The latest installment from Terra Cognita
Scientology Hidden Data Line
From the Scientology Tech Dictionary:
“HIDDEN DATA LINE, some students have believed there was a ‘hidden data line’ of tech in Scn, a line on which Scn tech was given out by me but not made known to students. This started me looking for there is no such line. The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and tapes I do and release. I don’t tell people anything in some private way, not even instructors. The apparency is somebody’s pretense to know from me more than is on the tapes and in the books and mimeos, or, brutally, somebody’s alter-is of materials. This looks like a “hidden data line.” It surely isn’t. (HCO PL 16 Apr 65).
LRH pounded home this point that there was no hidden data line in Scientology. He’d laid everything bare. No policy was covered up. No tech was hidden. Nothing was exclusive to a chosen few. From DMSMH to OT 8, it had been spelled out in plain English for the whole world to see. True, the OT Levels are confidential, but if you’re willing to cough up the bucks, you can check them out.
He reinforced this code with his famous line, “If it isn’t written, it isn’t true.” Not only does this mean that everything he wrote is true, it infers that if he didn’t write it, it doesn’t exist.
On the Other Hand…
Every time LRH sat down in front of a typewriter or opened his mouth at a “congress” he created a hidden data line. Because, rarely if ever, did he disclose how he’d arrived at his theories or come up with his techniques. Never did he present credible research. Since no man was his equal, peer reviews were pointless. Virtually everything he wrote was steeped in hidden data.
In Keeping Scientology Working, for instance, he wrote, “We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise about the bank.” The last thing he wanted was people speculating; asking questions; delving into his methods or wondering how he figured it all out.
From one side of his mouth he preached there was no hidden data line. From the other, all his theories, all his tech and policy, nearly everything he authored, was arrived at by means he refused to disclose. If there was any actual research backing up his claims, he hid it from his followers. I suspect the majority of his “research and discovery” occurred inside his head late at night—high on dope.
Eyes Tight Shut
LRH made sure his followers didn’t look closely at the science of Scientology by making them wrong for not understanding something. Things that didn’t make sense were the result of misunderstood words, out-gradients, and lack of mass. And of course, overts. Disputing anything he wrote was a crime.
As the commodore, he wasn’t required to present research or disclose avenues of investigation. The only thing Scientologists needed to go free was to simply follow his fully “workable” tech and policy. And not look too deeply at the foundations on which it was built.
Examples—Take Your Pick
Virtually all LRH bulletins, policy letters, and lectures are predicated on hidden data. With rare exception, he left no record of clinical trials or research notes. He would simply state authoritatively that something was true. And that was that.
Need an example of his hidden data? Pick up any HCOB or HCOPL. Look for any mention of references. Look for an appendix. Look for a bibliography. Look for research data and graphs based on actual experiments. Good luck. Everything thing he ever wrote is built on hidden data.
Truth and Robbery
Whether LRH tech and policy is true or false is not the question (at least for this essay). It’s that he concealed the totality of his “research.” And thus, created the biggest hidden data line in all of Scientology.
In doing so, he robbed people of the opportunity to make their own deductions based on a complete history of the facts. Again, if something didn’t make sense, it was never because one was lacking data, it was because he was suffering from “out study tech,” and/or was sitting on undisclosed crimes.
Right Out of Ron’s Playbook
Current leader, David Miscavige has followed LRH step for step.
GAT 1, GAT 2, The Basics, the SRD, Superpower, and the Ideal Org program were all devised by DM and his sycophants. These courses and rundowns all based on LRH tech and policy to one extent or another, but they were never compiled by LRH. Nor is there anything in writing that any of these courses and programs were what he intended—not one shred of evidence. What is clear is that they were all based on a massive hidden data line created by Miscavige.
DM likes to tell people that these “corrected” courses and programs were what LRH really wanted. That they were based on his true intentions. According to DM, squirrel elements within the organization covertly added and deleted text and punctuation marks in all his HCOBs, policy letters, and books, while conveniently loosing whole papers in closets and attics (all when Ron wasn’t looking—presumably). Except there is no evidence that these new courses and programs are what LRH intended. Somehow though, decades after he died, Miscavige was able to unearth a hidden cache of LRH HCOBs and PLs laying out exactly how all his courses should be revised, and the organization should be run.
DM has been running a giant scam on Scientologists ever since he seized the reins.
Last Words
One of the biggest farces in Scientology is that “there is no hidden data line.” Like with all cults, the entire organization is built on a mountain of hidden data. Keeping the full story from followers is paramount.
Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita
Wow! Very telling! I will read this again! Thank you for this!
Eye opener,beautiful!
Oops, there’s a typo there: “We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise about the bank.”
It’s “…how I came to rise *above* the bank.” IIRC, anyway.
“Benzedrine often helps run a case”
There, I just speculated.
While he was keying himself into his BT imaginings “discovering OT3” he wrote a letter to his wife
“I’m drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and reds” (paraphrase?)
There, one more speculation.
But did he rise above the bank?
Is wishing for electroshock to free BTs and commit suicide a sign of rising above the bank?
Kind of hard to rise above something that doesn’t exist as such.
I’d sum up Scientology as follows: pretending to have all the answers while systematically working to eliminate all our questions.
“I’d sum up Scientology as follows: pretending to have all the answers while systematically working to eliminate all our questions.”
Damn, Music Junkie; what a SO accurate statement!! I think that I am going to “steal” it from you as I like it so much, 😉
Be my guest Thetaclear. I believe in sharing.
Things “could” have been so different. But they weren’t and they aren’t. And here we are today.
Excellent article, Terra Cognita.
Hello Terra,
The hidden data line, Hubbard’s extensive research data, is hidden no longer.
At this point in time there is a collection of data points that provides a semi-scientific measure of Hubbard’s claims. The testing results come after Hubbard’s claims, so this would constitute an ex-post facto study. Tons and tons of PC folders, and tens of tens of thousands of results are there for all to see. So what do I see?
Over 90% of the EPs for all processes have not observably seen by me over a span of 60+ years. The 1971 Chart assertion that an OT8 would be cause over the objective universe has never been shown to be an objective fact, in spite of hundreds of OT8s being produced. Attesting for yourself doesn’t make it true to others.
It ain’t the fault of all of the thousands of PCs as the COS would claim. It is simply that the theory/idea/process/bridge does not produce what was promised. Subjective results abound, but that does not necessarily translate into real world objective results.
Semi-scientifically speaking, the Scientology package is a failure in the objective world.
I put a comment but it disappeared, is that ok, or should I post again?
Interesting discussion,
I am no great science scholar, even if familiar with principles of scientific research.
I think few here are proper science researchers, yet they state many truths (I mean it positively) from their observations, without presenting research for any and every statement. And its fine, as it would have been fine with Ron to do the same.
The problem with Ron, I agree, was his being too cocky with many claims and things. Should have given it all with much less claims, a pinch more humility, and let each one judge for himself.
I personally have found in his works amazingly beneficial elements, practical and spiritual. Especially being practiced as an Indie. But that’s just me.
Please remember, as most of us here believe: He was just a man, no God! And as a man he had all the failings that me and you have. And like all of us, he was wise, stupid, mistaken, genius, and so on. Indeed I think he finally understood that it was religion he was creating and not science proper. To his credit: he did work with and try his tech, with and on many many people.
Now, scientific research in the humanities, in Philosophy, in human relations, is very rare and almost impossible to do. Too much subjectivity there!
And please note: I do believe in strict research in the sciences.
But please consider that so many wise, great, thinkers and philosophers from the dawn of man, many of which we embrace and follow their advice have not presented scientific research, could not do so. And yet they got so many things right. All the eastern past masters, and western ones of recent millenniums including Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Friedrich Nietzsche, Dalai Lama, Albert Einstein…many more, have codified many truths that advanced the humanities, and us all, yet – no research to show. Here, look below at some wonderful examples of tech:
* Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. – Buddha
* Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own. (R. Heinlein)
* Really great people make you feel that you, too, can become great. Mark Twain
* Logic will take you from A to Z; Imagination will take you everywhere. Albert Einstein
* It’s the possibility of having a dream come true that makes life interesting. (Paulo Coelho)
* Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. (Dalai Lama)
* No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path. (Buddha)
* Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened.
Happiness never decreases by being shared. (Buddha)
* Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony. (Mahatma Gandhi)
* The best way to predict the future is to create it. (L. Rom Hubbard)
* Everything you can imagine is real. (Pablo Picasso).
* Holding on to anger is like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies… (Nelson Mandela)
* The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything”.
(Albert Einstein)
* When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has
meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge. ~ Albert Einstein
* You don’t really love anyone because he is beautiful, but if you really love someone, HE IS beautiful!
(Unknown)
Love to all,
Hemi ♥
Hemi , I just read ” the happiness advantage” by Shawn Achor , full of extensive research , documentation and references . All on happiness , couldn’t be more subjective.
And many more such projects are being worked on in every university .
LRH could have documented his research for all to see , he didn’t. Therefore all I am left with as far as workability of the tech , are my observations of the objective world of scientologists around me , and it is a sad state of affair.
Divorce , financial ruin , lack of personal integrity and loyalty to loved ones , dying unaware and alone , mostly unhappy and struggling.
I’m always happy to see new posters here. So many , if not all, of the quotes you’ve graced us with here are reverential, thought-provoking, practical and life affirming. However, I personally would never dream of quoting l ron hubbard in a grouping such as this. You’re comparing some of the greatest minds that ever lived with a man who swindled others not only out of money, but their happiness, their freedom, their families and their lives. He created a “religion” so he could generate tax-free income. You are of course free to follow his teachings as you wish, but in your comments you say he was a man not a god. Truly, l ron thought of himself as a god in his little invented universe. He was a narcissist who had no room for anyone else at the top. Fair Game should show you how little he actually thought of his own “tech.” He knew it was nonsense so he needed to quash any opposition before it could investigate too closely. My sister and I have a saying “Did you make up my mind yet?” Well I believe l ron made up many minds. Unfortunately only for his own benefit.
“I am no great science scholar, even if familiar with principles of scientific research.I think few here are proper science researchers, yet they state many truths (I mean it positively) from their observations, without presenting research for any and every statement. And its fine, as it would have been fine with Ron to do the same.”
Hi Hemi; long time no see!
I don’t think that most people here are expressing “truths” as such, but mostly statements of opinions or explanations; which is different than a “truth”. I think that you are also confusing a general philosophical statement of a “truth” like, “What you fear becomes your master”, for example, (which is sort of self-evident) with an assertion presented as a “fact” when it is in fact, just an opinion or an exaggerated claim like, “Engrams are the cause of ALL aberrations and 90% of the psychosomatic illnesses”. The first example, doesn’t necessarily requires “proof”, but the 2nd one DOES require it. A “fact” and a “philosophical truth or principle” are not under the same category of “Logic”.
“The problem with Ron, I agree, was his being too cocky with many claims and things. Should have given it all with much less claims, a pinch more humility, and let each one judge for himself.”
Exactly!!
“I personally have found in his works amazingly beneficial elements, practical and spiritual. Especially being practiced as an Indie. But that’s just me.”
I have as well!
“Please remember, as most of us here believe: He was just a man, no God! And as a man he had all the failings that me and you have. And like all of us, he was wise, stupid, mistaken, genius, and so on.”
It is THAT exact argument – which is the “strongest” one that most Indies use to defend Scn, btw – that throws away any possibility of any honest and unbiased evaluation of Scn and LRH, and I will explain myself. IMHO, Hemi, this is a very weak argument to use in the defense of Scn.
The so frequently heard argument, “He was just a man, no God! And as a man he had all the failings that me and you have”, falls into the category of (to speak some “Scientologese” with you) of “Similars are not similar” outpoint. You see, Hemi, you are trying to put LRH’s failings into the same category as our own, which is not necessarily true, and in fact, MOST of the times, it is NOT. I don’t think that most people here would get thousands to work for them for almost free in very inadequate living and nutritional conditions, (the SO members) while they get rich themselves, and live in excellent nutritional and living conditions.
I don’t think that most people here would use “chain locking” and “overboardings” to establish “discipline” and get others to agree to our beliefs by force and threats.
I don’t think that most people here would use “Disconnection” as a mean to handle the ones who disagree with our belief system, ESPECIALLY if the “dissenters” are family or close friends.
I don’t think that most people here would make exaggerated claims about a product or service that they are selling to others, while charging them lots of money for “much less than promised” results that CAN be gotten from other much less expensive (and even for free) methods of psychotherapy or spiritual enlightenment.
I don’t think that most people here would commit criminal actions (the “Snow White Operation” that LRH KNEW about and even led), and then let their spouses take the fall for it.
I don’t think that most people here would consider as “criminals” the ones who disagree with them on their preferred methods of healing or spiritual enlightenment. And on, and on, and on, and on…….
I am sorry Hemi, but by making that alleged “analogy” – which DOES NOT exists – you are, even if unwittingly so (which I am SURE are not your intentions), sort of insulting us, IMHO, by comparing our human failings with those of a con man and one guilty of so many Human Rights abuses. Most of us are DEFINITELY not in the same category as LRH as far as “human failings” is concerned. To think otherwise is misguided and even a little naive.
“Indeed I think he finally understood that it was religion he was creating and not science proper.”
He always referred to Scn as a “science”, and in fact, as a much “superior” science than even physics. The non Scientologists may be fooled with LRH positioning of Scn as a “religion”, but we ex-Scientologists ALWAYS knew that the use of “religion” was ONLY for protection purposes. And any Scientologist or ex who think otherwise is either being very conveniently naive, or has absolutely no clue what is Scn about. You are assuming too much, Hemi, with unsupported data.
“To his credit: he did work with and try his tech, with and on many many people.”
