ comments almost everything I could say has been said.
I would add a little personal experience I had (1970) against an AOLA C/S intern: I remarked that the little green ethics book was just an organizational ploy to get workers to grind on their posts. He argued that it applied universally. I argued that each of us is in a personal life condition of our own making (we are being who we are) and ANYONE declaring or assigning some one to be in any condition different from the condition who they are is suppressing and invalidating that person. I think the conversation went downhill from there.
Scientologists err in thinking that Hubbard wrote truth at such a high level that it never fails. Most of it stunk out the chute.
Well said Jim
“we are not interested in wog morality”
NO, he’s only interested in YOU doing what he wants, and if that violates society’s norms of behavior, so what? ” As scientologists, we’re above all that pedestrian garbage. We do whatever we want, as is our inalienable right as decreed by ol’ Tubby, hisself.
scientology “ethics” most closely resembles punishment for failure to follow the old dead man’s prescriptions for creating a new society in his own image, a mold I fled in disgust all those years ago. Just last night, I had another nightmare that I somehow had fallen into being subject to his misguided ‘ethics’ redefinitions. It’s sad to be in such an uncivilized society and to know that it’s only applicable in the insane ‘bubble’ called scientology (which I refuse to capitalize even when it’s grammatically correct. NOR will I call it a ‘church’ except in the bitterly ironic voice, as it isn’t, never has been, and never will be in anything but the most splitting-hairs-legally sense. IF scientology had even the possibility of fulfilling its stated goals, I’d feel differently, maybe, but the evidence is in and the conclusion is (spoiler alert!) Tubby never pursued the stated goals in the first place. He only worked towards “Do as thy wilst. That shall be the whole of the law.” and his only wish was to create an army of slaves who would give all of themselves and their fortunes to his merest whims.
The fatal flaw in the “greatest good for greatest number of dynamics” approach to ethics is that it is dependent on a determination of what would be the greatest good for all in any given situation. When ideology comes into play, as it always does, and especially does in the case of Scientology, it determines what the so-called greatest good is, and it is only what is supposedly the greatest good according to that ideology. So in order for this to be workable, the ideology would have to be perfectly objective, and of course no ideology is perfectly objective, and especially not Scientology. So this approach to ethics reduces to the level of giving adherents to an ideology a justification for doing anything and everything as long as it advances, in their minds, the objectives of their ideology.
A thought in response to Foolproof:
He says that society imposes moral behavior. So I guess he means the imposition of “wog morality”.
Well, I’m a wog. So what does my wog morality impose on me:
1- honesty
2- loyalty
3- truth in thought word and deed
4- do not steal
5- honor my father and mother
6- do not covet my neighbor’s goods
7- do not covet my neighbor’s wife
8- do not deceive others for personal gain etc etc etc
These are wog morality. I do not follow these rules out of fear as Hubbard says he feels towards these rules.
I follow these wog morals because happiness is the outcome. I follow these rules because I am a student of the spiritual life.
Hubbard was nuts.
But Brian, “student of the spiritual life” eh? But you didn’t follow the “spiritual rules” when you ran OTIII without a meter and not even being Clear on your back porch for 3 weeks!
But anyway, getting back to the subject at hand, so now you are changing your tack eh, now that I have pointed out the fallacy in your “argument”? You are stating that morality is what is imposed by society or groups on the individual as distinct and the opposite from what you were blathering on about above. Take a pill now and calm down, have a rest, and relax.
FOOLproof scribbled:”But Brian, “student of the spiritual life” eh? But you didn’t follow the “spiritual rules” when you ran OTIII without a meter and not even being Clear on your back porch for 3 weeks!”
FLUNK! reference to item(s) not in evidence and ad Hominem attack, which indicates to me that you have no wish, or no ability to discuss the topic using logical arguments and reasoning, but can just snipe at the other person in an effort to denigrate their character and neutralize them as a person. How so quaintly scientological.
BTW, I’m not attacking your person or character, just your current action ; I try to be careful not to slip into ad Hominem personally as I’ve never seen it work amongst an intelligent readership. Its use in courts of law, IMO, are insulting to the judge and jury.
From the FP posts I’ve read, I see a counterpuncher. He only responds when he can try to pick apart someone else’s comment. Being imperfect humans, any comment has a good chance of some imperfection, mine, yours, and FP’s. This gives him ammunition, and his run-and-gun commentary, or should I say hit-and-run commentary, allows some semblance of a faux-Scientology life outside Scientology, which must be cold comfort to a person who so obviously wishes he could still be in.
Were it not for that Hubbard stupidly dying, then refusing to return in his self-defined 21 year limit, were it not for that rat Miscavige, who quit auditing decades ago, were it not for all those others who didn’t do the Standard Tech Standardly, FP could still be sitting at his master’s feet, soaking up whatever one soaks up from a master’s feet.
But no-o-o-o, all those people who weren’t able to swallow years of contradictory hogwash and churn it into sweet smelling poop ruined it for everyone who could.
AA,
Toe-jam. That’s what he would be soaking up. toe-jam…and a really bad smell. I would imagine rotten yellow toe nails and bunions.
Kat
Yes, you would. You’ve been going to too many yoga classes. Bit whiffy on those mats eh?
Kat, you can refer to “AA” above now as “A=A=A” – little Scientology joke there – Mike will get it if not appreciate it.
You obviously don’t read the posts – or are the constant and prolific ad hominem attacks of others invisible to you in your haste to vent forth? Like, you know… “Hubbard was nuts”. Or to put it another way let’s estimate how many comments here are usually filled with some sort of ad hominem attack – perhaps 50%+. And I think that’s being pretty “reasonable” as well on my part. And when I do do so, it’s fairly mild, and it seems that you somewhat agree that doing what Brian did was “offbeat” (I’m being “reasonable” again). Or am I insulting your intelligence now?
FP, hominem actually cuts both ways – arguments supporting Hubbard, and Scientology, are technically ex homine* (alternately, pro homine, or ab homuncule). As you’ve reminded me by your persistently abusive argumentation, they are based solely on the word or (supposed reputation) of Hubbard or some mystical “subject,” in the absence of either empirical evidence or properly established authority, and thus an ad hominem is a fitting response; ad hominem attacks are not necessarily fallacious in that, and some related, circumstances:
“Non-fallacious reasoning – ….the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Non-fallacious_reasoning
THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
“Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. ” https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
Don’t worry if you don’t get it now – I’ll bring it up again, the next time that you do. While a student in a prestigious classics and philosophy program, I actually got paid to do a bit of debate-related work, and can brush up as necessary – I could even claim that I’m something of an old pro, with at least as much authority as the failed college dropout Hubbard.
* the “m” at the end gets dropped because the noun declines to a different case in Latin when it’s “from” rather than “to.”
Haha! The maze of illogic goes further and further. So when an ad hominem statement or personal attack occurs, it is not one, or am I a “failed college dropout”? And because Dianetics and Scientology doesn’t have the “seal of approval” of “authorities”, it is ok to say what one likes? Oh! Well, that’s alright then! Haha – I bet your wife loves having an argument with you!
Brian: I’m mostly in agreement with what you’ve written on this page, but your paraphrasing the 10 Commandments seems to bring up a “fear” that MIGHT be why some people follow that set of moral values: Thad G-d will get you in the afterlife if you violate ‘his’ laws. I ‘quote his because I’m of the opinion that if the big guy does exist, his gender is likely to be irrelevant or isn’t binary: male or female. I suppose ‘His’ is likely to be closer when considering his behavior as the G-d most people around here worship completely lacks the nurturing qualities attributed to the female species, at theist the Old/Jewish Testament version. The teachings of the “New” testament are better balanced, IMNHO.
I don’t write that to offend those who might hold those beliefs, only because I’m the sort of agnostic who isn’t absolutely convinced ‘He’ don’t exist. IOW, an atheist who is willing to be proved wrong at some point and wants to keep his options open.
You don’t have to believe in God to find agreement with do not steal, do not lie, don’t wish for other people’s stuff, other people’s wives or husband and not be a violent person.
Believers and non believers can agree on these human virtues. Truthfulness and non violence are human and spiritual virtues.
I find I have to keep going back over and re-evaluating Hubbard’s BS. It would be great if I could just say it’s all bullshit. But if it were just bullshit we would have all left a lot sooner. The problem is Hubbard didn’t just speak bullshit. He took some very good ideas, mostly from others, and re-stated them as his own while adding his own “secret Source” which was bullshit.
For instance. “People are ethical only when they are strong.” That statement has some truth to it. Those who merely comply with the prevailing flow of what socially constitutes “right thinking” are quite often not up to even evaluating the situation and are not acting with integrity. If someone isn’t capable of going against the herd they could hardly be described as honorable.
Another Hubbardism that has some truth in it is the idea that when things go wrong for you in your life it’s worth taking a look at what you did, or didn’t do, to contribute to the situation. It doesn’t mean that everything is always your fault, that’s the bullshit part, but it would be foolish to not adjust your beliefs or practices if they deliver undesirable results.