Of course he did, Scn is an applied philosophy; what did you expect?
“Now, scientific research in the humanities, in Philosophy, in human relations, is very rare and almost impossible to do. Too much subjectivity there! And please note: I do believe in strict research in the sciences. But please consider that so many wise, great, thinkers and philosophers from the dawn of man, many of which we embrace and follow their advice have not presented scientific research, could not do so. And yet they got so many things right.”
Hemi, you are missing something here, my friend. As I said before, there is a difference between a “philosophical statement” of “truth”, and a stated “fact” or unsupported claim such as “DNs uniformly produce Clears”. What most people complain about Scn is not about its philosophy-like statements, but about unsupported claims and statements presented as “scientific truths” when CLEARLY they are not, or are unproven to say the least. Those individuals that you mentioned dealt with philosophical principles not with scientific type of data as such. They were not dealing with psychotherapy as such like Scn DEALS with, but with philosophy itself. And besides, Hemi, most of the philosophical principles of Scn ALREADY existed since many centuries ago, and before LRH had proclaimed himself as the “Source” of ALL of Scn, he had made VERY clear about the roots of Scn and where he had taken his principles from.
So OF COURSE, that those philosophers were not making any “research” as such. They were not supposed to, as philosophy has to do with the use of debates using common sense approaches to life’s dilemmas in order to find some meaning to existence and a model for proper behavior. But in the case of science or even psychotherapy, we are looking for “facts” that we can test and verify as true with the idea that anyone using those facts will arrive at the same conclusions and results. In philosophy, we are not necessarily seeking for universal agreement, but in fact, the conflict of philosophical viewpoints and the debate over them, is sought for as a method of arriving at more acceptable truths. As I said before, you are using too much the “similars are not similar” outpoint.
Hi my dear Peter,
Always a pleasure to bask in your presence, wit and wisdom.
Even as you flare up as a wild volcano, always in the end, the boiling lava and primal substances erupting are settling down to BE fertile soil for growth.
To relate to even 1/10 of your comments, needs a whole weekend, food, coffee, music and friends. When are you coming to visit? Seriously!
Just one “small issue”: The eastern paths, examples: the Tao and the Buddha (Gautama) path to enlightenment were not some nice wise sayings.
They were complex paths laid down with many techniques, principles, study and a life time of guidance in order to reach Enlightenment, ending of suffering, of birth and death cycles, to name just a few CLAIMS AND EPS. I know, I have close friends who practice these paths and we share wins happily. Many, many people, in old times, dedicated their lives, neglecting other dynamics (mistake!) to try and reach those claims, from sunrise to sunset through most humble way of life. Hardly anyone reached those Eps and no proof was presented for anything. But our world is better off for these efforts, no? (not always, not automatically).
And many people do believe that this stupid, unproved, unsubstantiated, un-measurable, totally un-scientific THING called the spirit or Thetan or whatever, is valid and can be related to, even as a dream. Just one more thing: Spiritual work IS NOT EASY. Sometimes very hard and at other times extremely “don’t feel like doing it” activity!
Masters used to TRICK their disciples to get on with it, with whatever bullshit the particular guy wanted to hear. Don Huan (in the Carlos Castaneda series) used to do it a lot, to push Carlos to the next stage, for which he was very thankful later. The Buddha directed millions to achieve what HE DAMN WELL KNEW hardly anyone will!! so, a con man, or a great teacher giving mankind a hope and a glimpse of getting out of the mud. Food for thought.
I never cared much about Eps of moving objects or being all (physically) powerful or any other magic tricks. What for?? Boring!!! I have more to say on that, but… no time.
Peter my friend, are you still on the yahoo.com address? Love to be in touch when convenient.
Hemi ♥
“Hi my dear Peter,”
“Always a pleasure to bask in your presence, wit and wisdom. Even as you flare up as a wild volcano, always in the end, the boiling lava and primal substances erupting are settling down to BE fertile soil for growth.”
🙂 Thanks Hemi; it never ceases to amaze me how much of a gentleman you are! And a poet as well! 🙂 No offense, but you look like everything except a Scientologist, haha.
“To relate to even 1/10 of your comments, needs a whole weekend, food, coffee, music and friends. When are you coming to visit? Seriously!”
Haha, I might actually surprise you one of these days. I am very much into history of religion and what better place than Israel for that, 🙂 They have the best scholars in the world!
“Just one ‘small issue’: The eastern paths, examples: the Tao and the Buddha (Gautama) path to enlightenment were not some nice wise sayings. They were complex paths laid down with many techniques, principles, study and a lifetime of guidance in order to reach Enlightenment, ending of suffering, of birth and death cycles, to name just a few CLAIMS AND EPS.”
I know what you mean, and that’s a great argument, btw. However, those spiritual practices were not called “Science” in any way by their founders, and the “EPs” sought for, were very general (or broad) in nature, and fell mostly under “philosophical goals” such as “The end of suffering”, “Enlightenment”, “The conquest of the Ego”, etc. In other words, their claims were mostly religious ones (there were never meant to be “scientific”), and they never claimed to be the “ONLY possible route to salvation or Enlightenment”. Buddha didn’t, and most Eastern teachers didn’t, either.
But remember my friend, LRH positioned Scn against the “exactness” of a science such as physics, and even allegedly “more accurate” than it. I have no beef with Scn’s philosophical concepts – not with most of them, at least; actually I like the majority of them – but I DO have a big issue with things being presented as “facts” or “scientific truths” when they are actually opinions or just personal experiences unsupported with enough evidence and testing.
Also Hemi, those philosophies didn’t charge others in order for them to have “Truth” available for them, buth their teachings were FREE. As I mentioned before, Scn is sold as a “workable psychotherapy” with VERY specific EPs which are VERY clearly defined, and for which one HAS to pay to achieve it; only problem being that people DON’T achieve them at all, as advertised. Again, my friend, “Similars are no similar”, to keep with my “volcanic flare-ups”, 😉
“I know, I have close friends who practice these paths and we share wins happily. Many, many people, in old times, dedicated their lives, neglecting other dynamics (mistake!) to try and reach those claims, from sunrise to sunset through most humble way of life. Hardly anyone reached those Eps and no proof was presented for anything”.
I am well aware of that having been a student myself of original Theravada Buddhism, and of Non-dualism with excellent teachers such as Mooji, Adyashanti, etc. I am extremely familiar with all those practices, ending up dismissing most of them, as I don’t agree with their basic goals like, “Ending Suffering” (which is actually a non-confront of life), or achieving “Oneness with everything, while ‘dissolving” the Ego”, etc. IMHO, those goals are misguidedly aimed at “detachment from Life” and a denial of understanding and recognizing the existence of an ACTUAL ”Self”.
That having been said, those “EPs” or “Goals” were mostly “religious” and “philosophical” in nature, and it should be obvious to you, my dear friend, that any religion presupposes a specific goal to achieve. If not, what would be the point of it, you know? But again, Hemi, one wasn’t expected to pay for anything, and nobody was pushing their teachings down people’s throats. And most of them never asserted to be the “only way”. And one doesn’t expect any “proof” from any religions as they are based on the concept of “Faith”, whatever that meant for different religions.
“But our world is better off for these efforts, no? (not always, not automatically).”
I agree with that.
“And many people do believe that this stupid, unproven, unsubstantiated, un-measurable, totally un-scientific THING called the spirit or Thetan or whatever, is valid and can be related to, even as a dream.”
You can include me in that club!! But even though that I believe in that due to past personal experiences (even BEFORE Scn, when I was still a kid), I don’t claim that my belief is based on “scientific evidence” or on any “proof”. It could be said that it falls under the heading of “Faith”, for me.
“Just one more thing: Spiritual work IS NOT EASY. Sometimes very hard and at other times extremely ‘don’t feel like doing it’ activity!”
Tell me about it!!
“Masters used to TRICK their disciples to get on with it, with whatever bullshit the particular guy wanted to hear. Don Juan (in the Carlos Castaneda series) used to do it a lot, to push Carlos to the next stage, for which he was very thankful later. The Buddha directed millions to achieve what HE DAMN WELL KNEW hardly anyone will!!”
I know, Hemi. I’ve been there myself.
“so, a con man, or a great teacher giving mankind a hope and a glimpse of getting out of the mud. Food for thought.”
Well, there exist good criteria to answer that apparent “dilemma”.Do those “spiritual teachers” were honest and non-authoritative in their approaches to knowledge and wisdom, not getting rich with their teachings (most of them were actually very poor); or did they use incredible claims to lure others into paying thousands of dollars to “buy” the ticket to “Truth”? And your (or anyone’s) answer to that, determine Undue Influence or lack of, and whether it is a con or “hope”.
“I never cared much about Eps of moving objects or being all (physically) powerful or any other magic tricks. What for?? Boring!!! I have more to say on that, but… no time.”
Unfortunately, my dear friend, there were many, many (like me) whose main purpose was to achieve the advertised results, and who felt betrayed by LRH after decades of trying to naively achieve such states that we later found out, that not even LRH himself had achieved them while he pretended that he did. And I am not even referring here to “moving objects”, nor “taking the atmosphere off of planets”, etc. I am referring to things like “Exteriorization with full perception”, “Total whole track recall”, “The ability to handle life with postulates instead of with effort”, “The certainty of Self as a spiritual being”, etc, etc.
But I see now SO many Scientologists settling for much, much, less than what was ACTUALLY promised, while “handling” the pressure of their “cognitive dissonance” of it all, with things like, “Well….you know, I never really wanted to become a ‘superhuman’; I only wanted to have good wins, and blah, blah, blah……”. Oh come on, Hemi; it is with me that you are talking. I KNOW what most of us wanted from the Bridge. Don’t tone it down now, please. Don’t act like those guys from MS2; you don’t belong to that crew, haha.
“Peter my friend, are you still on the yahoo.com address? Love to be in touch when convenient.”
Sure Hemi; anytime my friend! Yes, I still have that address, but in any case, you can ask Mike for it.
It is always VERY refreshing to talk with Scientologists such as yourself. I don’t mind at all whose arguments are more “right” than the other’s, so much as I like to show to others here the two sides of the coin, with good, sensible and emotionally detached arguments, such as what we are doing. IMHO, it is this kind of discussion that brings about positive and useful conclusions where the “winner” is Truth itself and wisdom, and the fact of having shared our viewpoints.
Please try to limit the length of your comments. Why don’t you start a blog so you can get all your thoughts out? I just don’t have time to read it all.
“Please try to limit the length of your comments. Why don’t you start a blog so you can get all your thoughts out? I just don’t have time to read it all.”
My apologies Mike, and that’s actually a good idea. Thanks for your patience and for posting my replies.
Absolutely wonderful, mature, wise!!!
I couldn’t agree and disagree more… 🙂 🙂 But much more agree.
Left me speechless!
And thanks Mike for all the patience and hard work!
Hemi ♥
Thanks Hemi; always the gentleman! 🙂
Please, keep in touch!
TC excellent article.
There was research and data on most of Hubbards tech. He could not reveal that most of his rants and wisdom came from other philosophers and writers. He was big on research and plagerism. Since he was a narcissist he had to eventually take credit for everything.
As a result all his dedications are now removed from all books, bulletins and policy letters.
Imagine that.
Do you think anyone currently in the C of S read any of the things Mike is saying in his blog… and the comments we are all writing?
Oh my goodness, I certainly hope so! We (I hope I’m correct in thinking all of us feel this way) WANT everyone from scientology to read this, digest it, talk about share it and eventually break free. That person certainly doesn’t have to agree with any of us about anything except it’s time to start thinking for themselves.I’ve found Mike truthful to a fault, including himself. So if you’re here scientologist, welcome.
I was ‘in’ when I started looking at sites like this, several events had pushed me to the end of my tether with scientology and I decided it was time to see what the rest of the world really thought, it was quite a shock! I’m pretty sure there are others who have fully emerged from scientology once they start to question the party line and look for themselves.
All in all, a pretty exhausting discussion. In the end, LRH told us it was a fraud, IF the last details of his life are to be believed. At the end, he was still in hiding. The few photos we’ve seen certainly point out his condition. No family, no friends, no personal freedom, hanging out in the middle of nowhere, no life to be lived. Is there really anything more to be said? If it all worked, would that be the result?
Exactly!
“DM likes to tell people that these “corrected” courses and programs were what LRH really wanted” I wonder how soon the rumors start to circulat (started by osa) that DM has a telepathic com line with LRH on target 2 and LRH dictating him what to do plus all missing OT levels.
30 years ago, when I was a staff member at the Celebrity Center in Montreal (now this centre is closed), one day we received a com. telling us that a highly graded Sea Org member from Copenhagen (I forgot his name) had the mission to brief in our staff to a special hidden secret knowledge usually given only to the OT level. All the staff was exited and impatient to receive another parcel of « the truth » discovered by LRH.
The guy from Copenhagen started his briefing by warning us that this information was strictly confidential and that we were very lucky to receive these special data from the research of LRH.
So, after a long « charabia » related to our stats, and that we had to sell more books and put more new people on the line… the usual bla bla ; he finally arrived at the main point of the meeting: « the hidden secret » unknown by the Wog and revealed at last to us scientologists (please stand up and applause loudly saying: TO LRH ! )
In s very soft voice as if he was afraid to be spied through the walls, he explained to us that we have to be very aware and conscious that the whole of the humanity was always been watched and controlled since trillions of years by some « electronic devices » coming from the space.
At this time I started to be very very suspicious about Scientology and the « truth » from the « source » LRH, so I raised my hand and I dare to ask the Sea Org member, « Is there any proof about this affirmation ? » MY GOD ! what a mistake ! Immediately, the whole audience started to look at me with electric waves in their eyes, make me feel guilty with a smell of CRIME around me.
It was the last day I had as a staff member. I left the church forever and ever.
But for me the funniest part of this incident was the answer from the Sea Org member… an answer that ONLY a brainwashed scientologist can reply in this situation. When I asked and declare my doubts clearly, the guy looked at me directly in the eyes and yell : « What is the word you don’t understand ? ..Go and clarified your misunderstood words ! »
Gee, what a spiritual answer !
Yes, all the tech and sciences LRH revealed in his policy were pure hidden secrets directly from his own mind, but the sad thing is, the scientologists believed strongly the « words of the Source » without verifying never… if the « source » is real.
One day, a true sage said to his disciples: « You have the right to test the Master. »
SUPER INTERESTING STORY… Thanks ! … All of this (the blogs, the podcasts, the documentaries, Leah & Mike’s show, the comments from Mike’s blog) makes me feel STUPID for having supported Scientology in the first place, although I never did enough to go CLEAR I got tired of spending so much money and hated it when my husband used up all our savings, repeatedly mortgaged out home, and constantly maxed out all credit cards. He is now my ex, because the church told him he had to divorce me, because I kept trying to stop him from spending money we didn’t have on Scientology. He is STILL a devoted public Scientologist, For our grandchildren’s sake, I wish he would begin checking out all the data on the web… to see that he is wasting his money and time… which would be better spent on his family. I wish there was something I could do to help steer him in the right direction.
Ginnny thank you for sharing! How long ago was that?
Terra, another great essay and as usual many good comments follow your essays. Below are disagreements about LRH “scientific” this and that or hidden data, etc. BUT my fave here is:
“Current leader, David Miscavige has followed LRH step for step.
GAT 1, GAT 2, The Basics, the SRD, Superpower, and the Ideal Org program were all devised by DM and his sycophants. These courses and rundowns all based on LRH tech and policy to one extent or another, but they were never compiled by LRH. Nor is there anything in writing that any of these courses and programs were what he intended—not one shred of evidence. What is clear is that they were all based on a massive hidden data line created by Miscavige.”
And here you have it, the current scene of Miscavigeville, the ultimate hidden data line. This is what sickens me with the old timers buying into this. No excuse they’re all idiots, re-doing the re-do of the re-do.
Current members would be better off in Margaritaville.
LOL!!!
☺️
My dear, I do believe you’ve found a brother from another mother in OSD. Have you met?
We’re both lifetime members of The Laughingstock Org.
I was shocked when I found out what GAT 2 was all about, I couldn’t believe it was just a rehash of all the courses I’d done already, it was around the time I was on my way out of the subject so there was no way I was going to re-re-do any of them.
What, and miss out on all the latent gains you missed?
Well, if the “technology” was created to help people we could argue about whether it has value. It was not developed to help people, it was developed to enrich L Ron Hubbard. And feed his over-large ego.
Factually he had a lot of help from a lot of people that fell for the scam and really did want to help people. And he studied a lot of subjects superficially to find techniques to use. So parts of it possibly do have value. But not because it has any scientific basis. It doesn’t.
The subject changed over the years and it is now impossible to state definitively what the basic principles are. But if you could state them you could trace them back to the sources that Hubbard ripped off. Once you did that, there would be no reason to fool around with Scientology. Why not just use the real thing and not fool around with the Hubbard distorted version?
The whole edifice of the “tech” is like the famous Winchester Mystery House in California. Stairs that go nowhere, hidden rooms that have no access doors, every kind of oddity you can imagine.
Fact is, there was once a corrective mechanism in place. There is a policy letter that states that anyone can propose a new policy letter. And it was once possible to release “Board Technical Bulletins”, not by Hubbard, that explain or clarify points. They are not supposed to contradict Hubbard, but you can get around that. If corporate Scientology really cared about helping people, they could validate and correct it. They could do real research. They could de-emphasize dangerous or destructive practices like disconnection and the Purification Rundown.
If the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints can reject polygamy and accept minority clergy, the Church of Scientology could end disconnection. But in the wave of fundamentalism after Dave Miscavige took over, all those who had the skill and courage to do something like that were purged. Now Dave is in his echo chamber of sycophants and all dissenting voices have been silenced. His Bridge goes nowhere and the Scientologists still clinging to hope are re-doing all the steps like hamsters in a wheel, squeaking away all night long but never getting anywhere.
Perhaps the Super Power Oiliness Table will give them the correct amount of lubrication.
A brillliant response to a brilliant article. Thanks, Bruce and Terra.
Great post, Bruce!! You basically summarized my own viewpoints about it, with a few modifications.
Personally I tried for a few years, both publicly and privately, to get the “Indies” to purge from the scriptures everything that represented Human Rights violations, especially “Disconnection”, and the “Attack the critics and dissenters practice” (“Fair Game”). I urged them to raise Scn to the actual level of scientific research, and to rewrite the texts accordingly. But I was never successful at convincing them of ANYTHING, which was proof enough for me that most of them were very much STILL under the undue influence of LRH. And where we have undue influence present, we don’t have science in any way, shape or form, but only a cultic approach to knowledge.
IMHO, if the Indies would have made honest efforts to publicly ACCEPT LRH’s many errors in judgment, and if they would have made efforts to purge from the scriptures any authoritarian and dogmatic approaches to knowledge, I think that the Independent field would have grown and be generally respected and accepted instead of being mocked and ignored as it is generally the case today.
“But if you could state them you could trace them back to the sources that Hubbard ripped off. Once you did that, there would be no reason to fool around with Scientology. Why not just use the real thing and not fool around with the Hubbard distorted version?”
I used to reason it out like that myself, Bruce, but as time went by I changed my position on this. The reason for this is that even though that LRH DID copy-pasted a lot of Scn from other practices (that he then later on ironically criticized as “unworkable” and “booby-trapped”), the fact is that there are quite a few things that are either original from him, or came from collaborators that were working with him at the time, but that never left any records of their suggestions/research behind. And many ideas that LRH took from other practices, he put them into organized and easy-to-use and understand ways, and even added to them, many workable changes that made such ideas/procedures more effective.
Just to give you some examples, we have the “Study Tech” but without its dogmatic approach. Even though that this techniques have been very criticized by scholars, the fact is that what they mostly protested about, was LRH’s dogmatic approach to it, and many assertions stated as “unquestionable facts” rather than “special cases”. But that concept of making sure never to go pass misunderstood words; of knowing all possible uses of a word in different contexts; of finding misunderstood words when someone seems unable to apply or understand what he has learned; of getting actual “mass” of the things one is studying; of taking one gradient at the time making sure one totally got and is able to apply the previous one before engaging in the next one; etc, etc; ARE sensible and useful ideas.
And like the “Study Tech”, we have many other things like the general concept of a repetitive process or a procedure intended to get a person to INSPECT an area of life he/she is having trouble with, and arriving at a realization about it through those processes/procedures.
The concept of the “Communication Formula” as it applies to effectively understanding others and being able to make ourselves to be understood, is also original from LRH in his approach to it. TRs done and learned in non robotic ways, is actually, IMHO, an EXCELLENT tool for effective counseling.
And like those two above, we have many others. It is easy to dismiss what can be useful things based on emotions and generalizations such as “He was just a liar and con man”. He WAS a liar and a con man, all right, but he was ALSO a VERY brilliant mind capable of great insights. If Scn would never have had any actual workable and beneficial parts, the con would have NEVER worked the way it did. People got stuck to Scn because, IMHO, they DID got many benefits from it, even though they never got the specific advertised results like “Clear” and “OT”, and many other exaggerated “EPs”.
Scn into the hands of REAL researchers who are willing to spend their time making things right, CAN become a very good thing. Books can be rewritten to purge them from dogmatic approaches and exaggerated claims; harmful policies can be gotten rid of; things can be reformulated in different ways; new research can be done in things like the use of the e-meter in therapy settings; processes could be tested using control groups; etc, etc. IMHO, it is a worthwhile endeavor. I don’t think that the “baby should be thrown out with the bathwater” yet. Not yet.
Your last line “Not yet” says it all.
I’m all for dumping the LRH materials without further ado, quietly and without sorrow.
There are already vast amounts of real research into all kinds of subjects that LRH wrote about and did NOT do research for. See all the scientific publications on the net, books, magazines, whatnot.
I think time of researchers will be better spent buiding on those materials, instead of going through LRH’s garbage.
LRH’s written material in the future might only be interesting for historians trying to answer the question how it was possible he cheated so many people into believing him.
buiding = building. Sorry 🙂
“Your last line ‘Not yet’ says it all.”
“I’m all for dumping the LRH materials without further ado, quietly and without sorrow.There are already vast amounts of real research into all kinds of subjects that LRH wrote about and did NOT do research for. See all the scientific publications on the net, books, magazines, whatnot.”
Oh, but I fully agree with you on that, TrevAnon, and actually, that’s EXACTLY what I’ve been doing for the past 3 years or so; researching and studying (AND applying) those more reliable sources.
“I think time of researchers will be better spent building on those materials, instead of going through LRH’s garbage.”
I fully agree with that as well. You see, TrevAnon, what I meant by my post, was mostly directed at old-timers already trained auditors who had already rid themselves of the undue influence, conditioning, and “thought stopping” techniques of Scn/LRH. My comments were not meant to be used by people new to Scn, as the way that LRH’s materials are currently compiled, presupposes just too many booby-trapped assertions that those with no proper training on “Critical Thinking”, philosophy in general, and the different methods of healing or enlightenment that have existed throughout the centuries; could get stuck with in very unhealthy ways.
I also wanted to keep a proper balance between the “anti-Scn proponents” and the “It has worked for me” proponents. You know, to present BOTH sides of the coin to provoke a healthy discussion where different arguments are being analyzed as opposed to just knee jerk reactions, and arguments appealing to “emotions”, which fall under the category of “weak arguments”, from my perspective.
“LRH’s written material in the future might only be interesting for historians trying to answer the question how it was possible he cheated so many people into believing him”
Haha, that was good! Yeah, and Scn also makes for an EXCELLENT example to study and learn about “Undue Influence” and “Thought Reform”, 😉 Perhaps in the future, the textbooks on “Cultic studies”, would all have as a standard practice, the inclusion of Scn as the perfect model to use to have “Mass” of what is a cult like, 🙂
Hubbard was a charlatan, Miscavige is simply a criminal.
Perhaps each were a little of both.
Agreed. If the first generation is built on lies and the second generation comes along and alters those lies…they’re still lies. Original “tech” is loosely based on the psychology that Hubbard so despised. I had the blessing of having met one of Hubbard’s guinea pigs from the 50’s. She had been a starving college student who replied to a research ad by Hubbard and his collaborators before Dianetics. Many knew Dottie before she left. Her stories truly made me wonder how anyone could be so gullible. So many of us were dumped in as kids, following our parents into the darkness. Had we been given the chance to choose…sadly, many of us would still have marched along with them into the abyss.
“I suspect the majority of his “research and discovery” occurred inside his head late at night—high on dope.” Pretty much sums it up for me. Excellent essay!
Ah, so it was chemognosis!
Yes, I am responding to my own post, hahaha. It’s been almost 12 years since I skimmed the basics of religions/ cults, simply to compare them with what I knew of more modern religions. . It was fascinating, I read about theories of spiritual enlightenment, symbolism, initiation rites.
My conclusions helped ME achieve peace in myself. I’m not going to babble, but… 12 years is a long time. I’ve memorised new recipes, but had to google ” chemognosis ancient cult”. First hit is Dionysis. It is impossible for me to compare to Dianetics, Thelemia, or other esoteric belief systems, because I don’t know them well enough. Still, even the cursory Wikipedia account is interesting, and I have a new topic to ponder. The patchwork works of Helena Blavatsky.
Not quite 3 more days till Season 2!!! Yeehaaa
Gravity,
Then go earlier than Helen Blavatsky to the Vedas, Taoism, Buddhaism, and to Hermes Trismegistus and the Emerald Tablet. Let me know if you get earlier, unless it be the Akashic Record.
Jim, ty, Im gonna check that out. II remember reading a little about Hindu.. Brahma and Saraswati… to possibly become Abraham and Sara. The all-around-the-world flood/deluge/ repopulation stories really caused me to ponder oral histories. Collective something or other? Interesting.
Terra,
Late in the 1970’s I tried to get the results from a group (FASC I believe it was) that was doing blood work on a group doing the purif. I only got to see the results from a friend and then only ‘draft’ charts.
I pointed out that the results of 6 weeks of puif did show a lowering of several metabolites. But zero results regarding drugs of interest. Nothing about a placebo group just saunaing. Nothing about a control group doing the vitamins but no sauna. In essence no scientific work at all.
Standard Scientology at work. Standard fail.
Wow, I just read down through the comments. Quite the thread this one. I suppose it could be suggested that “who’s to state what works,” produces the greatest variance of logic and argument especially when applied to Scientology (or anything else for that matter). Impressing and coercing others, especially for financial, perceived survival or for simply aggressive tendencies for the want of nothing better to do is always fraught with danger imo – Hubbard proved it over and over with his doomsday scenario if you didn’t follow KSW. His supposed “research” has exposed itself as being a mysterious fantasy as time goes on with so many people who have experienced and studied the subject closely now speaking up.
Organised Scientology is a very tiresome subject, we were had… But that still doesn’t dismiss what you can do with bits of it.
Agreed. As I’ve noted here a number of times, in order for any scam to work, there must be SOME truth in it, something that actually lets the user get some wins. I’ve suspected for a long time that that is precisely what Hubbard did. He took from others, altered the wording and claimed it as his own. In the basic areas, I got a great deal from the tech..or whatever I was doing internally with the tech. A couple of things, in particular, were life changing. But over all, none of it worked if the preclear didn’t actually do the work. Any wins BELONG TO THE PRECLEAR OR OT. NOT TO LRH. NOT TO DM (especially), but to the individua who did the work. So my congratulations to all those who actually got some good out of it.