Interested Party,
It is true that Hubbard sprinkled some usable stuff stolen from others into his craziness. That is the key term…”STOLEN FROM OTHERS” using that as a platform, I can tell you that it is ok to toss everything the man wrote into the trash, mainly because its out there in an un-bastardized form without the taint of his particular crazy. Look at it this way. Many of the things that attract people to this cult have the basis in areas that are/were already part of the human condition- he liberally took things and twisted them to appear to be this glowing intellectual being- when in reality, he was a thief and an intellectual plagiarist extraordinaire.
Just use common sense. If something makes sense on its own- meaning the idea or statement can stand on its own merit without being propped up by redefinitions and other “Hubbardisms” then keep it- if not, toss it. If this doesn’t work, look up the concept on the internet- there is usually a very clear entry that has nothing to do with Hubbard or scientology. Another trick that would likely work is to try to speak with someone NOT in the cult- if they don’t look at you like you’ve drunk the Kool aide, its probably something familiar to the ‘wogs’ and therefore likely something this “great thinker” stole from another source.
For example, the thought you give credit to Hubbard to at the end- basically its the lesson most parents impart to their children …”learn from your mistakes”. He just reworded it to make it sound more profound than it is. Same with the one before- how many people have heard that particular axiom from their parents- I did- it was worded in the more friendly way of “its not always easy to stand up for what’s right” or ‘”you need to make your own decisions about things instead of agreeing because everyone says its ok”
Kat
Excellent, excellent, Brian. It is such a relief to members that as long as they can make donations there is no such thing as morals. Or decency. Or anything positive outside of the church. And don’t get me started on “the conditions”. That is seriously bad as well.
More fun with definitions: Following is from Webster’s Dictionary and Dictonary.com (others dictionaries use the same definition)
Wog (noun): informal offensive
Used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a dark skinned foreigner and especially for one from the Middle East or the Far East (some definitions include Northern Africa); a person who is not white
usage: This term is a slur and should be avoided. It is used with disparaging intent and is perceived as highly insulting
This is the English definition from Webster’s. The definition in Australia is a little different and includes illnesses such as infuenza
I wonder how NOI and STAND can get away with using a racial slur to describe those who are not in scientology? Guess Hubbard redefined that one too…nope, he just expanded the definition to include anyone who didn’t agree with him.
Kat
Quite simple – because in Scientology it wasn’t used as a racial slur. This bone has been gnawed on constantly. Try something else. i am sure you can find something (of course).
Foolproof,
If it wasn’t meant as a slur then why use that particular word? Let me guess- Hubbard ‘redefined’ it. A subtle way to get people to use a derogatory term by making it acceptable to use within a closed group- a very common desensitizing tactic used my many cults. This is a fact- the term IS derogatory. If Hubbard didn’t mean it to be, he would never have used THAT term. He could have made up a term from his overactive imagination. He could have used just about any other term. He PURPOSEFULLY chose a term that wasn’t as well recognized by everyone for wat it was.
Come on Foolproof- come up with another logical reason- ANY logical reason other than this one. But I’m guessing you wont answer or will deflect.
Kat
You say “A subtle way to get people to use a derogatory term by making it acceptable to use within a closed group – a very common desensitizing tactic used my [sic] many cults.” What other examples of this are there, cult expert, or is this just some more table dressing for your imagined theory? But I’m guessing you wont answer or will deflect.
As to your pointless bone-gnawing, let’s ask Mike as a Scientologist for decades, to honestly state if there was any racial slur implied or intended in how it was used in Scientology, which also wasn’t that often anyway, actually rarely. Slur it was, but race had nothing to do with it. “Humanoid” was used in this sense more, and in fact I might use it more in my comments – haha!
Fool,
Deflection, deflection, deflection….
Yes, you’re not very good at it. Still, with this audience, who cares eh? Actually it’s more tangential with you or Mike’s favorite riposte of “What aboutism”.
I meant you are deflecting fool.
You have just shown how foolish you are! Still with any luck Mike won’t allow this comment as he doesn’t want to embarrass one of his new commenting “upstats”! But even if he does allow it, after posting what you did the damage is done anyway.
Well, what are these “other examples” then? Or are you er, deflecting? Sill waiting – but they won’t come now will they?
FP, Kat is right, it is typical that high control groups or cults have names for outsiders, and the more controlling and insular the group, the more distancing and derogatory they are, as in Scientology’s co-opting of the racist term “wog” that is equivalent to the “n-word” in the US. But it’s an obscure enough aspect of groups, that it’s hard to remember examples of the exact terms they use – I know I’ve run across plenty, but couldn’t quite remember any, and had to do a bit of searching to refresh my memory.
Even the basic term used in Christian groups, “unbelievers,” carries the derisive connotation that others don’t believe anything. Islamic fanatics of course infamously refer to Christians and other oustiders as “infidels.” The FLDS calls outsiders “gentiles,” a mis-used term they’ve further re-defined with very evil connotations, and mainstream society and government “the beast,” for instance, justifying their widespread practice of welfare fraud
to support polygamous families as “bleeding the beast.” Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to “the world” and “worldly people,” again re-defined within the group in a very perjorative way, as those deserving of god’s eternal damnation. The Children of God – AKA The Family – referred to outsiders as “fish” (and, I think, another more derogatory term that I can’t recall at moment) and, infamously, engaged in “flirty fishing” or recruiting by prostitution.
I found a bit by Rick Ross that is relevant, about high control groups:
“You must also be sensitive to certain terms, phrases or words (taught within the group) and avoid them. This is what Lifton calls “Loaded Language” or “thought terminating cliches.” In some supposedly “bible based” groups such expressions as “the world,” “unbelievers,” even “love” may be twisted and loaded with special significance. It is important to learn this language (perhaps through articles about the group, books and/or the group’s own materials) and be sensitive to its use and implications.”
https://culteducation.com/coping.html
Steve Hassan cites Lifton:
“Loaded language is something I first learned about by studying the work of Robert J. Lifton. In his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of ‘Brainwashing in China, Lifton has this to say:
‘The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly selective, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. They become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.’
….
Destructive cults use a system of Orwellian loaded language ”
https://freedomofmind.com/use-of-words-loaded-language-and-thought-control-of-believers/
I need some help with this one. If the Scientology definition of ethical conduct is based on an individualized criteria (what an individual determines is ethical conduct), how can anyone ever be acting unethically? Using that definition, any action made by an individual could be argued to be completely ethical based on the individuals thought processes.
This is very disturbing. By applying LRH definition, a serial killer could NOT be ethically or morally held accountable (oops, there is THAT word again) for killing dozens of people because he or she decided, based on their own internal barometer of right and wrong, that it was perfectly ethical for them to do this.
Any action by ANY individual would carry absolutely no repercussions because they would not have done it if it was considered unethical conduct by the individual (basically this is heodonism to a criminal degree).
As for the “greater good for the most dynamics”, the same issues apply. If an individual can argue that their action was perpetrated for the greater good, or for the advancement of the cult, any action therefore becomes acceptable. Going back to that serial killer- if he butchered opponents of the cult, wouldn’t that make it ethically good under this reasoning? If that is so, how is the planet supposed to benefit from this craziness???
And finally, don’t people in this cult ever question why Hubbard felt it necessary to redefine all of these words? I mean, the dictionaries of the world worked just fine for him prior to him “creating” Dianetics- why were they suddenly unusable and needing redefinitions for specific words (words that seem to exclusively deal with behavior, conduct, morality and areas that have traditionally governed how individuals lived within a society)? Is it just not acknowledged or not noticed?
Under Hubbard’s definitions, this “clear” planet doesn’t sound like a very pleasant place to be. It sounds Orwellian and much like a dictatorship with a lunituc at the helm. Who would want to live like that? Being pulled in for KRs and snitching on people who were only following their personal ethical code which means that they did nothing wrong.
One more thing. If ethical codes are individual, how is it out-ethics to ask a question about the whereabouts of someone’s wife?
kat,
Hope this helps…….As has been referenced a number of times in Mike’s blog Hubbard thought well of Crowley and borrowed heavily from ‘Magick in Theory and Practice’. That tome is where you will find the often used quote: DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW.
When one rises to being an uninhibited ego (most scienos) then this becomes their end-all justifier. If one continues further to dispel/remove ego they come to a point where they are a ‘true self’ in harmony with everything; Then the quote becomes benevolent and helpful to nearly all. Only a handful of scientologists (IMO) ever got to that harmony state in their beingness or behavior.
You are right in thinking that the worst of the criminals ‘thinks’ that they are right and the rest of us are wrong.
Great post Brian & vital information for all. The most ethical group on the planet. How ethical is it to destroy family connections, drain money from elderly people, stalk & harass people, get people to work for peanuts, that list goes on and on. If you are a decent person you know right from wrong, good from bad. You know in your own heart when something is wrong. My personal opinion is that if you do or support the wrong think long enough you will bring yourself undone it can only mean a downward spiral emotionally & physically for you. Have a look what happened to Hubbard in the end.