Concur…
I just surprised myself with a simplicity,( gee… where I have I heard that sort of thing before?).
But organised Scientology is organised crime. I guess we are complicit to some degree to be hoodwinked by such a organisational ruse. Leah is right, a federal investigation is essential. It is sickening such a thing as an organisation like Scientology can be free to corrupt well intended individuals and be allowed to float along with legal and tax free immunity. I thought things like the FBI was created to stop crime.
Yep, good analysis of the Church of Spin.
Regarding the story about….. The Missing Executives of Scientology…
Everyone everywhere seems to be setting up donations sites to collect funds for a variety of reasons. So why not start a new donation site for:
” GO FIND ME”………
Excellent
Balletlady,
That is actually a great idea!
Why, it could even be on a billboard somewhere…..
I would support that fund !
All this policy.. data …standards.. ruled….tech…. laws…ALL OF IT coming from a Science Fiction Author………
“Virtually all LRH bulletins, policy letters, and lectures are predicated on hidden data. With rare exception, he left no record of clinical trials or research notes. He would simply state authoritatively that something was true. And that was that.”
Actually, Terra Cognita, I have no knowledge of such “rare exceptions”, and I’ve read practically every issue/book that LRH ever wrote. He simply left NO records; period!
Now, to somehow play the “Devil’s advocate” role in favor of the Indies, I want to clarify that the lack of research records does not necessarily mean that everything that LRH ever came up with, is unworkable and false as a therapeutic method or form of life improvement. What it DOES mean is that LRH’s work can’t be considered as “scientific” in any, way, shape or form. It is up to you guys (the “Indies”) to raise Scn to the level of ACTUAL research, and be willing to change, improve, or discard it altogether, as real experimentation takes place, and demonstrate or not LRH’s allegations for any one specific process or procedure.
This would mean the willingness to start from scratch without making ANY unverified assumptions about ANYTHING. This would also include the ACTUAL research of every e-meter read using dozens and dozens of cases, attempting to “falsify” (prove false) all the previous assumptions regarding the meaning of each read. This would also include the willingness to try other “Not KSW” approaches, to compare the KSW ones against it. Many things and “facts” would have to be totally discarded as false or unproven, and there would be ones to be found as sensible, reasonable and safe to apply with varying degrees of workability.
I have myself tested a lot of processes and procedures from Scn, and to be honest about it, I have been able to help a lot of people using a few things from Scn. This includes the areas of straight DNs auditing (which existed previously as “Abreaction” techniques); some aspects of “Study Tech” without its fundamentalist approach, of course; TRs done in not robotic but natural ways; the “Success Through Communication” course; various “Assists” like the basic ones; the concept of “ARC” as explained and used on the chapter about it on the “Problems of Work” book; the basics of auditing as regards to the auditing comm cycle, but not so constricted and formal, necessarily; the concept of an “Auditor’s Code” as it relates to LISTENING, not evaluating for the patient, not invalidating, not being “directing”, the granting of beingness, etc; the concept of inspecting some difficult area of life and doing some “ITSA” about it under the controlled directions of a professional counselor; the concept of using “Two Way Communication” as a procedure to clarify things with others FOR them; etc, etc, etc.
I know of absolutely no valid logical arguments as to dismissing that which works only based on emotions, or on the fact that the “researcher” got a lot of things wrong. That he got a lot of things wrong, can’t be necessarily be interpreted that he got EVERYTHING wrong. That would actually be a form of logical fallacy to think that. So EVERYTHING must be evaluated on its own right, independently of previous evaluations of previously found unfounded and unproven claims. And that IS what honest research is all about; about being unbiased and emotionally detached about knowledge.
Exactly.
Truly spot on!
Thetaclear, I think that indies are, unfortunately, almost by nature and self-selection people who have no real interest in doing any science.
If you haven’t seen it before, my cocktail napkin calculation is that it would take about 20 people working for a decade with a budget of $10 million to make significant inroads on doing the sort of research that Hubbard should have done (and implied, that he did). The CofS could afford that, and at some very late stage in the game, such as under largely external management, might even attempt it – I found that the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation still seems to exist as a corporate entity, though it’s probably with good reason that there’s never been any serious attempt to put it to work. It’s daunting, but the indies could make some progress if they had a mind to, perhaps finding academic partners or patrons for research into at least some of the basics.
My guess is that research would show that Hubbard’s processes have been “juiced” with hypnotic and suggestive techniques that produce impressive-seeming results for some, but that proper research would show have adverse affects in a significant number of cases, and so couldn’t ethically be put into use (the same problem that dooms a lot of pharmaceuticals that show promising initial results). And I suspect that Hubbard was perceptive enough to know that, but in his ends-justifies-the means thinking and philosophy, thought it acceptable to risk leaving some people worse off in the quest to make the able more able.
Speaking of indie efforts, I think that Sarge Gerbode’s attempt to create a scientifically and therapeutically acceptable practice in Traumatic Incident Reduction (TIR), financed by his ample inheritance, shows that the likely outcome of real scientific research would be a rejection of so much of Hubbard’s material that it left little but basics and original sources, and so diverges from what Hubbard did with Dianetics and Scientology, that it becomes virtually unrecognizable.
And if straight DN auditing is to be recognized as really just more or less the original abreactive therapy, then I think you also have to consider that basic “listening” is also really just Rogers’ original unconditional positive regard based client-centered therapy. Similarly, I think you’d find that most things you’ve cited that work, have precedents prior to Hubbard, such as in interpersonal communication theory (see, for instance, the work of the Palo Alto group in the 50s and 60s, and the prior work of some of its principals, such as Bateson’s linguistic and anthropological work in the 30s and 40s – during the period he was married to Margaret Mead; Rogers’ work is also foundational to modern communication theory).
The problem I see with pointing out that Hubbard may have gotten right some things that could be gleaned, its that it’s along the lines of saying that a stopped clock is right twice a day – what’s the point, if it’s little than any better than random; and why not go with something with a more proven and known level of reliability, even if its theoretical claims are not as grand and seductive?
Maybe Jonnie Goodboy Tyler can come to the rescue.
“Maybe Jonnie Goodboy Tyler can come to the rescue.”
Well, now would be the perfect time. Jonnie did said at the end when he turned down all the offers for administrative positions, to call him back into action if other “invaders” showed up again on Earth. LRH said that the “5th Invader Force” was already being “born” back in the ’60s, and they would want to deal with whoever imprisoned “Xemu” (or is it “Xenu”, haha). And in the class 8 lectures, LRH said that the “eternal batteries” which kept “Xemu” imprisoned in a sort of catatonic state, would probably last 75 millions years. Well, time is up and he might wake up to take revenge against the “Loyal Officer” (LRH, of course) that trapped him inside the mountain. So we need Jonnie again and ASAP!!!!
He’s staying at my ranch in Wyoming. I’ll give him a holler.
Are you reading this, Andy Nolch? I sure hope so.
“Thetaclear, I think that indies are, unfortunately, almost by nature and self-selection people who have no real interest in doing any science.”
I agree with that fully!
“If you haven’t seen it before, my cocktail napkin calculation is that it would take about 20 people working for a decade with a budget of $10 million to make significant inroads on doing the sort of research that Hubbard should have done (and implied, that he did)”
I am not sure that I agree with your estimation of effort, but it certainly takes time and money. But I don’t think that to such a degree.
“The CofS could afford that, and at some very late stage in the game, such as under largely external management, might even attempt it – I found that the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation still seems to exist as a corporate entity, though it’s probably with good reason that there’s never been any serious attempt to put it to work. It’s daunting, but the indies could make some progress if they had a mind to, perhaps finding academic partners or patrons for research into at least some of the basics.”
By its own cultic nature, I don’t think that the CofS would support any research initiative. But some Indies might. But a good start would simply be to get rid of all the suppressive and harmful policies, and forgetting about unsupported claims and exaggerated “EPs”. But as almost every technical issue is sprinkled with falsities and mere generalizations, the effort to rewrite Scn would be just too enormous to be worth doing it. New people exposed to it, should just discard it altogether. But old-timers trained in “Critical Thinking” and who have freed themselves of the undue influence and thought reform, can safely play with what works for them, IMHO.
“My guess is that research would show that Hubbard’s processes have been ‘juiced’ with hypnotic and suggestive techniques that produce impressive-seeming results for some, but that proper research would show have adverse affects in a significant number of cases, and so couldn’t ethically be put into use (the same problem that dooms a lot of pharmaceuticals that show promising initial results).”
I fully agree with that as regards to quite a few procedures, especially the OT levels.
Regarding those sources/individuals that you mentioned that worked on those subjects where I find Scn workable enough, yes, I am aware of some of them, as well as I am aware that a lot of research had already been done in such areas. But one might not necessarily find some of such researches in easy-to-understand, easy-to-use ways as it is found in Scn.
“The problem I see with pointing out that Hubbard may have gotten right some things that could be gleaned, its that it’s along the lines of saying that a stopped clock is right twice a day – what’s the point, if it’s little than any better than random; and why not go with something with a more proven and known level of reliability, even if its theoretical claims are not as grand and seductive?”
In fully agree with that, and in fact, that’s exactly what I have been doing for the past 3 years or a little less. My basic argument – just to clarify it in case it was misinterpreted – wasn’t that Scn is a good subject to study and apply if one is new to the subject. In fact, my advice for people new to Scn is to STAY the hell away from it, haha. I was mostly referring to old-timers trained auditors who have already freed themselves of the undue influence, thought reform, indoctrinations, conditionings, etc, and who can therefore, accept and reject at will whatever from Scn based on their own independent evaluation of each process/procedure as regards to its workability or lack thereof. I fall in this last category and therefore, I can safely apply Scn to others without any harm to them. The common sense, simple principles at least, like the ones that I mentioned in one of my posts.
But to recommend Scn to others as such? No, I am afraid that that’s a no, no with me, unless I am the one applying it to them or someone I trust it with, which as of today, I haven’t met yet.
More brilliance fro Thetaclear.
“More brilliance fro Thetaclear.”
🙂
None of the working aspects of Scientology can be attributed to Scientology. If you are counseling people using what you think works…to improve their mental health, perhaps consider the law with regard to practising medicine without a license?
As for “study tech”…didn’t you go through the 2nd – 4th grades in school? 2nd grade starts with learning how to spell basic words then you progress to ‘vocabulary’ words through fourth grade. Every subject you study in school provides the lexicon of that subject so the student can be informed and understand what they’re learning. You don’t teach a man to fish if he doesn’t know what a “fish” is.
These ex-Scientologists who hang on to “what works”…sheesh people – go clear the definition of brainwashed.
“None of the working aspects of Scientology can be attributed to Scientology.”
That’s a generalization not supported by previous premises. Using words like “none” would indicate that, A) You have studied EVERY process and or procedure from Scn, and B) That you have researched ALL of A as compared to similar previous approaches and technologies, and thus was able to establish what you asserted. Now have you done that, Mr “know best”? If not, your “argument” is very weak to say the least. Btw, I HAVE studied most of Scn, and I have also studied its antecedents, both the ones that LRH mentioned in his earlier books, and the ones that he conveniently kept quiet about. So I did my homework, did you do yours?
“If you are counseling people using what you think works…to improve their mental health, perhaps consider the law with regard to practising medicine without a license?”
What a bunch of horse shit indeed! In the first place, I am not using what I “think” works, but what HAVE ACTUALLY brought about improvement in others. And since you were not there, Mr know best, then how the fuck can you possibly know what I have been able to do or not? Do you have anything smart to say on this thread, or are you just being a happy troll? 😉 I do not expect for you to agree with me, of course, but I DO expect smart replies supported by sound logical premises, and not an emotional parade as a pretense of how “smart” you are. You are obviously not.
And as to your silly comment regarding “practicing medicine without a license”, the dozens of individuals and families that I have helped over the years, have ABSOLUTELY no complaints about my credentials. And most of them are grateful enough that they became my friends. So stop making assumptions about the ones you don’t even know.
“As for “study tech”…didn’t you go through the 2nd – 4th grades in school? 2nd grade starts with learning how to spell basic words then you progress to ‘vocabulary’ words through fourth grade. Every subject you study in school provides the lexicon of that subject so the student can be informed and understand what they’re learning. You don’t teach a man to fish if he doesn’t know what a “fish” is.
Just another stupid comment from a self-righteous know best. I am not going to even waste my time on a low IQ “argument” like that, 😉 You clearly have ABSOLUTELY no clue what the fuck you are talking about. And I am too busy to teach you, 🙂
“These ex-Scientologists who hang on to “what works”…sheesh people – go clear the definition of brainwashed.”
Why don’t you go and clear the definition of “critical thinking”? Perhaps you might even become smarter. Who knows, I still believe in miracles, haha.
Hubbard wrote “what is true for you is true for you” but I don’t think he intended that as an invitation to query or refute or attempt to verify the veracity of his processes objectively. It’s a rather soothing statement especially for those who are tired of having their observations invalidated in life. Especially if they are embarking on a Scientological journey for the first time. “what is true for you is true for you” was a “come on” that hooked a lot of people in the 60’s who were already pushing back on a lot of conservative conventions, both sociologically and in academia. It worked on my mother who, at the time had a recent Phd in Psychology and also a Phd in “lets buck the system”. So she liked Hubbard in that he showed the picture of “ongoing research model” as something she could relate to and perhaps even contribute to. (After all she was a “social scientist”) But after coming face to face with the iron fisted guardians of the tech and it’s closed – end research line, she determined that Hubbard was just trying to strong arm everyone and grab a few bucks in the process. At the time I was a Kool-Aid drinking fan of Hubbard and my relationship with my mother faded the more I viewed her as a “squirrel” with evil intentions towards the only “workable” system. I lost 20 years of good relations and enjoyment of her as a person because my Scientology bias portrayed her as the enemy. Now she is dead and I can’t make up the time. It’s all lost. Sorry I got off track here. I keep trying to heal the hole in my heart that was torn open when I used Hubbard’s cruel policy against my own family. It’s why I’m appreciative of your efforts Mike, and Leah. It’s why I am speaking out in the most brazen language at times because there are no words to express the depth of loss at the hands of the Scientology Hate group. If you are a Scientologist you are a member of a the group against Hubbards imagined enemies. Take your life back.