That photo of Hubbard is just fucking *hideous* Any questions you might have about scientology are all answered by merely looking at it. No explanation needed…
*****************************************
ANNOUNCING BY POPULAR DEMAND THE MONTHLY
MEETING OF THE GLEEFULLY MISUNDERSTOOD CLUB
CLUB MOTTO: “IT ALL OUGHT TO BE RE-WRITTEN!”
All loonies are cordially invited. A-Jers especially welcome! Get some real mass on what the
Reactive Mind is!
Brian Lambent (sic) the Bright Spark takes us yet again on a tour of his Misunderstoods! This time he shows that the world at large has indeed defined Ethics as Morals and Morals as Ethics in a circular definition and so they are one and the same and he is sure they mean the same! And that he sees nothing wrong with this! You couldn’t make it up! OMG! He tells us there is no such thing as one’s innate knowledge of what is right and wrong and says that society or groups can determine this through “morals” (or is it “Ethics”, no, hang on, it could be “Morals” er, no wait, it could be both…) applied externally and even provides dictionary definitions to prove his “case” that the definition is circular! He makes no distinction in these two terms! Unbelievable!
Brian later admitted that his goal in doing so was trying to convince others that “if he confused the two words (Ethics and Morals) for the gullible fools who hang on my every word and nod their heads sagely when I write the biggest load of rubbish (possibly ever in this case), then I will have achieved my moral goal, or is it my ethical goal? Hang on, I am confused, I don’t get why there is a circular definition of the the two words… Maybe I should examine my ethics here and maybe that Ron Hubbard dude was actually correct. Hmm! Yes I begin to see now that Ethics is what the person knows to be right and wrong and Morals are what the society imposes on individuals! Simple eh? Even a simpleton could understand that! Hmm! But I have just written a whole article stating the opposite. Perhaps I am out-ethics or is it out-morals? But the worst thing of all is when that Foolproof dude points out the obvious error of my “misunderstood” ways! Dang! Back to the article drawing board. But no, it doesn’t matter – if I post it then there always a few knuckleheads who will praise me to the heavens!”
“Foolproof,” when you flip your lid like this*, my observation is that it is when you have encountered some uncomfortable truth about Scientology that you can’t confront, and are trying to deflect from. In this case, Brian is fundamentally correct that Hubbard’s re-defined, or narrowly defined, use ethics, is one of his tricks of indoctrination into psychopathy – even if the presentation isn’t quite academically precise. Your resort to a version of the naturalistic fallacy, about “innate knowledge of what is right and wrong,” misses the reality that it is virtually the definition of psychopaths like Hubbard, that they are individuals who lack any of the innate sense of right and wrong that is normal to human beings; instead they see the world only through only egoistic self-interest, and view others as instruments to be used.
On the point of ethics and morality, the authoritative source Encyclopedia Britannica agrees that the two terms are virtually indistinguishable:
“Generally, the terms ethics and morality are used interchangeably, although a few different communities (academic, legal, or religious, for example) will occasionally make a distinction. In fact, Britannica’s article on ethics considers the terms to be the same as moral philosophy. While understanding that most ethicists (that is, philosophers who study ethics) consider the terms interchangeable, let’s go ahead and dive into these distinctions….Ultimately, the distinction between the two is as substantial as a line drawn in the sand.” https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics
And to the extent there is a distinction, you actually have it backwards:
“Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.” https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
* Which, by the way, don’t make you or the “subject” look good, or as if it has anything to offer in terms of mental improvement much less spiritual advancement, and effectively demonstrates why Scientology in general, and the indie movement in particular, are failing to attract new blood, and will largely die out with the passing of your generation of true believers. You can come here and fuss all you want about your imagined “wins,” and coveted ideology and beliefs, but the reality-check fact on the ground is that Scientology is failing shrinking, in spite of Hubbard’s having said it would organically flourish if it were workable, and you have no excuse for that other than to resort to something like bizarre theories about suppression by trillion-year-old “psych” conspiracies. Undeniably true, right?
p.s. Brian, I’d like to see you do a piece on the rationalizations that underlie the belief of those like FP, but that they hesitate to mention because they know such would sound ludicrous, such as that suppression by the “psych” conspiracy, that Hubbard’s teachings are true because he was the channel for “whole track” knowledge from ancient civilizations on other planets, and so on.
Ah! But you missed this little gem in your frantic and puffed up research:
“I think the distinction drawn here is backwards. If you listen to how these words are used idiomatically, moral tends to relate to codified societal beliefs that are received on an unquestioned basis (the 1960’s use of the term “moral majority” for instance.) On the other hand ethics implies a philosophical and hence reasoned set of values that the individual thinks through (going back to Aristotle’s Ethics).”
It’s quite straightforward from Hubbard.
So put that in your moralistic pipe and smoke it!
look past your binary semantics with these two words and focus on the point. If you can. Never did I say ethics and moral were identical. My reason for showing these definitions is, what was missing from Hubbard was a super strong synonymous relation with the word “moral” in his definitions and in his behavior.
To squabble on about the differences between these two words misses the point of the essay. Oh well, peace our bro or sis!
Yes, you are fond of the word “strong” especially when juxtaposing Hubbard with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Likewise one could say Ghandi or Mother Teresa etc. were “strong” but it depends on one’s (altered) definition of the word. And Brian, your whole article was one long “squabble” about the uses of the words!
Yes, I know, those real world dictionaries are the source of my anti-religious bigotry and word squabble.
What to do, what to do?
I think the OSA should start going after them as they are exposing Ron as an immoral fraud.
We should only have the one true dictionary that describes all of life: dead L Ron’s tech dictionary.
Well, Brian, I assume you have read the various HCOB references on dictionaries, good and bad? Remember the phrase “Dinky Dictionaries” as 1 example? But even some of the larger “more complete” ones had errors in them. Random House I found to be the best. World Books had a few errors but then one had to be able to conceptualize words to be able to spot errors.
But I am being silly – of course you have read the HCOBs on dictionaries – so what words in those HCOBs were misunderstood?
FP, the authoritative Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy still swats you down:
“An initial naïve attempt at a descriptive definition of “morality” might take it to refer to the most important code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
And your continued use of deviating (non-idiomatic) definitions just bolster’s Brian’s point that Hubbard re-defined words for purposes of manipulation and indoctrination, as infamously exemplified in Orwell’s 1984, for instance. If Hubbard had been intellectually honest, and rigorous, he would have used separate terms, or at least distinctively qualified ones such as “scientological ethics” (there are many different branches of ethics identified in such ways) – it could even be said, that this is yet another example of his use of manipulative “confusion technique.”
This seems very “idiomatic” (repeated from above):
“I think the distinction drawn here is backwards. If you listen to how these words are used idiomatically, moral tends to relate to codified societal beliefs that are received on an unquestioned basis (the 1960’s use of the term “moral majority” for instance.) On the other hand ethics implies a philosophical and hence reasoned set of values that the individual thinks through (going back to Aristotle’s Ethics).”
I will write to Ron wherever he is (I have secret insights) and let him know that he should have taken the trouble to make it even plainer than he did, just for your (and Brian’s) sake eh? I’m sure he will respond and write you a very important and “authoritative” letter validating your extensive research! Honest injun!
How remiss of Ron that he didn’t take you into consideration eh? Tut tut!
And you do like something “authoritative”! Especially from Stanford eh? Whoah! And yet none of these philosophers or the tomes they write have ever come with anything that alleviates or resolves the problems of the human mind and spirit. Still they are, as you say “authoritative” and that’s what really matters eh?
Fool,
Neither did Hubbard.
Kat
I know who you are and what you’re trying to do, but apart from the stupidity of your approach, there is something you missed:
“He tells us there is no such thing as one’s innate knowledge of what is right and wrong ”
The point here is that Scientology ethics is based on HUBBARD’S opinions. Not “self-determinism,” as a Scientologist would say. He is effectively God within the Scientology system of “ethics.”
I would agree that there is such a thing as innate knowledge of right and wrong, and Brian clearly disagrees. That’s fine, there is room for disagreement. But Scientology is not on either side of this issue. You, and they, are on the side of “Hubbard, and only Hubbard, is always right.” That’s not “ethics” at all, just arbitrary.
Innate sense of right and wrong does exist. When the conscience is clear, when a person is devoted to Dharma or a cosmic sense of righteousness, studies the common laws of goodness that all sages teach, then they are in tune with universally agreed upon behavior and can demonstrate them.
In yoga and all spiritual paths there are guidelines of behavior that the student follows by studying these universal behaviors of righteousness.
But just like a child who follows what mamma or daddy says while not understanding them, the spiritual student in the beginning of the path follows the words of trusted elders while not having a confident senses of right and wrong in the beginning.
As a student progresses in understanding, they develop a mature sense, an independent sense of good and evil.
At that point the student’s own understanding of the cosmic laws of right behavior is sufficient and totally independent.
Hubbard never studied laws of good behavior. He actually was repulsed by moral behavior.
He was a liar
An adulterer
A thief
A child abuser
A wife beater
A fugitive from law
Did not take care of his body
Harmed people
Used women on the Apollo and off loaded them when done with them
The Ten Commandments
The Eight Limbs Of Yoga
The Eightfold Path of the Buddha…….
Are all instructions for the student of spiritual truth.
As a student develops in awareness the student’s understanding becomes a direct perception of these truths.
In Scientology there is no moral instruction to help develop this innate sense of good and bad.
Buddhist’s and Yogi’s do not seek to destroy people who disagree with them because non violence and do no harm is an essential moral injunction.
L Ron Hubbard actually instructs people to harm others.
Foolproof trying to clarify what is moral and what is ethics is like having a pedophile run a day care center.
When the intuition is developed through study and practice of right knowledge, the student can rightly say they know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.
Some people have this innate sense naturally. Hubbard was not one of them.
Brian, I realize that I must rile you but subtly juxtaposing pedophilia is rather snide don’t you think?
And anyway so you now agree that some people have this innate sense naturally – ah – you mean “ethics” then.
Foolproof you don’t rile me. It’s more like entertainment.
No no, it’s all very simple. There is a piece of information which states Ethics and Morals are different “things” – one is, if you like – subjective i.e. internal, the other objective i.e. external. Can’t get any more straightforward than that – unless you want to obfuscate the issue like Brian is doing that is. I think if Hubbard had stated the sky is blue people on here would throw a hissy fit in their haste to attack. If Descartes or Voltaire had stated this people would nod their heads sagely and say “this is erudite indeed!” So try removing the emotion and personal chagrin from your argument and you might see the point.
As to knowing who I am and “they” etc. nope there’s only little ol’ me. Sorry to disappoint your trying to surreptitiously label me as as some sort of OSA spy with a group behind me or agent provocateur (bit of French (Canadian?) for you M’sieur).
But the “different” things are NOT in fact different in scientology. “Morality” in scientology is defined by the code of “ethics” and ethics policy. As with many things in scientology, there is a sentence from Hubbard (What is Greatness about loving your enemies comes to mind) that sounds great and does not match his larger body of more specific work or more importantly their practice.
Fool-
To use your standard phrasing: you couldn’t make this stuff up. Oh wait. You can. Hubbard did just that…
Kat
Yep, he did. Like any special subject it has its own nomenclature. Are you thick or something? Did “ID” or “libido” exist before Sigmund Fraud (or whoever it was) used it?
Fool,
If you had been paying attention to anything but your own rhetoric, you would have used some other analogy- I don’t agree with Freud either. He was much like Hubbard- he had a cult of followers (most of whom got disillusioned and left to create their own schools of thought), he used mesmerism and parlor tricks to show the efficacy of his methods, he puffed up is ‘findings’ to gather more backers, and he basically developed an entire system just to deal with his own personal issues. His methods likely put psychology back more than it helped. While his methods worked for some (as we all know, talk therapy helps people work through some superficial issues), he had no long term success with most of his ‘patients’. Try again fool.
Kat
Nobody asked you if you agree with Sigmund – this aspect was about nomenclature. The analogy is neither here nor there.
Fool,
You chose that example to explain how legitimate groups have nomenclature- I responded to the extent of stating that Freuds nomenclature and made up words were an invalid argument to me. That using that example actually helped underscore my point, not yours. I was giving you the opportunity to try again.
You still don’t get it. Don’t bother.
Kat, we had someone in our family was a devotee’ of Freudian analysis, and it was indeed eerily reminiscent of what I later saw among adherents of Dianetics and Scientology, in many respects and even in some very closely parallel points. There was all sorts of talk about insights about past traumas, and supposed betterments that weren’t really obvious, or were so excruciatingly incremental that they seemed due more to simple maturation and life experience than the “therapy.”
Hubbard started Dianetics during the period when Freudian analysis was popular among certain elites, such as the Hollywood crowd – Woody Allen being the most famous example – and the rich, those sometimes referred to as the “worried well.” I think that Hubbard looked at that and cynically decided that if the Freudians could make lots of money off of people for doing little or nothing other than making clients feel good about spending their time and money, he could hardly do any worse. Of course, psychiatry and psychology moved on to more effective and evidence-based techniques, while Hubbard’s “tech” is still mired in the 1950s – and earlier.
Well, I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief now that Peacemaker has assured us that psychiatry and psychology have got the mental health of the world in grip! It’s so comforting to know that in Peace-Pipe-Smoker’s opinion all is well and that we should really treasure and approve of his much-vaunted opinions! He should start a squirrel branch of Psychology! I am sure he would be successful with his knowledge of the human mind and brain! All is positively well with the world then!
However, there is perhaps another negative side to this coin: it could also be that Peace-Pipe-Smoker really looked at Dianetics etc. and cynically decided that as he doesn’t have a clue as to what he is talking about he might as well just vent forth his magnificent erudite opinions, knowing full well that the audience here doesn’t throw rotten tomatoes or sneer and scoff and thus – he can post the abject nonsense as above. And the saving grace is that this time at least it didn’t go on for several pages of irrelevant references which no one reads anyway!
Yawn. FP, the talking anal sphincter, makes another of his now dreary and tiresome attempts to prove that he has something relevant to say.
Foolproof,
Your ignorance is showing again..
Kat
Kat, are you Katherine Invalidate in disguise? I assume from your short and sharp retort that you don’t want to get involved in a “debate” on the shaky ground here? But I thought you loved a “debate”?
Fool,
I went to my yoga studio- like I do every single Sunday…. sorry to disappoint you
Kat
Ka LaRue —
He’s talking about me. FP thinks he’s funny using childish nicknames (which aren’t even funny by accident) for certain posters who have ever called him out, spoke the truth about Hubbard’s sorry ass, or asked tough questions.
Now, the question here is: is Katherine Invalidate a split or schizoid personality of Kat Rueful? When she looks in the mirror are there 2 faces? That’s also a “possibility” is it not? I “imagine” this could be so! I “believe” this could be the case! “Probably” eh? Now I don’t want to make anything up of course (of course).
Katherine, what would really be hilarious is if you came from the Valley area! Say it’s true – please!
What the hell are you on about?
I don’t have time for your crazy shit.
Don’t live in the Valley area but thanks for playing.
Oops… don’t know how the ‘t’ at the end of your name got left out. Typing too fast on my phone I guess.
Ha! But were you meditating about your responses here? I bet you were eh? I am surprised you can spare the time away from here with all your voluminous postings! You realize that you are dev-ting Mike no end?
So, breathe deeply, relax (or whatever it is one does in Yoga) and don’t think about Foolproof and chant the following (silently of course), after you have cleared your mind of any adverse thoughts about Foolproof.
“Foolproof is nice really!”
“Foolproof won’t rile me up!”
“Foolproof doesn’t understand!”
and then, when you are calm and happy:
“I will carry on the good work I am doing on behalf of the World Federation of Mental Health!”
“I am not really a Suppressive Person like those nasty Scientologists say!”
You make me LOL really big.
Hubbard was a degraded being, his “standard tech” doesn’t work, and he was only successful at conning people. THAT is not a role model bruh.
Please tell me how WISE tech and SCN made Edison Bros the best and biggest retailer ever…..ohhhh that’s right, they used the standard tech EVERYWHERE in their lives and it failed in such and epic fashion. So, again, tell me in detail how you use such a faulty framework for your life? And how is LRH not a DB?
BTW your verbiage is showing and you’re still the same internet troll.
So after spending most of your time on here trolling you accuse me of doing the same! BTW your mental age (8?) is showing from your silly texts. Do your parents know you are on the Internet?
Foolproof, I have observed you always insert entertaining comments when a writer presents a clear cut Hubbard control mechanism built into Hubbard’s psuedo religion.
The writer often refers to the end result of Hubbard’s wonderful nonsense. Hubbard practiced what he preached and died a broken, friendless psychopath. And he will be remembered as the great 20th century fraud.
OK Foolproof, I know I’m going to regret asking this, but I’m new….so….what, exactly is an A-Jer?? I’m assuming it is another scientology slur, so I would like to know what horrid crime I’m being accused of.
Well, no, not really a slur, I leave that up to you to invent a few now. But to answer your question it is taken from a Policy Letter called:
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 OCTOBER 1964R
REVISED 15 NOVEMBER 1987
POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY
AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE
If you google that you will find points A-J within. Here’s lots of contentious stuff for you to gnaw on Kat.
The biggest load of rubbish (possibly ever in this case), is A History of Man. Written by l ron Hubbard. Not Brian’s essay. Flunk fool.
Great post, Brian 🙂
I’ve really been enjoying this series – keep up the good work!
Peace
Good job Brian. Keep it up.
Thanks guys
$cientology depends on the wog confusion of what is “ethical” between what most people think that is and the warped LRH interpretation when they say “We’re the most ethical group on the planet.” Little do many non-$cientologists realize again they are being duped by reinterpretation and normal general understanding perpetrated by the cult.