(should read: “If you are a Scientologist you are a member of a hate group against Hubbards imagined enemies.” )
Yes. Try rationalizing how psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, author of Man’s Search For Meaning (a fantastic book about his experience as a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp) is a suppressive person and you’ll realize that Scientologists are fighting a non-existent enemy called the psychs invented by L. Ron Hubbard.
Frankl was brilliant. One of his quotations is an email “signature” in certain thoughts I put out.
“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” (Viktor Frankl, concentration camp survivor)
Hubbard definitely not wish us to choose our own ways….only his. And just look at where *that* took him!
Yes. No one man has all the answers. Assuming the role of ‘source’ is presumptuous to say the least.
When I completed my twin on Class/Grade 0, he joined the Sea Org while he was in the middle of auditing me on my Grade 0. There are policies about abandoning a preclear in the middle of a major auditing cycle, which I pointed out in my not-a-knowledge-report about being abandoned. My twin was gone so fast, I wondered if I really had successfully audited his Grade 0 since he obviously still had problems with communication. The Sea Org recruiters told me there were “S.O. policies” which “superceded” my “nattering” about “being abandoned.” They refused to show me these policies because I was “not S.O.”
Against my better judgment I wrote a Knowledge Report on my erstwhile twin and the Sea Org recruiters and the Case Supervisor: my twin for abandoning me against policy, the recruiters for their hidden data line and refusal to show policy, and the Case Supervisor for allowing my twin to attest to Grade 0 when he obviously still couldn’t communicate.
I say “against my better judgment” because I had just completed a miserable, month-long ethics cycle for nattering on my success story for Method One word clearing. But, I was becoming aware that pointing out LRH policy in KRs was a surefire route to punishment—for the person who had dared to point out the off-policy actions of others. Especially Sea Org recruiters and Case Supervisors. Of course, I was put in Lower Conditions for daring to claim that the Sea Org had a Hidden Data Line, never mind the effrontery of questioning a Case Supervisor’s technical skills.
That was the second-to-last ethics cycle I endured before finally checking out of Scientology. The realization that “hidden data lines” existed throughout Scientology was a major factor in convincing me to blow.
Good for you. LRH once said words to the effect of “auditing is what you can get away with.” I would extend that to policy as well. I observed through my Scientology experience, that the more senior the person, the more that person’s choice of policy stuck, or they just enforced things with “ethics presence.” Once I finally saw through the charade, I was out of there lickety-split.
“… he concealed the totality of his ‘research.’ And thus, created the biggest hidden data line in all of Scientology. In doing so, he robbed people of the opportunity to make their own deductions based on a complete history of the facts.”
Yep, there is no developed field of $cn research, or 2nd gen $cn researchers making new discoveries, or peer-reviewed academic journals, or anything else even remotely like what you’d expect to see in a well-developed field of scientific research. That’s because Elron delusionally imagined that he had no peers and could invent valid objective facts merely by pulling them from out his ample ass, while constantly morphing the con and moving on to new locales in order to stay one step ahead of the law.
He forever cemented his assertions as immutable Laws of the Universe by getting $cn true believers to pledge loyalty to the cult above all else and to never disagree, question or doubt his pronouncements, while accepting as irrefutable fact everything that he said as if it were received from on High.
That’s about as far from the scientific method as you can get — short of using chicken entrails to divine the future — but you can never voice that completely obvious observation as a $cilon without being sent to ethics for some very expensive sec checking to find out what hidden crimes that you’ve committed which have supposedly caused you to question The One True Faith.
Elron came up with a vast array of thought-stopping “stable datums” and “axioms” for $cilons to learn by heart. He came up with very effective repetitive drills to inactivate the prefrontal cortical regions of the brain which subserve critical reasoning and self-awareness. He also devised a whole array of truly Orwellian “forgetter implants,” like KSW, which led directly to the cult’s sec check thought police methods and ended up turning $cilons against themselves by fear-conditioning them into misidentifying with their $cn-created fake personna as if that was who they essentially are.
Once you’re split against yourself and have mistakenly come to believe that you’re some sort of god-like Oatee super being, then further dissociative splits of beingness and identity become possible, with the ultimate result being that these poor duped Oatees delusionally imagine that they’re possessed by legions of dead space alien spirits which must all be exorcised in order for them to attain their Eternity.
Unfortunately for every true believer $cilon, Elron’s self-proclaimed “taped path out of the trap” turned out instead to be a descent into the exact same kind of very serious mental illness that Elron suffered from in his final years. I’d pay money NOT to have the kind of “case” that he had prior to his demise.
Exactly!
Great essay Terra. Thank you for the insights. I look forward to your views! Your analysis benifits us all. Thank you!!
This is what popped up to give a possible to explanation as to why Ron actually intended to keep his sources “hidden.” It’s part of his knowledge of control and group manipulation. I think it’s important to repeat, again and again, this below writing of Altitude Instruction which reveals Ron knew what he was doing regarding psycho manipulation of Scientologists.
Terra says:
“Every time LRH sat down in front of a typewriter or opened his mouth at a “congress” he created a hidden data line. Because, rarely if ever, did he disclose how he’d arrived at his theories or come up with his techniques.”
Ron actually states in his writing Altitude Instruction that this IS a technique of control. Ron was no dummy. He knew what he was doing. He relied on the hidden data line to control. He states it himself. Anyone who can believe that all critics are criminals or that all psyches are from their home planet of Farsec has been psycho manipulated.
How can anyone research the truth of such assertions??
The below writing is revelation of Ron’s conscious knowledge of this technique.
ALTITUDE INSTRUCTION BY L RON HUBBARD
“In altitude teaching, somebody is a ‘great authority.’ He is probably teaching some subject that is far more complex than it should be.
(This one paragraph below says it all. Brian)
He has become defensive down through the years, and this is a sort of protective coating that he puts up, along with the idea that the subject will always be a little better known by him than by anybody else and that there are things to know in this subject which he really wouldn’t let anybody else in on.
This is altitude instruction … It keeps people in a state of confusion, and when their minds are slightly confused they are in a hypnotic trance. Anytime anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude. There are ways to create and lower the altitude of the subject, but if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject the same way, he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as hypnotic suggestion.”
(Hubbard, Research & Discovery, volume 4, page 324)
Ron was a master psycho manipulator who believed in the imaginary stories his subconscious mind hap hazardly, through A=A free association, fed him through needle reactions.
The power of the Wizard of Oz was that he was hidden behind the curtain; the hidden data line.
Once the curtain is pulled back, seeing Ron as he is, the mystique and cult of personality come crashing down. No more hidden data line. The true nature of the Wizard is then revealed as a fraud.
The hidden data line was Ron’s conscious technique of control per his own writing of Altitude Instruction.
Brian (Legacy ASC member since 1982)
Maybe we should print a tee shirt “Proud ASC Alumni” and change Marty’s thought stopping denigrating intentions for this term and redefine it in the positive.
Marty’s creation of this passive aggressive term which generalizes an entire group of people as having the same traits (definition of bigotry) is the same as Ron’s elitist arrogant term “wog.”
https://www.mikerindersblog.org/l-ron-hubbard-messiah-or-hypnotic-operator/
Why the word “fraud” is not simply an emotional “ASC” assertion:
Total freedom was the original OT 8 definition. It was promoted, or strongly implied, as already been attained by Ron. After all, how can someone bring anyone to a state of awareness that they do not have.
So he advertised total freedom and stable exterior with full perception; total spiritual freedom.
AND
At the end of life Ron was a loon. He was not free even though he sold us that Scientology WILL make us free through standard tech.
That is what I mean by fraud. I back it up with truth.
The list of fraudulent claims are legendary. So when I use the term fraud it is not an emotionally based assertion.
It is based in historical fact. He was a fraud.
Nailed it Brian! “The power of the Wizard of Oz was that he was hidden behind the curtain; the hidden data line.Once the curtain is pulled back, seeing Ron as he is, the mystique and cult of personality come crashing down. No more hidden data line. The true nature of the Wizard is then revealed as a fraud.”
Brian, I think that’s a pretty insightful connection of Hubbard’s hidden data line (or, hidden failing, for anyone who might find something like that a more apt and accurate term) with respect to his non-existent research, to what he acknowledged as the control technique of “altitude instruction.”
As an insider (not OSA – Mike Rinder was OSA for more than 20 years!) I want to state that I don’t agree with anything on this blog. It is dishonest and hype.
Wow, you truly are the king (or queen) of generalities. Working for OSA perhaps?
So I assume you are saying that you are a regular Scientologist? Or do you mean “insider” as in management or something? Either way I’d like to say, welcome. I am glad you are reading things that may not coincide with what you personally believe. But to really know what we believe and why, we need to know all sides. And the fact that you disagree, well that’s ok. Everyone has different opinions and is allowed to voice them.
However, I don’t understand how what Terra has written is “dishonest?” She has simply stated that LRH never disclosed research for his claims. Is this untrue? Have you seen any research that Mr. Hubbard performed? Have you seen any scientific proof regarding anything he has claimed? I’m not trying to be rude, I genuinely would love to know why you believe this article is dishonest?
On this blog in general, or this specific post?
Because I’m not sure how you could possibly sit in judgment of someone’s subjective experience as being “dishonest”. Nor do I think people sharing incredibly personal and often self-incriminatory information about themselves counts as “hype”.
Welcome BMH, please be a little bit more specific in telling us what you believe is dishonest on this blog.
We may disagree with you on making things about $cientology, but that doesn’t make us dishonest, does it?
I wouldn’t want you to get in trouble with your EO by coming here, but you know all about that concern much better than I, so can you please tell us what brought you here despite that risk?
Do you worry that if you don’t express your disapproval that, if it comes up during your next sec check, you’d have to ‘fess up and maybe get in trouble? Many folks feel that same fear and end up stifling their own inner voice for fear of being punished for having bad thoughts. Do you have that same fear?
Your thoughts aren’t bad, but they are private and no one should make you afraid of thinking exactly what you please. If you can’t be free in your own mind, then wherever could you be free? Think about that assertion for a moment, and then you tell me if it isn’t as true as true can be!
Sentence 2: Change “making” to “many”.
Praying for your release from bondage and lies. Remember back to when you first started SCN and that feeling in the pit of your stomach that something wasn’t quite right? If you started out as a kid…that moment when you wondered what in the world were your parents thinking?
Go with that. The truth is there.
Terra, I’m voting this your best essay to date. The fact that there is no “research” behind dianetics and scientology should put an end to any notion that these subjects are valid and anything other than a world class con. But there will always be apologists who are able to get 100% results 100% of the time with this 100% workable “tech”. Except when they don’t.
No scientologist in their right mind would dare ask for evidence of the “research “. To do so would lead to the ethics handling from hell. I think this is why the OSA net nannies who read this blog are able to carry on with their heads in the sand. Any semblance of curiosity and sense of inquiry has been extinguished in them long ago. This is a sad state of affairs in any human being.
Well said and true!
Yes…those who participated in the early, sketchy “research”, are long dead and gone. Even those who sued Hubbard for stealing their research and publishing prematurely are gone. Once the Dianetics scam took flight, there was no need for any more “research”…his target market was hooked.
Martin Gardner’s book, “Fads and Fallacies In the Name of Science”, 1952, 1957 Dover Publications, is so worthy to read.
From his book:
p 11 “….a certain degree of dogma—of pig-headed orthodoxy—is both necessary and desirable for the health of science. It forces the scientist with a novel view to mass considerable evidence before his theory can be seriously entertained…..”
On why cranks can’t get their new views seriously considered, Gardner lays out crank/quack’s failings:
a) the crank/quack is normally isolated from the mainstream science group
b) the crank works in isolation
c) the crank doesn’t send their findings to recognized journals,
d) the crank isn’t well enough informed to submit a paper with “even the surface resemblance to a significant study…”
e) the crank finds himself excluded from journals and societies.
f) the crank is almost universally ignored by the field (“…the reputable scientist does not even know of the crank’s existence unless his work is given widespread publicity through non-academic channels…”)
g) “The eccentric is forced, therefore, to tread a lonely way.”
h) “He speaks before organizations he himself has founded.”
g) “….[He/the quack] contributes to journals he himself may edit….”
h) “….[the quack] publishes books only when he or is followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed privately…..”
On and on, it goes.
Hubbard fits the crank/quack like a T.
I think academia is so underedcuated themselves, of the long evolution of the quack Scientology, from its quack roots.
Someone from OSA with access to the whole long history of Guardian’s Office “evaluations” and strategies, ought to leak all the old “religion” angle “evals” and do a Pentagon Papers massive leaking of Scientology’s today OSA files!
The evolution of this quack crackpot practice could use some Kathy O’Gorman level massive leaking of the OSA history files.
Lynn Farney and Kathy O’Gorman ought to leak the whole trove of OSA stuff somehow. And then come out and write the full history.