LRH was a master of the Shell Game con, among others. The whole cult was designed to be a mind trap. And LRH knew it.
They also depend on members’ confusion…
It’s evident in many cases, that Scientologists assume that the CofS will apply policies as written, with at least some of the same sort of adherence to principles and consideration for individual rights that is the accustomed norm in the “wog” world. They are then surprised when they find themselves ruthlessly sacrificed for the “greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics” as cynically calculated according to money and status, or else just as “heads on a pike” because it suits the organization for some reason.
Peter,
You are absolutely correct. The so called ‘wog’ world has no idea that there separate definitions for scientologists from the definitions commonly held by the rest of the free world and pretty much everyone on the planet. When we ‘wogs’ hear that scientologists claim to be the most ethical/moral group on the planet, we are applying the common definitions of the word. It was somewhat shocking to discover that there are different definitions within the cult.
If there is another season of Scientology (fingers crossed) then I hope they explain this point in an episode. I can guarantee that most ‘wogs’ do NOT know this, and will likely be surprised at the definitions that are being used for things governing human behaviors. This is a key to understanding their avowals. They really are the most ethical group – using their definition and not the definition the rest of us use. If the worlds definition were applied, this would probably be considered the most unethical group on the planet.
I was surprised when I heard about the abuses and other issues within the cult, and I couldn’t understand how so many people could ignore the horrors that seem to be commonplace knowledge. Now it makes perfect sense. It now makes sense why Tom Cruise, and others can ignore it, it now makes sense why even with the publicity people in the church can ignore it.
Kat
Here we are Kat:
WOG, 1. worthy Oriental gentleman. This means a common ordinary run-of-the-mill garden-variety humanoid. (SH Spec 82, 6611C29) 2 . A wog is somebody who isn’t even trying. (SH Spec 73, 6608C02)
Of course if you desperately want to re-define it for your nefarious purposes feel free.
Fool,
You consistently say that people are ‘redefining’ a word, when it was defined well before Hubbard was around. Therefore, Hubbard redefined words, not the other way around. Or did you think these words didn’t exist before Hubbard decided to use them to form his cult?? How do you continue to function in the world? It is beyond me how anyone could put up with you an any sustained basis. Even the ‘redefined’ definition is derogatory. Humanoid is broken down into the separate words meaning human and resembling. It is put together to mean something RESEMBLING a human (i.e. not human). Stating that someone is not trying is also derogatory. And what definition states wog is a “worthy ‘oriental’ gentleman, which in and of itself is derogatory as people are NOT oriental- they are Asian. Oriental is a term commonly used to describe objects. When used as a noun, it is considered insulting. Therefore, your definition is just as derogatory as the actual dictionary definition. (which if you had bothered looking, you would already know)
Kat
Oh! For God’s sake! Yes, Hubbard defined it for specific use in Scientology – it was his subject so he can do what he likes. Words are coined and re-defined constantly in usage across all subjects. There is no great God of Words to bow down to. Fortunately Scientologists are not people like you that would want to argue over nothing of any importance whatsoever. And yes, “humanoid” is derogatory, I would have thought that is obvious! Happy now? And the use of “oriental” in the Scientology sense had no relevance at all and was not considered at all to be “racist” in the way it is used Scientology . Is “worthy” and “gentleman” then “racist”? And why (not that is has any relevance or use in the Scientology meaning) is oriental considered “insulting”? The whole original definition was insulting – the Scientology use – not.
I will state it again (and I notice that after asking Mike to honestly state if it was used as a racist slur he hasn’t answered) IT WAS NOT USED AS A RACIAL SLUR in Scientology! I tell you what, we’ve asked Mike to comment on this let’s ask Wynski a long term Scientologist (ha!) as the now most biased anti-Scientologist here to (honestly – ha!) give us his opinion if it was used as a racial slur. If you want to keep twisting it this way and that to try and prove some daft non-existent point I am not going to answer this nonsense any longer.
You are correct FP. It was a derogatory term not limited by race. Everyone not a scientologist is a wog. A lower level humanoid who, lacking the tech, has no chance at achieving immortality, increased IQ, a well and happy life, freedom from psychosomatic illnesses and all else that Hubbard promises.
It is an equal opportunity slur that is often used with contempt by scientologists. There is even the adjectival form “woggy” which is slightly more derogatory. Anything woggy is worthy of contempt and disdain.
This term as it is used in scientology is disgusting, condescending and beyond racist as it is not limited by race.
And of course you want to try and defend it. There should be a term to describe someone who uses this term (like there is to describe someone who discriminates by race) but there isn’t (other than scientologist). Strictly speaking, you are correct, it is not an epithet based on skin color. It’s a far broader slur.
Well at last some semblance of truth. Anything to shut Kat up. Actually, though Mike, you are exaggerating the issue. Firstly I rarely heard it used in all my years in Orgs and secondly I am not defending anything as there is nothing really to defend, despite how you twist it. It was rarely if ever used with any malice, more as a statement of fact. It is about the same in intensity as if one said “non-Christian” or whatever. If you want to start another massive discussion on this then feel free. It certainly can’t be lumped into the same category as racist etc. Far from it.
Anyway, you’re now a wog and wouldn’t understand! Haha!
This thread continues to highlight your brainwashed state.
You and going to try to claim the terms “wog”, “woggy”, “wog-think”, “wog world”, “woggish” were “rarely used”? You are a liar.
And, like a racist who doesn’t comprehend that what they say IS racist (which is how most of them are), you cannot even see how condescending, derisive and mean the use of this term is.
You are a sad person.
But once again, a wonderful example of a fundamentalist Hubbard true believer for all to see.
Maybe you used it so, but me and all my peers never used it that way. However, as usual, the original argument was that it was racist. We have now established that it wasn’t racist – probably much to your chagrin, so now you come up with something else to try and tarnish my brush.
I dont need to “tarnish your brush” (?) you do a fine job at that.
FP, Hubbards’s own Propaganda by Redefinition of Words policy letter cites it as a disingenuous and manipulative trick. And it’s still sloppy, imprecise, and confusing, for someone someone supposedly claiming to be creating a precise “science.” Real scientists don’t re-define words when they need to describe something – it’s a trick of ideology and control, as Hubbard himself puts it:
“the trick is–WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST….
The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended…
The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible….
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.
One must know how to do it.”
from Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12
Haha! WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST. Exactly my point! The Scientology definition of the word “wog” I posted above. It is you that wish to re-define it “to the advantage of the Propagandist”. I hink that I am conversing with idiots here! You still won’t see it.
FP, you’re the one too blind to see – though we should realize that you were fooled, to begin with. The “Scientology definition of the word ‘wog'” is the re-definition of a word with origins before Hubbard was even born, and was certainly calculated by Hubbard. All anyone else here is saying, is that the word should be treated as originally defined, and as used in dictionaries.
I actually know the word from my childhood, when old British family members, quoting as a lesson a once-popular phrase that I won’t repeat here, cited it as an example of a derogatory way of referring to of other races and nationalities, that was improper. The well-read Hubbard, and particularly his English and Australian followers, would have known that it had a meaning roughly equivalent to the n-word. It’s itself an example of Scientology’s indoctrination and control, that none of the many people such as at Saint Hill who knew better, succeeded in standing up and demanding that it ceased being used to refer to fellow human beings. With them, in particular, it served the sort of propaganda purposes laid out in Hubbard’s policy letter, getting them to view others as less than fully human, the way wartime propaganda about “huns” and “japs,” “criminal” and “subhuman” (regarding Jews, by the Nazis), and so on.
Now, I get that you didn’t know how it was originally used. Hubbard pulled on you the old trick you may remember from childhood, where you teach a kid who doesn’t know any better a naughty word, telling them it has a nice meaning, and then snicker as they are fooled into using it, with embarrassing consequences. But your ignorance of its original meaning, doesn’t mean that Hubbard’s use isn’t still a redefinition.
Show us an example of a word that Hubbard coined, that others have tried to re-define, and then you’d have a point.
FP, it’s Hubbard who re-defined it. The word goes back to at least the 1920s in its racially perjorative sense:
“Wog is a slang word in the idiom of Australian English and British English. In the UK, it is usually employed as an ethnic or racial slur, and considered derogatory and offensive. ”
“Suggestions that the word is an acronym for “wily Oriental gentleman”, “working on government service”, or similar, are examples of false etymology.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog
“wog noun
\ ˈwäg , ˈwȯg\
Definition of wog
chiefly British, offensive
—used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a dark-skinned foreigner and especially for one from the Middle East or Far East
First Known Use of wog
circa 1929*, in the meaning defined above”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wog
* Other etymology sources trace it back as far as the 1890s, see for instance http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/more/579/
Haha! You lot are as thick as bricks. Of course Hubbard re-defined it – for use in Scientology – so now you dudes and gals want to re-re-define it back to its original to try and prove some daft point that doesn’t exist. Funny but I don’t see “ARC Break” or “Missed withhold” in a normal dictionary – of course there are words used only in Scientology.
Fool,
Do you even read the crap you write?
Kat
Ha! Well, you obviously don’t read the crap you write!
Thank you to Brian for this eye-opening article. I do not post often, since I’m a “Never In” and do not have the same level of understanding as others here nor would I expect any of you to explain every post to me. But an article like this helps me to gain tremendous insight into the cult. Although I would never pretend to know the pain that many on this board have endured, I will continue to read the posts here daily and to support however I can because now that I am aware of an injustice, then I believe that I have a duty to stand up against it. Dr. MLK said that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” May the truth about scientology continue to spread and countless others join the fight to end this cult’s destruction.
Thank you Rebecca
All the comments pretty much say all there is to say on the subject , and it is a hot one!
What jumped at me after reading all the definitions and Hubbard’s definition , was his now obvious effort at wanting to show that he knew best and and covering his ass at the same time .
Something L. Ron Hubbard should have learned as well as the current leader.
“For leaders, the humility to admit and own mistakes and develop a plan to overcome them is essential to success. The best leaders are not driven by ego or personal agendas. They are simply focused on the mission and how best to accomplish it.”
Extreme Ownership
How U.S. Navy Seals Lead and Win
Jocko Willink & Leif Babin
Well, well, well! LRH was not interested in “Wog Morality”.
Interesting interpretation of “morality”.
You may be interested in another star who also has their own interpretation of morality.
Barbra Streisand is quoted as saying a few things about Michael Jackson and about his victims. She actually seems to be saying that since those boys grew up and got married and had children of their own, and therefore their experiences with “The Gloved One” did not kill them.
Her conclusion? Everything must be OK. I just have one question for you all. Do you think I’m being sarcastic? Or do you think I’m telling the truth? You may be surprised to learn.
https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ny-barbra-streisand-michael-jackson-accusers-thrilled-sexual-needs-20190323-7z3b2dqgbzh7jfs4yyhqhdfjyi-story.html
His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” Streisand told The Times.
You can say ‘molested,’ but those children, were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”
I just praise the Lord she decided to become a singer and not a Family Therapist.
Barb? You have made it to 76 years old. Maybe it’s time to quit before you say something really extra stupid. Fill in the blanks Barb ….
“You sure are one incredibly dumb *^#_($#$ */#%$&# #^#$}\”!
The above remarks were made in lieu of my saying something that could wind up sending me to prison. In this country, you can go to prison for saying some very bad things on The Net and I’d rather say some nonsense words than go to prison.
Seriously. Needs? Good God if someone’s NEEDS involve performing sex acts on first graders, I think they need to get some help! BS is right, very appropriate initials here. Blaming the parents? Why? Why not blame the guy who did it?
“There is this guy I met, really cool guy, wants my six year old to come and have sleep overs with him…” “I don’t know, what do Ya think?”
“OMG, are you nuts, call the police!”
“It’s Michael Jackson.”
“Oh, well then…”
Did anyone EVER have THAT conversation? I mean ever?
I find Streisand’s comment the mark of a person who has never had child sex abuse hit close to home. I
t is further proof, if anyone needed proof by now, that talent, fame, and money are good predictors of arrogance, learned ignorance, and eventual loss of empathy.
To me, Hubbard is unreadable. I can’t read more than a few sentences before becoming confused and/or bored. Is anyone else like this or am I just dense?
Save Teegeeack,
You are not alone. His prose seems to be purposefully convoluted. I’m assuming that the style may have carried on to the speeches Miscavige now makes. I have to force myself to get through it, and I have to stop occasionally to make sure that I’m following his twisted “Hubbard” logic- which is never logical. He would have gotten a low grade in English Composition 101 if he had ever actually finished college.
Kat
You are dense!
Just the same old petulant, monotonous, repetitive, and childish behaviour, we’ve all come to expect from the flatus in a wind tunnel that is fp.
And…
I don’ think one can get more childish than “FP, the talking anal sphincter”. And you seem to have a lot of attention on that area.
Tone 40, old boy?
SIT DOWN ON THAT CHAIR!
See (from your photo) Tone 40 works – you’ve sat down before I even delivered it!
Hello Steve,
You are not dense. I feel the same way about Blubbard. Please forgive me if I tell you a personal story to explain why.
One of the reasons I knew This Scam was sheer idiocy was because when I went to try their so-called “Training”, I was in the midst of a bunch of crazy people who kept telling me that all drugs are bad and I could never take drugs if I wanted the benefits of Scamatology. But I knew that only crazy people parrot the belief that “all drugs are bad”.
Wow! That was one of the easiest decisions of my life. I know that drugs are a kind of field where people always discover there can be side-effects and problems with new drugs. It’s just impossible to introduce new discoveries into any population without learning that some new problems will be discovered after the FDS testing periods. But I thought of drugs like Penicillin and Insulin and a thousand other drugs that have been proven to be safe over many, many years and have been proven to save lives. Only crazy people parrot the belief that “all drugs are bad”.
A few years ago I injured my back and my doctor prescribed some powerful pain killers for me. Thank God for doctors and thank God for good drugs! My back injury caused me terrible debilitating pain. I absolutely could not function without that pain medication. All I could do was lie in bed all day and and all night an writhe in pain.
Unfortunately, this pain medication had a terrible side-effect. That side-effect was addiction. But I would have been happy to remain addicted forever rather than lie in bed all day and all night and writhe in pain. What kind of life is that?
Fortunately, I was able to beat the addiction with some help and a lot of work. But I still need to take those pain killers occasionally. Aside from relieving my pain, they have one other terrible side-effect.
That side-effect is the only way I can stand to read any of Mr. Blubbard’s serious writing is when I take far too many of those pain killers. His Science Fiction is just bad. Bad and stupid. But his serious writing is complete lunacy with many terrible side-effects. The serious writing he has done enables lunatics to enslave unfortunate people and cause them to ruin their lives by giving away all their money and all their credit – both in the present and forever more. It enables those lunatics to destroy these unfortunate victims families and lose their opportunities to live an enjoyable and fulfilling lives.
Shame on those people who participate in duping these unfortunate victims and “Bravo” to all those people who realize what a sham this scam really is and who have decided, “Damn the torpedoes!”, and who broke away from this scam at whatever the cost and whatever the pain.
And what of those people who have tried to break out but have been prevented by those lunatics who run this scam? Those people need to be ready to testify against the lunatics to send them to the penitentiary where they belong for “False Imprisonment”, “Unlawful Confinement”, “Kidnapping” and many other felonies – any one of which will send them to the penitentiary for life.
Nice to meet you Steve.
Ditto! It’s a bunch of convoluted, unreadonable crap. A phrase from MacBeth just popped into my mind: “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” That’s our Hubbard.
Kudos to Brian for wading through this dreck and giving us a great summary.
Yes Save T. For instance Dianetics reads like it was written by someone who was on powerful mind altering drugs. His other works ramble like his distorted thought process.
Hubbard stacked the deck. The greatest good for the greatest number
1. self
2. Love family, romance
3. Group=Hubbard
4. Species
5. Life
6, Universe
7. Spiritual = Hubbard again
8. Infinity.
He gets at least 2 of 8 and arguably even more than that.
Brian, I had this realization about 2 weeks ago. You are so spot on it’s remarkable.
This is one of the backbone control mechanisms that has turned members of Scientology in to dangerous robots with no moral compass. You just helped a whole lot of ex’s take another big step in their deprogramming. Major kudos to you.??✊?
Maybe we were experiencing the “hundredth monkey”
Lol- just saw this one
I prefer this: “My Religion is Simple…
“My Religion is Kindness…”
Something the church of scientology cannot understand… and also you can’t charge mega dollars for it but it’s more effective than any “Ethics” ever applied to me (or by me using its tech) by the “religion” of scientology which doesn’t apply basic kindness but would not be in a world of hurt right now if it had or would. I’s hard to make money though when it’s that simple.
I remember a very famous sermon that included the wonderful advice, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I have always interpreted this advice as “fill your life with kindness” and it must be wonderful advice because it has been included in every single existing religion – every single bona fide religion, that is.
There is so much more valuable knowledge written by the truly greater thinkers in human history, that Hubbard and Hubbard’s Scientology deserve quick dismissal as mere bureaucratized crackpot quackery.
‘Hubbard’s “conduct out of one’s own sense of justice and honesty” is the definitional equivalent of Aliester Crowley’s “do as thou wilt is the whole of the law”.’
No it’s not: Crowley (whose first name is spelt Aleister, by the way) coined the motto “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” which implies that you first have to find your ‘True Will’ (which must be in proper harmony with the universe) before you can start doing it — an idea he adopted from Nietzsche. Crowley always added “Love is the Law, Love under Will” as a modifier and corollary to “Do what thou wilt”.
Whatever else one may think of Crowley, he really wasn’t trying to promote a kind of “do as you damned well please” non-morality. Hubbard misunderstood and deliberately misinterpreted Crowley for his own base ends, as he did so much else.