Chuck,
Thank you for that reference! That’s very interesting and an apt comparison, especially in the realm of academia seeing it. It seems some of the Scio-apologists in that realm (if they hold that opinion based on their own judgment and not thanks to $ or undue-influence) fail to see the scrutiny to which LRH & Scientology placed itself by positioning itself as a SCIENCE of the mind.
The religious studies crowd groups it with all other belief systems, missing the point that the original intent was NOT to be a religion at all, but to be considered a science. Without that foundational understanding, they assign it the designation of faith-based. Though many of us get that it requires faith because it is NOT a true science, the academics failing to research its origins & history are likely also WHY they become apologists because it’s that very origin that taints the “religion” angle since it’s documented and proven that was a mere tax dodge!
PS – I LOVE the idea of a dox-leak! That would be incredible for so many reasons and would definitely provide whomever did it with a soft landing outside the cult, if they’re worried about what to do for a living outside! 😉
Chuck, I love that you quoted Martin Gardner in “Fads, Fallacies in the Name of Science.” Having joined the cult in my late teens, I was still one who respected authority and if you stated your truth emphatically my peaceable self was likely to accept it rather than question it.
I actually found the questioners rude and didn’t pay much attention to them. Being polite and getting along were important to me as was being liked and admired. Goes to show you how helpful those traits are when Fads and Fallacies rear their ugly lying heads. Not very.
I had not seen these A to H points before and I love them.
Very learned comment you have contributed to the conversation today.
Chuck, thanks for that reminder from Gardner, who wrote a true classic that is still relevant today.
Gardner’s book is itself a reminder that there was all variety of quackery, pseudoscience, and spiritualism for profit, mostly now forgotten, that preceded Hubbard – much of which he probably drew upon as inspiration and even source material.
It’s interesting in retrospect, reading about the hidden data line, as if everything in Scientology were an open book. Yet, despite all his talk, L. Ron Hubbard was about the most elusive character of all, living his life in hiding in his later years, always taking well thought out and orchestrated steps to keep the law off his tail, as well as concealing the fact that he was behind the Guardian’s Office fiasco in the seventies, resulting in the indictment of eleven of its members, including Mary Sue Hubbard, his wife. This is the stuff of which cognitive dissonance is made.
Sigh … again, feel the need to comment …
“He reinforced this code with his famous line, “If it isn’t written, it isn’t true.” Not only does this mean that everything he wrote is true, it infers that if he didn’t write it, it doesn’t exist.”
You are misreading this statement. “If it isn’t written, it isn’t true” refers to the hidden data line, your post’s title. That statement isn’t referring to whether or not there is truth in what is LRH said, only that if it is written, then it is true that LRH ‘said’ it. If it is not written, then ignore it.
“Every time LRH sat down in front of a typewriter or opened his mouth at a “congress” he created a hidden data line. Because, rarely if ever, did he disclose how he’d arrived at his theories or come up with his techniques. Never did he present credible research. Since no man was his equal, peer reviews were pointless. Virtually everything he wrote was steeped in hidden data.”
You misunderstood what ‘hidden data line’ actually means. That he never publically published any research is not a ‘hidden data line’, there is no ‘line’ involved. And, you have no basis to state that the data was ‘hidden’, you don’t know that, maybe it was available to any who wanted to see it, you don’t know, do you?
“In Keeping Scientology Working, for instance, he wrote, “We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise about the bank.” The last thing he wanted was people speculating; asking questions; delving into his methods or wondering how he figured it all out.”
The answer to that is on the Class VIII tape number 10.
“It’s that he concealed the totality of his “research.” And thus, created the biggest hidden data line in all of Scientology.”
Again, how can you state “… he concealed the totality of his research.”? Do you have your own ‘hidden data line’ on that, if so, please enlighten me.
“One of the biggest farces in Scientology is that “there is no hidden data line.” Like with all cults, the entire organization is built on a mountain of hidden data. Keeping the full story from followers is paramount.”
You’re A=A on ‘hidden data line’; and ‘hidden data’ is very telling.
Oh, and as an aside, the entire SHSBC is available to any who want it, and in the SHSBC you’ll see a very great deal of his research. Did you do the SHSBC?
Please provide documentation or links.
Of what?
Hubbard’s actual research on anything.
Thank you again Bob. You saved me a lot of writing as I noticed.almost all of.the points you mentioned. It must be tiring to have to continually correct the illogic of others.
Thanks. I think it is more misunderstanding or just plain not knowing, than illogic, but that pops up in some comments as well.
“You misunderstood what ‘hidden data line’ actually means. That he never publicly published any research is not a ‘hidden data line’, there is no ‘line’ involved. And, you have no basis to state that the data was ‘hidden’, you don’t know that, maybe it was available to any who wanted to see it, you don’t know, do you?”
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how twisted and perverted Scientologists’ critical thinking process is. They spit out all kinds of logical fallacies (unreasonable arguments, basically) to “support” something that just CAN’T be supported by logic, nor even by just plain common sense, for lack of any training in “Critical Thinking”.
Bog G, it is the NORMAL and EXPECTED modus operandi from ANY serious and honest researcher to SHOW to others all his/her research records for others to check it out, verify, and analyze using formal critical thinking procedures and scientific methodology. You are YOURSELF committing a SERIOUS critical thinking error in your OWN “supporting” argument when you say :
“And, you have no basis to state that the data was ‘hidden’, you don’t know that, maybe it was available to any who wanted to see it, you don’t know, do you?”
“May be….. blah, blah…”? Bog G the OPERATIONAL rule with Scn is “If it isn’t written it is not true”, meaning that those alleged records of “research” SHOULD have been,
A ) Widely available for others to see, and
B) In WRITTEN form.
But neither A nor B has EVER been the case. By LRH’s OWN admission, “There ISN’T any hidden data line”, meaning that EVERYTHING he did was available for EVERYONE to see with the exception of upper level material that one would only see after one was “ready” for it. But even on that “special” case, one would have ALL the available information about it when one reached that level.
There were also information that allegedly was available only to C/Ses, like for example additional data from OT3 that even though is not to be found in the OT3 materials themselves, CAN be found on the class 8 course and lectures. And EVERYTHING from Scn has either already been leaked out or WIDELY discussed by trained terminals who left the CofS. So we have EVERYTHING out here in one way or another.
About the ONLY thing that LRH wrote that could be considered as “research”, was his personally written C/Ses for the class 8 course and his “Psychotic cases research” that led to what is known today as the Ls Rundowns. And that “research” was basically the records kept of LRH’s own daily C/S instructions of just a FEW cases, perhaps no more than 6-8 of them total. And a few cases can’t possibly be considered as “research”. That one says that one “researched” something, means ABSOLUTELY nothing if the ACTUAL records of it is are not available and shown.
The SHSBC is NOT a record of “research” in any way, shape or form, as you alleged it was. I’ve listened to ALL of them myself, many even 2-3x several of them, including all the written materials for the course, which include SHSBC lectures that were confidential in nature as they discussed the R6 bank that is allegedly dealt with with R6EW and what later became OT2 (The R6 implants, etc). What LRH DOES discuss in the BC is how he is changing his approaches to GPM handling for various reasons that he talks about, and he also uses his lectures to immediately inform his BC students of the new available techniques AS he was coming up with them in an alleged “research” that he was “doing”.
Now, if telling others that one had come with this or that “new technique”, or that one had changed this or that approach, after the alleged “research” that one has done, (without ACTUALLY getting into the DETAILS of the “research” itself), is to be considered as “records” and “proof”, then your mind has been more affected by Scn than I thought.
Do yourself a favor, would you; read and get trained in “Critical Thinking”. There are a LOT of great books available on that, and you can even find many great YouTube free videos to get you started. This is not meant as a criticism. This is an actual honest advice.
You are off topic, critical thinker. I was commenting on the ‘hidden data line’, not whether or not LRH did any proper research.
“You are off topic, critical thinker. I was commenting on the ‘hidden data line’, not whether or not LRH did any proper research.”
Well Bob G, it certainly sounded like you did. I understand to what you referred to when you made the comment about the ‘hidden data line’, but I feel that you misinterpreted Terra Cognita. You see, the concept behind the “There is no hidden data line” idea, is to make clear for others that everything that LRH ever did regarding Scn and its development was widely available to everyone, no exceptions allowed, except the upper level stuff, but only until the individual was case-wise ready to receive that information.
Even thought that LRH was talking about the techniques themselves and the theory behind it when he discussed the “hidden data line”, and not necessarily about the alleged “research” data that led to the “Tech”, the lack of research records DOES function in a way as “hidden data line” of some sort, because it allow others to “wonder” about it. They might feel that there is something that LRH is holding and not talking about it, and suddenly you have people making all kind of assumptions as to why he didn’t make those records available. And he would not have wanted that to occur, or would he?
Besides Bob, this comment of yours is a logical fallacy :
“…..And, you have no basis to state that the data was ‘hidden’, you don’t know that, maybe it was available to any who wanted to see it, you don’t know, do you?”
Per the same Scn operational principle, “If it isn’t written, it isn’t true”, if those “records” were available to anyone asking to see them, there WOULD BE a WRITTEN statement concerning that. Not only that, but instances where others had asked to see such records and got to see them, would have been known by now after so many years that Scn has existed. And this complaint about “no existing records” is one of the key points where Scn has always been intensely criticized.
So it is VERY logical to assume that if such records in fact existed, DM would have them widely available, even if only for trained auditors, as THE most excellent “Dead Agent” strategy to shut up the critics, don’t you think so? Just the fact that the existence of such records has not been even hinted at by ANYONE in the CofS, should be adequate evidence that they simply DON’T exist. Even if this is not a totally “deductive” conclusion (explicitly derived from known facts), it certainly IS a sound inductive one (derived from logical possibilities, and the most plausible scenarios).
What is a more plausible scenario, Bob G, that those records do exist but that they have never been made public and that there isn’t not even ONE single witness who has ever seen them, or that they in fact, don’t exist? Your answer to that will demonstrate your command of “Critical Thinking”, 🙂
Best regards,
“Mr Critical Thinker” 😉
Well, I see that we agree on the basic understanding and genus of the phrase.
That any research records LRH did keep are not made public is another issue entirely and is not a ‘hidden data line’, and unless persons are stating that they ‘know’ what LRH did, and why, and what he meant, and there is nothing in writing or in tapes or videos to support the claim, that is a hidden data line, that’s the entirely of what it means in Scientology or the CofS
If people want to read more into it than what was originally intended, fine, but don’t then state that is what it means when used by LRH or the CofS or Scientologists in general. To attempt to saddle them with the alteration is dishonest.
I doubt if any Scientologist would ever ask to see the research records, they’d be sent to ethics on the spot and probably hung out to dry. As far as DM making them available if only to a few, it never will happen as it violates his purpose to destroy the subject and the organization. If there are any in existence, he’s probably had them declared out-tech and squirrel, and burned them, apparently he’s gotten pretty good at that kinda stuff.
Hello ThetaClear, very interestiing as usual your intervention. I wanted to add something to the subject.
First : yes there is no record of research. Hubbard doesnt follow the usual scientific procedure. Actually he meves with “knowingness”. So he just discard “know about”. He knows so when he says it’s right, it’s right… well this is not science by the book. Now after all, it can be accepted or at least why not. First you have to “Not Know” before to reach “knowingness”. It’s not so different to Einstein kind of research.
Anyway further in his “research line” he developped the Data Series. Quite clever I would say (I love it). In some of this writings he kind of wipe out is own ethics policies like in fact he didn’t own it at all, kind of barbaric viewpoint, which is now not in use for a while (in 1972).
Now my second point : one has to differentiate what is written by Hubbard and what is not (“source” or not). Well let’s take the worst and most criticized policy : disconnection.
In 1965 with his PTS tech, Hubbard say that when one is connected to an SP he can’t make case gain due to the counter intention of the antagonistic terminal. So the cure is “handle or disconnect”. So come the policy of disconnection. In 1968 Hubbard realize that it creates a lot of injustice. He cancel it and also abolish security checking. In RJ 68 he says publicly how sorry he is to have created that and that he doesnt want that scientology degenerate in witch hunt or become like inquisition. He says there is enough ill in this world without to add more suffering. And in the lecture he says that disconnection is canceled and sec check are abolished.
I started scientology in 1972. There was no disconnection at this time, and none was sec checked. I didn’t know anything about overt withold before I did my level 2 academy. I simply nerver wrote any OWs, this tech of writing OWs was considered completely out tech. To receive marriage counseling one was to have a CS53 to FNing list (often for free by a student like me, I was doing internship).
When in 1983 disconnection was reinstated i read the bulletin “PTS ness and disconnection”and I knew never ever Hubbard would have written such a bulletin. It was to some degree wiping out the state of scientology in 1980 and put it back in 1965. Back to middle age.
I was sure of that (“knowingness” ah!!!). And same for the fake Ron’s Journal. I coudn’t be more sure that RJ38 is false and a (bad) actor is playing Hubbard.
Now for disconnection please read point 29 of this affidavit of Vaughn Young,http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/aff_rvy97.html
Why would he lie on this point ?
Now my idea is simply before to criticize Hebbard’s tech (which is absolutely something to do to be able in fact to use it) … first make sure that it is really from Hubbard.
Hubbard fake writings have been forged by the management of Miscavige.
It some of you guys hate Hubbard and scientology you should worship Miscavige as he is the greatest ennemy ever ever of scientology.
You can believe what you want. But don’t let the facts get in your way in doing so.
RJ 38 was recorded by Hubbard on his specially set up system in his Bluebird motorhome. The people who were there at the time attest to it.
Disconnection was reinstated by Hubbard — he may have had Vaughn compile the issue, but it was at his express order. As was the idea of “excommunication” which was disconnection “for eternity” and worst of all the “High Crime” of “remaining connected to anyone declared suppressive by HCO.”