I’ve been taught by the master adepts that Crowley says he’s learned from that love should be under will.
The difference between these two interpretations has far reaching consequences.
Will in charge of love is a dangerous philosophy. And will cannot be the arbiter of truth. Only wisdom and love can be.
Will, without morals is self corrupting. When I see the face and eyes of Crowley I know of what I speak.
I do not afford the respect to Crowley that you do.
I see him as a delitante yogi who has not transformed his selfish ego and praises the goals of controlling entities and seeks power, not humility and love.
If there is a teacher that has no humility and does not teach love over will, I’d rather have nothing to do with them.
But people do like him. I’m not one of them.
As a relevant side note: Crowley remained an incurable heroin addict his entire life. Decades ago, I read his novel, “Diary of a Drug Fiend” in which he proposed his “Magick” as a cure for addiction. His own “system” didn’t work for him. He may have cleaned up for awhile, but (in common with William S. Burroughs), went back to it. I think the attraction some might have for him is that he was a bad boy in the post-Victorian era.
Dr. S., while I’d agree with you that Hubbard, typically, did a bad job of interpreting Crowley and took plagiarized ideas to their worst, I also don’t think that he had that far to go from Crowley, to end up scraping bottom. And Hubbard definitely was profoundly influenced by Crowley, even if for worst, as attested to by LRH “Nibs,” Jr.
Apparently we are going to disagree on this – and I’m respectful of your perspective as stated – but I would say that Crowley was promoting what most people would understand as a “‘do as you damned well please’ non-morality.” As with Hubbard, we’d have to get into how Crowley may have defined – or re-defined – “love,” which may not be as commonly understood, or as Crowley sympathizers would like to claim; and then of course there’s the problem of how what he may have seem to have preached, differed from the example he made in what he practiced. But I don’t think it’s worth getting into further here, unless it somehow shines some light on Hubbard and Scientology.
On the subject, it’s also worth noting that some NRM “scholars” – and not necessarily those known as critical of Scientology – categorize Hubbard’s Church of Scientology and LaVey’s Church of Satan as the twin offshoots of Crowley’s OTO.
For reference, here’s what the Skeptic’s Dictionary has to say on the subject, which I think pretty well sums up the controversy:
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law is his motto for OTO. In practice, for Crowley this meant rejecting traditional morality in favor of the life of a drug addict and womanizer. (“I rave; and I rape and I rip and I rend” is a line from one of his poems. Diary of a Drug Fiend is the title of one of his books.) Other OTO folks consider the rule to mean something less sinister.” http://skepdic.com/crowley.html
@PM, “But I don’t think it’s worth getting into further here, unless it somehow shines some light on Hubbard and Scientology.”
In Thelema, ‘Do what thou wilt’ means simply to fulfil one’s ultimate purpose or True Will (whilst “abstain[ing] from all interferences with other wills.”)*
Love is experience, the “assimilation of phenomena”, the union of self with the universe.
‘Love under Will’ is to experience anything, without prejudice, in accordance with one’s ultimate purpose.
Hubbard’s version of “Love is the Law” can be found in Two Rules For Happy Living.
Scientology is arguably Hubbard’s method of discovering one’s True Will.
“To seek to dominate or influence another,” Crowley says, “is to seek to deform or destroy him; and he is a necessary part of one’s own Universe, that is, of one’s self.”*
Hubbard rejected this notion and actively encouraged (and trained people in) the control and domination of others.
Despite Hubbard’s self-serving spin on utilitarian ethics, an overt is still only an overt if the pc perceives it as such. #churchofclearedcannibals
* “Duty”, Instructions of the OTO, Magick, Liber ABA, Book Four, Appendix I.
sorry-off topic- but love the name!
Kat
Dr. U,
Thanks for your comment. I first started reading Crowley’s ‘Magick in Theory and Practice’ in 1973 when first listening to my set of the PDC lectures. Damn hard reading but I did see where Hubbard used a number of ideas from Crowley. Then around 1993, I peaked out of what scientology had to offer me and went back to Crowley. Surprisingly it now fell into place and I saw what Crowley had revealed, and that led to the Kyballion; the 7 Hermetic principles. Yes Crowley fell apart at the end and yes Hubbard fell apart at the end. IMO they both failed to remain grounded and use their POWER rightly-morally-ethically-justly.
Hubbard’s and Scientology’s ethics are technically extreme utilitarianism, and situational: ends-justifies-the-means, based on what benefits the organization or ideology in any particular circumstances.
While technically a type of ethics, they are indeed the antithesis of what we’re familiar with, and associate with religion, based on the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as most world religious and ethical traditions including those of the East. They are more like what we’re used to seeing in totalitarian ideologies and regimes, fascist and communist, and arguably are closely related; it’s also essentially what we see in the (Ayn) Randian objectivist philosophy of self-interest perversely at work in Keith Raniere’s NXIVM group (consciously modeled in part on Scientology, and openly taking much from NLP and hypnosis as well) now infamous for branding women.
Hubbard, following in the footsteps of his claimed “very good friend” Aleister Crowley, thought that morality was just an artificial construct to keep men from exercising natural free will (in addition to, like Rand, holding egoistic self-interest as paramount). His and Scientology’s philosophy is fundamentally amoral, which is why they rarely even refer to morals:
“amoral
ADJECTIVE
Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.
‘an amoral attitude to sex’
Usage
Amoral is distinct in meaning from immoral: while immoral means ‘not conforming to accepted standards of morality’, amoral implies ‘not concerned with morality’. The difference is illustrated in the following two examples: the client pays for the amoral expertise of the lawyer; the council judged the film to be immoral and obscene”
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/amoral
p.s. Brian – great piece, thanks for your work. I don’t mean to challenge it in any way, just to suggest some refinements based on my background in philosophy and long pondering of the issues involved, including consultations with professional philosophers about how to characterize the sort of supposed ethics often at work in high control groups or cults like Scientology (and, unfortunately, some politics).
Anyone interested in a progressive modern take on utilitarianism in its true spirit, and how the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number – really, for all, including other life on the planet – can be seen, might want to read the work of Peter Singer, starting with his co-authored little booklet Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction
Peacemaker,
I am beginning to believe that our personal libraries contain many of the same texts….you have a better way of stating some of the theories than I do.
Kat
Brian, thanks again for another really stimulating and thought-provoking essay.
I recently realized that among the darkest and cruelest of Hubbard’s myriad of deceptions…in that broad constellation of deceptions that form the corpus of Scientology, is view of moral agency as an anachronistic impediment, rather than a necessary virtue.
Scientology’s deliberate, cynical use of the language of morality (humanitarian, human rights, et al.) when contrasted against a 70+ year history of moral abstinence and “fair game” ends all honest debate on the subject
The good news is that leaving Scientology, then dredging and excavating the tons of crap we bought into DOES make it possible to re-assume moral agency.
Thank you for all of this, Brian.
Pulling apart Scn and examining what it actually says and does is so helpful.
Ethics is such a large part of Scn and the mechanisms that we then adopted for self control are deeply embedded.
My goal has been to rid myself fully of every bit of the conditioning of Scn, I doubt I’ll ever allow myself to really trust anything ever again.
When I feel critical about someone, I still have an immediate mental response:
“Yeah, well I’ve probably done something similar”
“What have IIII done like that?”
“what I have done to THEM?”
“I would have an adverse effect if I wasn’t guilty of similar things or things to them”
There’s more, but it’s all along this line. I have self corrected myself like this for decades. It’s automatic. It’s like the immediate move to do a contact when I run into another table edge. — even though I always disliked contact assists and they never did anything at all (except one time) ..
Ethics is a subject I used to love in Scn. I really embraced the concepts and I was trained, applied and posted in areas of Ethics.
The more I can learn and distance myself from the conditioning, the more hopeful I feel.
You help. Thanks.
(That Jim Carrey movie, “Liar Liar”…. sometimes I feel like that. Aspects of my scn conditioning is so deep that I have no control over it.) … I can just damn it when it’s happening.
Hey Rip, you are doing a good job of uncovering the lies and imprinting by being here and sharing your ideas.
These essays are self therapy for me. They help me uncover Hubbard’s deception.
Thank you Rip for sharing your challenges on this blog. It helps others who are going through the same thing.
Keep up the mental house cleaning and one day Hubbard will be simply be a lesson in seeing through lies and deception.
What a great power of mind to develop: keeping our bs detector in good working order.
RIP,
Recognizing the ingrained/learned thought patterns and beliefs is the best thing you can do to break free of its hold on you. If you do this enough, one day soon it will be automatic and you will no longer be held back by trying to determine how to react or respond to a situation. The fact that you can recognize it is the biggest battle. This is one of the most important aspects of change.
Kat
I do agree.
Constantly stripping away the jargon is helpful as well…(first step for me) … and yes, always always on the watch for ingrained thinking patterns and judgments. Rip rip rip!
(ha! another level of truth to my moniker here, Not only just awakening after decades, but ripping away the layers of BS!)