The “cancellation” of disconnection for the NZ Govt was a PR move. Like the cancellation of Fair Game. Nothing chnaged in the treatment of “SP’s”, it was done because the term caused bad public relations.
Believe these things or not. I know they are true from personal experience and reading a lot of things from Hubbard that most people never get to see — his “advices.”
“Hello ThetaClear, very interesting as usual your intervention. I wanted to add something to the subject.”
Thanks FG!
This time I won’t quote each of your paragraphs as I usually do, acknowledging and/or commenting on each one as I go along, because you basically covered two subjects and I don’t want this reply to be longer than needed. But basically, FG, you NEED to read first those two books that I told you about, especially the one from Janis Gillham Grady, one of the original 4 Commodore Messengers. The other one is from Jon Atack. I also highly recommend watching Chris Shelton’s videos on YouTube. Chris is excellent at presenting data from objective viewpoints and using the correct arguments and evidence to back up his assertions.
You REALLY need to read those so you can understand, FG, what I’ve been trying to tell you in numerous posts: LRH was NOT who you think he was. I don’t know how else to say it other than to tell you to READ those books. What Mike told you in his reply to you IS true, FG. Now whether you want or not to confront that truth is an entirely different issue. If you don’t read those books and if you don’t look at the evidence unbiasedly, then you are not helping yourself, IMHO.
LRH NEVER really cancelled “Disconnection”, and he NEVER stopped using and ordering “Fair Game” practices. You are misguided to think that he did. PLEASE, examine the evidence, and LISTEN to the people who was there with LRH. There is NO conspiracy here. DM IS following the steps of LRH, even if he is doing it in much more destructive ways. This ISN’T my opinion, FG, this is an already established FACT. You may not want to confront it, but that you don’t, is not going to make it less a fact. Your choice, my friend. I’ve been pointing in the right direction to look and get actual answers from. It is your decision to avail yourself with them or not.
Mike, ThetaClear, did you read the affidavit point 29 on the link I sent? Isnt that a fact? Vaughn says he wrote the policy of disconnection on the order of Miscavige and that Hubbard didn’t know about it.
So Vaughn Young was lying? Why would he do that? To protect Hubbard that he hated? He was malkng some statement to justice. I don’t see why he would lie. Concerning RJ 38 some people have analyzed the tape, result was with all differents analyses that it was not Hubbard speaking.
ThetaClear, it’s not about Hubbard caractere who had fascist trait, I’m not defending Hubbard. I just want point out some contrary fact.
Yes why would Vaughn lie ? ThetaClear, once you also said that you thought RJ 38 was faked.
Nothing on that does mean that Hubbard was not an autoritarian person.
You see it has nothing to do with me confronting Hubbard sins. I completely can confront that Hubbard was a bastered. I have never been an Hubbard worshipper. Just please really read this affidavit of Vaughn Young even if it contradict what you think is true.
ThetaClear I didn’t understand your tone with me. You just saw me as I am not. I’m a truth seeker not an Hubbard protector.
If it’s true what Vaughn says on the affidavit, it’s a weapon to end disconnection in the church, proving that it’s “off source”, but you think maybe that church members are proof to this kind of truth…
“You see it has nothing to do with me confronting Hubbard sins. I completely can confront that Hubbard was a bastard. I have never been an Hubbard worshipper. Just please really read this affidavit of Vaughn Young even if it contradict what you think is true.”
See my other reply to you on this, and see Mike’s reply as well. Vaughn Young’s affidavit is not necessarily in contradiction with my argument, FG. Actually, it is not.
“ThetaClear I didn’t understand your tone with me. You just saw me as I am not. I’m a truth seeker not an Hubbard protector.”
I know that, FG, and I am not sure to what “tone” are you referring to. Remember that I am opinionated “Aries” personality with also the well known “full of live emotions” attitude that we Hispanics have, haha. Watch Leah, and you will have a pretty accurate idea of how I am like, 🙂
Joke apart, I really have NO problem with you having good affinity for LRH, or for anybody for that matter. I also have absolutely no problem with you using whatever works for you from Scientology. What I only care about is about TRUTH and FACTs, that’s all.
“If it’s true what Vaughn says on the affidavit, it’s a weapon to end disconnection in the church, proving that it’s “off source”, but you think maybe that church members are proof to this kind of truth…”
As I said in my earlier reply to you, it really doesn’t matter whether the 1982 Disconnection policy was ordered by DM without LRH’s knowledge about it, or not – though I think that this ISN’T the case. See Mike’s reply on that. What DOES matter is the ACTIONS that actually HAPPENED after the RJ68, as analyzed and evaluated using reliable eyewitnesses testimonies. I mean, you have ONE testimony – that doesn’t even prove in any way, NOR SAYS, that LRH had ACTUALLY stopped using those practices – against DOZENS of testimonies from people who were actually there. Are you saying that disbelieving all those people is even sensible? I am sorry my friend, and I really mean no disrespect at all, but you are not making sense concerning your argument.
Yes I have read it. At the time Vaughn was trying to support legal claims to break the copyrights. You will notice I did not argue whether or not Vaughn wrote it. Or even whether Hubbard read what he wrote. What he did NOT say was that there were specific advices from Hubbard on what to write and that this policy had to be issued. That was not needed to argue that it was not a valid copyright. Pity Vaughn is no longer around as he would be the first to explain this to the people who try to assert this means Hubbard was not the one who wanted to double down on the policy of disconnection.
Like I said. Believe what you want that floats your boat.
I was there. I read the numerous dispatches from Hubbard. I know the people who set up the Hubbard voice recording rig in his Bluebird and the people who were there when he recorded RJ 38. There are no contrary facts in that RJ? What is it that makes you even think it’s fake?
Hi FG,
I understood what you was referring to, my friend, when you brought up Vaughn Young’s affidavit. And the reason that I urged you again to read those two books – especially the one from Janis Gillham Grady, one of the original Commodore Messengers who WAS with LRH daily for almost a decade, including the time AFTER the RJ68 where LRH had allegedly cancelled Disconnection and Fair Game as a practice – was because I wanted to to see for yourself what she have to say about it.
Now, you can start by listening to the 3 parts interview that Jeffrey Augustine did with Janis – which is easier (and faster) than reading the whole book – so you can have a quick overview of what was ACTUALLY (as opposed to purely PR propaganda) happening at that time regarding Disconnection and Fair Game, and about LRH’s support and even the orders he gave concerning that. Here is the link for part 1 of that interview. The other 2 parts, you’ll see the link for them on the details section below part 1 :
https://youtu.be/r2JugA-Wphs
Now FG, pay close attention of how CAREFUL Janis is with making generalizations or asserting anything that she did not directly witnessed. It’ll become very obvious to you that she is an honest and fair individual. Now, compare what she has to say about it with the claim that “LRH cancelled Disconnection and Fair Game practices, and that it was DM who really reinstated them, and had Vaughn Young to write the Disconnection policy ‘behind’ LRH’s back”.
You can also look at the evidence presented on Jon Atack’s book concerning all that, and you can ALSO read about several other eyewitnesses testimonies from people who were ACTUALLY there with LRH at the time. I have either read about all those testimonies or have had direct private communications with such individuals over the years, one of them being the daughter of one of LRH’s personal secretaries and whose family (one of them) had been put on the chain-locker as only a child around the time when LRH had allegedly “cancelled” his suppressive policies and methods.
I DID my homework, FG, as I EXPECT you to do yours.
The very odd thing is, my friend – and I only say this with the intention to get you to LOOK – that out of one isolated testimony (Vaughn Young’s) – that ACTUALLY is not necessarily in contradiction with LRH’s viewpoints and/or actions regarding Disconnection, even if we take as “true” that it was DM who ordered Young to write that policy – that you are arriving at conclusions without even having taken a look at the other sources that I am referring you to!! Does that really makes sense to you, my friend?
And Mike is also telling you that he was a witness of the dispatches that LRH wrote concerning the reinstatement of Disconnection. Personally, I have absolutely no reason to doubt Mike’s word, but on the contrary, I have every reason to trust him. But he himself does not like others to just take his word for it, which should become obvious if one follows his blog.
So you have many testimonies from several honest and fair individuals who are telling you, “Look, the Disconnection and Fair Game practices DID continued to happen after the RJ68 PR statements”, but you are ONLY concentrating on ONE single account which in actuality, is not even in contradiction with the fact that LRH had continued to use such practices. It is not what someone writes that is important, FG, but the ACTIONS that ACTUALLY happened that are.
I know – as you have said that time after time in this blog – that you blame DM for most things wrong with Scientology as an institution, and that, even though that you accept that LRH was an authoritarian and fascist on many of his approaches to knowledge, you somehow still thinks that it is DM the “cause” of all the debacle. Well, my friend, if you hold so strongly to that viewpoint – which is not actually supported by the known evidence – you are then only going to pay attention to the instances that “support” your theory – something call “Confirmation Bias” in the subject of “Critical Thinking”. But in doing so, you really never arrive at the truth of anything.
I understand that confronting truth is sometimes not an easy or comfortable thing to do, and more so, when one has believed in something for the most part of our lives. I know, because that’s EXACTLY what happened to me. But as that great philosophical statement says, “Truth will you free”, 🙂 So “Set you free” my friend!
Mike and ThetaClear. Regarding RJ38, why do I hold on the idea it’s not Hubbard ?
It was Christmas 1983, I knew nothing about nothing, no data at all. I listen to RJ38, brand new, and I was deeply ARC broken as I didn’t recognize Hubbard voice. I used to listen to many tapes, and it was not Hubbard. A firend of mine also had the same idea.
And many people who never talked together had this perception. And the tape was analyzed and it was false. Mike if what I say is true, it was highly confidential, you might have heard lies about it.
It doesnt mean anything about Hubbard viewpoint, it just mean that I cannot rule out that RJ 38 is a forgery.
And yes ThetaClear prior to 1982 it was fun to be a scientologist and I never saw anyone being declared around me.
After 1982 there was plenty of declare. So something occured, so by my own observation that was DM becoming the boss. And it was no longer scientology.
Now it doesnt mean anything about Hubbard.
Again : I am not defending Hubbard. I just say that Miscavige has altered scientology for the worst and ordered fake Hubbard issues.
Now if you don’t like Hubbard that’s another point. But if Miscavige didn’t take over, I bet you would still be doing scientology and have no particular problem with Hubbard.
Mike you left the church because of Miscavige suppressing you, not Hubbard.
You believe what you want FG.
You know your conclusions are just an opinion not based on any facts. And the facts I tell you you decide to ignore and say “it was really secret you probably didn’t know”
How many strokes had Hubbard by that time? 2 or 3? You don’t think that might have something to do with your perception of his voice?
Mindless RonBots wouldn’t be Ronbots if they could handle the truth…
ThetaClear I will read the interview. Your idea that one only take in account while researching what makes him right.
Well it rings a bell but there is somthing faulty on this idea, I can’t say really what…
“ThetaClear I will read the interview. Your idea that one only take in account while researching what makes him right. Well it rings a bell but there is somthing faulty on this idea, I can’t say really what…”
I got you, FG. Please, just watch those interviews and read those books. Then reevaluate everything in a new unit of time and decide for yourself what is what.
As regards to your other comment, that subject is called, “Confirmation Bias”. We all have them to some degree or another. Research the topic online. It is really very helpful to understand that concept.
As to DM, I don’t doubt that Scn got much, much worse after him. There is no denying that. But that is totally irrelevant to our original argument. My argument was, “Disconnection and Fair Game was never actually cancelled after RJ68”. And that’s a fact verified by numerous eyewitnesses testimonies. Now, whether or not you decide to believe in those testimonies, is totally up to you. In my case, I was 100% convinced.
As to whether or not I would still be practicing Scn if LRH was still alive and in charge, I had dozens and dozens of disagreements with LRH looooong before I even knew about DM’s stupidities. I was never the “KSW” type who blindly followed LRH, and that got me into more Ethics trouble that you can imagine. I always had my own mind about things, and my only error was in believing that LRH had been honest when he said that he had “researched” those things. He NEVER did. But I didn’t bother to check it out, even with an engineering background. It could be said that I never was really a Scientologist, only too trusting.
ThetaClear, I am interested, which part of the tech did you disagree with? I find easly outpoints on later than 82 tech. But not really in earlier one. I was not aware of outpoints. So I’m very interested in your finding.
But for exemple, I think that Pain and Sex is quite weird. And the whole Psychs/FPRD business. It doesn’t add up with Not’s which seems to be from different author. For Not’s we believe it was co-authored with David Mayo. We also know that Hubbard was half dead when Mayo went to audit him in 1978. I would say that in 1982 he really was in a very bad shape. How could he write all those bulletins and lists? But who could have developped FPRD? Ray Mithoff? RTRC?
Mayo in one bulletin on Trs describe Mithoff as a not so bright.
Lot’s of outpoints.
Earlier you have some contrary fact between some bulletins, I could write… on the subject as well…
Like HCOB Time and the TA (from 63) and Ned which says a chain should be run with minimum TA to prevent restim…
Are you not aware that the SHSBC is not on offer and hasn’t been for some time. Same deal with Class VIII training.
All the tapes and material are on the net, and in various other places. If you want them, you can get them. The SHSBC tapes have been zipped up and available, same with the Class VIII tapes. Good stuff!
I can still remember quite clearly what my cog was on OT3: “Jesus, this is Ron’s case!!!” Dial wide F/N, lasted for weeks. Not what I told the examiner, of course. And after completing through OTVII, I had no reason to doubt that OT3 cog!
It’s amazing you stayed after OT 3.
@Bob G I thought for quite a while before responding to your response. I left out all my snark and would just like to say that arrogance is not becoming on anyone and I do hope at some point you rethink your attitude. LRH had us all convinced we knew so much more because of scientology and we grew attitudes to match that conviction. They do not serve anyone well.