I just finished a Hawkins book and have bought another … 🙂
Rip,
Im behind in my reading! Ive got a stack that I need to go through.
Kat
RIP,
I left a post for you back at IAS. (actually two : ) posts)
Kat
And never question mighty Elron. To do so would be unethical. Wait, what?
I’m not the sharpest knife in the chandelier, Mikey, but, wasn’t the fat man supposed to return after taking 21 years off? I haven’t seen hide nor hair of him. Is he secretly hiding?
OSD,
If there is any justice in the world, he is currently inhabiting the body of a mentally ill lesbian whose parents are psychiatrists.
Please- let Karma be true!
Kat
Or even a mentally ill lesbian forensic psychologist whose parents are psychiatrists? Yes, yes that is highly likely! But no, we don’t want to be politically incorrect here do we?
OSD, he’s on extended leave due to being kicked out of the Target Two area (shades of Corfu) and is now researching habitable places in need of his tech. This could take awhile.
Brian,
Another very interesting and insightful essay on the mad world of Hubbard. His Lewis Carroll-like world has no basis in reality. Up is down and down is up and he is the Hatter. From the caucus race of running around in a circle to the caterpillar, the images abound.
Hubbard practiced utilitarianism, which is sometimes called the politicians dodge/culprits excuse- it excuses pretty much any aberrant action- “I did it for the greater good”. It is also one way to identify sociopaths (how they answer and rationalize their way through situations). That said, his use of it makes perfect sense- this is the way terrorists and assassins can rationalize their actions- ” I had to kill this person to save thousands”; as if that made it morally ok to kill. It states that the action was the correct one for the greatest good (like most of Hubbard’s crap, he took it from an already established principle then re-worded it to fit his needs).
It fits that Hubbard would redefine words he couldn’t understand. A sociopath cannot understand the meaning of ethics or morals. They have no personal understanding of either so they tend to redefine them to fit their situation. The sad fact that Hubbard then managed to bamboozle others to believe his mumbo-jumbo definitions is the true tragedy.
He could rationalize any action by using this premise. Hubbard took a left turn somewhere in his earlier life and never learned how to be a functioning member of society- how could he be when he was completely amoral and unethical. IMO he either had to create a cult or end up in jail. He was lucky enough to have passable talent as a writer because it is very doubtful he could have made it in any legitimate business for very long- just looking at the disaster of his naval career is enough to prove how unfit he was for real world ethics….
Thanks again for your insight and research into Hubbard’s madness. Its always a treasure to read.
Kat, I’d make the distinction that at their worst, individuals like Hubbard tend to be egoistic, while organizations and regimes operate on utilitarianism, such as Hubbard’s CofS. There’s a lot of overlap, as egoists are apt to adopt utilitarianism, and utilitarian structures are typically led by very egoistic individuals.
I’d also say that socipaths or psychopaths have no moral sense, and so as a consequence they are likely to adopt egoistic and utilitarian perspectives that fit their worldview. And I think it’s important to note that Hubbard’s trick is not exactly re-defining ethics, but picking a deviant definition very different from what is commonly understood, and then using that as a tool of misdirection and manipulation.
And if you look at Hubbard’s criminal record of the late 1940s, he was indeed probably on his way to ending up on a life in and out of the criminal justice system – well, he really did, just never actually ending up personally standing trial again, or going to jail – before he found a way to make enough money to avoid resorting to petty crimes, and to buy his way out of trouble for more complex crimes. Even in the early 1950s, 3 of his students were arrested for assaulting federal marshals attempting to serve a summons on him, additional police had to be called in and an officer had to draw his weapon to put an end to the altercation at a Dianetics center where Hubbard was present – he was always close to getting arrested again, and then of course was convicted in absentia in France and had to spend the rest of his life on the run.
Peacemaker,
Good points. I tend to not make a complete distinction/separation between scientology and Hubbard himself, which is a mistake. The two become inextricably intertwined to the point that the edges sometimes blur together. But I’m still learning!!
Kat
Cue nice cosy little chit-chats going back and forth here between 2 commenting love-birds with mutual out-rudiments conjuring up all sorts of possibilities and imaginary situations and jaundiced opinions.
To take just 1 example from the above – there was the idea discussed that if someone had whacked Hitler before he started on his course that would have been okay – the greatest good for the greatest number and all that, yet Kat now surreptitiously (she thinks) and subtly alters this theme to “terrorists and assassins” in the lust to belittle a perfectly straightforward idea simply because Hubbard used the phrase. Clever eh? And so the almost Marxist-like re-defining of situations according to agendas continues unabated. You couldn’t make it up, could you? OMG!
Still, the boys and girls in Qual Div (Indie or Church) will have plenty to do in the area of False Data Stripping – in fact they tell me there is a long waiting list for those who believe some of the nonsense posted here. In fact – really – honest Injun – there is a long snaking queue holding their iPads and frowning at them filling up Ideal Orgs at last! Book your appointment now! Actually I have already sent a long list of names here and the appointments have already been booked! Good eh? No need to thank me – after all it’s the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics!
Foolproof,
You again display your inability to do even the basic research on a topic. The ‘moral dilemma’ that you are attempting to use involves whether or not someone would kill a young or infant Hitler if they were able to travel back in time. The answer, and how the individual answers the question, can tell a lot about the individual. There are multiple other actions that would/could change History without taking a life. This is also called an ‘ethical conundrum’ and it is not really relevant to this discussion. I used the specific example of assassins and terrorists because that is relevant- they use the ‘greatest good’ excuse- the use of this thinking is what drives many assassins – look up the information regarding killing of abortion doctors (almost to a person they use this exact reasoning). Same reasoning with many terrorist groups (not just the ones of the modern era)- look up the SLA, weather underground, and many other radicalized groups that use terrorism to gain attention.
…..well, look them up if you can figure out how to do it and still keep your blinders on…
Kat
You seem to think I don’t know all these arguments? No, you use the “terrorist and assassins” theme to slur Hubbard’s theory. It is quite obvious to anyone of any intelligence.
The Hubster re-defined ‘ethics’ for his self serving purposes. Beware people who try to sell you anything based on their self serving purposes.
Thank you Brian Lambert for your essay. You give another compelling reason not to trust anything the CO$ says or does.
I’ve often complained that Hubbard’s redefinition of ethics to mean its opposite is the worst thing he did. I agree with what you’ve said. I’d add that the worst part of this worst thing is his failure to understand the importance of empathy and compassion to ethical behavior. Some people SEEM weak in this area, because they have “weak theory of mind” and can’t imagine themselves in someone else’s place. But with people who have only this problem, you can sometimes get them to understand another point of view, with greater effort. It’s not that they don’t care; it’s more like a handicap in the imagination. Hubbard had the worse problem of narcissism and anti-social personality disorder. He literally didn’t CARE about anyone else’s experience. He had no empathy, no compassion. And he reshaped his definition of ethics to allow his minions to consider themselves ethical while behaving unethically, as long as they served HIM. You have to look to outright psychopaths to see disservice to humanity worse than this.
“Scientologists are considered to be “in ethics” or “ethical” by advancing in Scientology.” There is not such thing in the real world like “In Ethics”. There is not such thing as Ethics Conditions. Power and Confusion, especially Confusion, are both a product.
When LRH defines it by ” doing what is the greatest good,” he means the greatest good for Scientology and for him. How is disconnection from good people who merely decided to leave the church the greatest good for all the destroyed families? All these good people wanted to do was leave and create a new life outside the church. And for this decision, they are 3rd partied, a black PR campaign is run on them all in an effort to get all church members and their loved ones to disconnect from them. This is the greatest good for the church as it keeps the dissention from spreading. But it is NOT the greatest good to separate a mother from her children etc.
Also I recall a meeting with a Flag MAA who was herself practically illiterate. She had a study problem, couldn’t understand definitions, and was kind of stupid because of her MU’s. She evaluated by telling me that I was at “Sympathy” on the tone scale. And remember, “sympathy” in Scn is a bad thing.
I told her that I was NOT in “Sympathy” but was in “Empathy”. She asked what is that? I told her to word clear Sympathy and Empathy in a regular dictionary and note the differences. I told her being empathetic is a good thing and that is what I was (and am). She still had a blank look on her face when I left her office that day. In her defense though, English was a second language to her, so that could have been part of the problem understanding what she reads. It was Cosima, from Italy. She’s infamous if you read the Greg and Debra Barnes writeup of their dealings wtih Cosima and other Flag terminals over the out tech on OT VII.
The administrative side of Hubtard’s ethics system as he set it up ENSURED that there could be no real justice as he combined the Hats of Prosecutor, Judge and Appeal line into one person/Dept.
There was no provision for the accused to have anyone on their side to ensure fairness. It was the “gov’t” vs. the lone accused with no supporters or defense council. The accused not being able to see ANY evidence against them until the moment of the trial so no way to prepare any defense.
Only a tyrannical sociopath would create such a “justice” system.