I did do SHSBC. What is in there is allusion and sleight of hand, lots of talking and no actual hard facts, and, much like DMSMH, reference to non existent research on non existent people with no backup documentation.
I have my reality based on what was done to me while I was in and who did it, you have yours. I have absolutely no desire to debate this with you and will not respond to any bait you throw out. I will not turn this into a never-ending back and forth with no resolution like some of the comment threads on this blog.
I would just like to suggest that perhaps you may be better served if you remove your cloak of arrogance.
Starting your comment with the word sigh was a guarantee to raise hackles. Civilized debate is nice, but arrogant statement of fact by someone who would not debate but continue to hold true to their hard line is not worth anyone’s time. IMHO, your initial opening set you up as one of those people: a blowhard know it all.
That is truly a shame, because it means fewer people are likely to read any of the rest of your comment.
Well said!
Well, the ‘sigh’ was more of a sign of frustration than anything else, at least that’s how I intended it.
Bob, your Class 8 expertise on the finer points of Hubbardism enables you to speak authoritatively on the subject in this forum, and to express your own views on all things scientological, while critiquing the written opinions of others — just like normal civil discourse and constructive debate takes place within traditional research field forums throughout the land. Everywhere, that is, except in the Co$, where what you’re writing here would land your verbal tech spewing ass in ethics just like that!
That’s so because in $cn there is NO legitimate, approved channels or accepted procedures for questioning, disagreeing with, elaborating on, or even informally discussing the tech among peers. That’s all expressly prohibited and you know as well as I that if we were in a cult course room right now, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. Instead, we’d be told to be quiet and directed to re-study our Elron materials so that we could “duplicate source,” or some other similarly thought-stopping bit of authoritarian nonsense.
What’s completely ironic about your support for the “pro-tech” position here is that we could never even have this discussion in the first place if you were Keeping $cn Working in the ways that Elron ordered every true believer $cilon to act. Good $cilons DO NOT talk about the tech, or their “cases”; they do not interpret the tech, question the tech, disagree with the tech or try to extend the tech. Indeed, you can’t really even BE a bonafide $cilon unless you follow these very strict rules regarding the tech.
So, Bob, you’re left in the bizarre and completely untenable position of arguing in support of cult doctrine in a way that is itself considered to be a high crime within the ‘faith,’ which completely cuts the legs right out from underneath you whenever you try to base your argument on your own individual interpretation of Elron’s infallible words. That’s because Elron very explicitly outlawed that sort of thing in the clearest tone possible in KSW and reinforced his prohibition on free thinking in dozens of other mind-controlling ways.
Time to get yourself all the way out of the cult, sir, before your “out, but still in” head explodes from the kind of extreme cognitive dissonance that results from arguing for an authoritarian, anti-free speech belief system on a free speech blog, and doing so in a way which would get you declared as an suppressive apostate within the very cult whose practices you are supporting! That’s just so fucking nuts that we’re left without words to fully express how completely mad that kind of behavior truly is.
Yeah, a lot of what you say is true; honest discussion within the CofS regarding the CofS is frowned upon, about the only subject allowed is talking about your ‘wins’, stuff like that.
Also, keep in mind there is a difference between the subject of ‘Scientology’, and the corrupt organizations that are charged with delivering the subject. The subject itself, ‘Scientology’ is personal and subjective, and I really won’t comment on anyone’s personal experience regarding it, no one is ‘wrong’ if they consider they suffered adverse effects.
But if I see someone pretending to be an ‘authority’ putting out false data, for any reason, I find that derails any honest discussion, which is why everyone is here, or so I believe. In this present post, the poster has a misunderstanding on what is meant by ‘hidden data line’ and is attempting to pass that misunderstanding onto everyone else who may not know what he is posting about.
Oh, another thing that would make a great post. The ‘cult’ is not the subject, Scientology, nor is it the members of the CofS, staff or public, generally speaking; the true ‘cult’ is the Sea Org itself.
Well, I have to take issue with your statement: The subject itself, ‘Scientology’ is personal and subjective
Not that scientology is not subjective. The problem comes in with the assertions that it is entirely “scientific” and is proven by scientific means. That it is the first and only “science of the mind” and has the only guaranteed answers to the problems of mankind. Check out the introduction to Fundamentals of Thought — you can look back to a post on this blog entitled Scientology: A Precise and Exact Science
This is L. Ron HUbbard speaking — not the “organization”
Scientology, used by the trained and untrained person, improves the health, intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of people.
It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact sciences.
Tens of thousands of case histories (reports on persons who have been processed, individual records) all sworn to (attested before public officials), are in the possession of the organizations of Scientology. No other subject on earth except physics and chemistry has had such gruelling testing (proofs, exact findings).
…
What Special Use Does Scientology Have?
Scientology does things for people where nothing has been done before. It restores people’s ability to handle conditions which were once considered hopeless. It increases their intelligence. It changes their competence and betters their behavior. In addition to these it brings them a better understanding of life.
A perfect example of L. Ron Hubbard’s attempt to position Scientology with science to persuade followers and future converts that he didn’t create the subject but discovered it, like Newton with the law of gravity. Hardly. I recall one lecture where he states that the comparison to science was a sop, as in something given to pacify or quiet. It never was and never will be scientific.
Well, what I was referring to was the application of Scientology and results of that application, they are personal and subjective.
But you attributed all the problems to the current church administration?
You don’t actually respond to the fact that L.Ron Hubbard did NOT SAY “the application of Scientology and results of that application, they are personal and subjective” — he said they are scientifically tested and proven??
Which is it? HUbbard’s version or your version?
Interesting,
Well, for sure my statement is true; whether or not you feel, or know, you made gains or not is subjective and personal, and if you consider the subject of value to you or not is also subjective and personal.
That you could demonstrate your gains to others, increased IQ, decreased response time, happier, etc. would be objective, and if done in a specific manner, scientific, I suppose.
If LRH did do testing to see if there was any change in as a result of his theories, then what he is saying is also true, but that doesn’t mean the results are not subjective or personal.
I don’t think it is a case of mutual exclusion. There is lots of science on how LSD works, but the LSD trip is entirely subjective. (looking forward to read how others here turn that comment back on me.)
“But you attributed all the problems to the current church administration?”
No, not solely. The CofS operates of LRH policy, so what they are doing in most instances is following that policy. Yes, those who actually do it are primarily responsible, but underneath it all are the PLs.
Bob, I often describe the SO as being the “cult within the cult,” so I’m with you there.
Does that make it occult?
Bob G. lied, “The subject itself, ‘Scientology’ is personal and subjective, ”
No! The E.P.s listed for most major actions are OBJECTIVE. One can either DEMONSTRATE them in the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE or they didn’t get the E.P.
Are you as a “class 8” really that stupid or just completely dishonest.
A) or B). Decise which one and tell us. Or admit you are just another insane cult troll.
Bob G. got quiet as a mouse. As I said before, provide documentation showing LRH’s research on any subject and we can go from there.
But we all know that’s not going to happen. There was no 30 years of research. If there was, Scientology would be showing everyone Hubbard’s work. Everything he wrote, came off the top of his head.
I can visualize Hubbard on the Apollo navigating in the Mediterranean, announcing to those on the bridge, “I’ve got the con.” Takes on a whole different meaning. 😉
This post has nothing to do with any research LRH did, it is about the ‘hidden data line”, and my comments were concerned only with the topic being discussed. If you and others want to swerve and discuss ‘research’ go ahead, but I have no interest to prove to anyone that LRH did any valid research.
I think an honest discussion on that subject would make a great post in itself, might even be enlightening to all of us.
Let’s take it from the top then…
> You misunderstood what ‘hidden data line’ actually means.
OK, so… if I understand your POV Bob G: Lack of documented research by LRH is not the same as “Hidden Data Lines”: tech which is communicated outside HCOBs, Policies and tapes.
So Terra made the grave error of saying that the lack of proof of “research” upon which the entirety of tech is based on and has NEVER been corroborated by anyone and is itself like a “Hidden Data Line” is the semantic wrinkle that compelled you to nit pick a fine and insightful essay?
> I have no interest to prove to anyone that LRH did any valid research.
Don’t worry you’ve done nothing of the sort. Especially if this is the best you’ve got:
> maybe it was available to any who wanted to see it, you don’t know, do you?
Amazing. You must be _real_ fun at parties. ?
LOL, I’m now a Little bit sarcastic. When I read the comments here I feel sad and have also to laugh a Little bit sarcistic.
I tried to make sense out of the nonsense of Hubbard for 36 years, until I found out it’s just “nonsense” and because of this not to be understood, how many words you ever clear up.
It’s now quite confusing to observe People earnestly discussing the nonsense of Hubbard and trying to see some logic and reason in it.
You would come to the same results when discussing astrology or Quantum medicine…
Just word salads….
How sad..
And by the way Terra didn’t understand the original concept of the “Hidden Data Line” but this doesn’t matter, as the concept itself was never applied. From the first days of Scientology there were hidden data lines all over the place….As hubbard wasn’t honest and lied a lot…
Nevertheless Terra writes provoking essays and it’s interesting to see how he understood Scientology. He is a good example of “The diversity of understandings” of the nonsense of Hubbard. 10 Scientologists = 8 different concepts of it…
LOL
Was there any ACTUAL argument to your rambling, Roger From Switzerland Though? 🙂
P.S You seem a little bit tense, Roger, are you all right? 🙂
Another lie Bob G. This post is ALSO about LRH research. READ THE F’ING post from T.C. again. —
FROM THE POST: “Every time LRH sat down in front of a typewriter or opened his mouth at a “congress” he created a hidden data line. Because, rarely if ever, did he disclose how he’d arrived at his theories or come up with his techniques. NEVER DID HE PRESENT CREDIBLE RESEARCH. “
Well said. There is a confusion here in terms. Terra makes some interesting points, but they’ve got little to do with Ron was calling the hidden data line.
Even so, there certainly could be an interesting article written about the Hidden Data Line as there have been and are hidden data lines all over the place in the Scientology experience and these are interesting enough in their own right. And they do make problems.
The whole Ideal Org building campaign is a consequence of hidden data lines being allowed and sanctioned by current management, and is, perhaps, the most real and detrimental example.
I would eagerly say that there was indeed a “hidden data line” that LRH kept alive. The most obvious one that I can think of is the lack of results over and over again in most cases. The hidden data line was the mental gymnastics necessary to agree to an ep. Exterior with full perception”??!!!???!!! PC’s paid millions for that elusive end result. The next most obvious “hidden data line” was the amount of time it took to train anyone.
On the other hand, regarding the “hidden data line” from a cramming viewpoint, I would agree with that there wasn’t any written or verbal information guiding tech or admin people but there was certainly an enormous amount of group agreement on how to implement various policies or bulletins.
Bob G babbled incoherently: “Again, how can you state “… he concealed the totality of his research.”? Do you have your own ‘hidden data line’ on that, if so, please enlighten me.”
The proof is that his research is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.
Now, if after renting an IQ you STILL cannot figure that out, go live in a cave.
Your post says a lot about you.
Time to head to the cave Bob G. But before you go, Yes, my post shows that I am logical.
Brilliant! The simplified obvious observation…returns the classic “neener-neener” reply from Bob G. Ah…intelligent discourse about B.S.
“Your post says a lot about you.” Not so subtle ad hominem attack. And unresposive to the post being discussed. Naughty, naughty!
Groan….
Good points here. I would however add, that judging from reports on private interactions between Hubbard, and certain individuals, Hubbard had perhaps withheld some facts that refuted portions of his tech. One was that people do in fact “blow” from ARC breaks alone, and that “It’s all hypnotism”. Unfortunately, he is not around to respond to requests to expound on, and/or deny these comments.
It is because of the internet that I have free and full access to the tech.
It is because of the internet that Hubbard’s deceptive system of pay-per-view knowledge has been laid bare.
It is because of the internet that we now know of Chug, Farsec and various other snippets from Hubbard’s super secret “advices”.
Not to mention the countless and courageous exs, activists and journalists who have spoken out.
Not Hubbard.
No other subject I know of is taught by withholding key discoveries and data right from the start. Medical students are not forced to learn how to administer leeches before being taught about disease, dissection, imaging, homeostasis, molecular biology, drug mechanisms, neurobiology and reproduction.
DMSMH, for example, has never been updated with the “discovery” that the bank is self created and that a clear is one who grasps this. Absolutely nothing about NED! It also doesn’t explain why there is a volcano on its front cover.
FOT, the last time I checked, does not mention anything about the parasitic ghosts of our gazillion year-old ancestors. Or how scientology provides the only path to recovery from the horrific abuses inflicted upon us by ancient slavers and evil space fascists.
The “data line” is indeed hidden. Hubbard did not intend for us to have all of his “knowledge” at our fingertips otherwise the books would have been updated, the courses rewritten and the entire bridge redesigned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Yes, Trevanon, that was one of Hub’s favorites. The obsession with “altitude” and authority a la’ Big League Sales, with “authorities” like Michael Chan and the entire circus parade of OT Ambassadors, not to mention the KSW celebrity endorsers Tom Cruise and Travolta. And let’s not forget the Clears and OT’s as “authorities.”
Yuck!
Well of course T.C. you are correct. NOT to mention all the written and recorded hidden data put out by Hubbard (stuff public scamologists were never to know about by his orders). It is impossible to create and run a criminal cult without hidden data.
Thank you Terra.
This is an important point to try to get across to all still-ins and fence sitters.
DM is scamming you. It’s Miscavology now, not Scientology.
Thankfully, the world is safe because Miscavology is as unworkable and ineffective as Scientology was.
Terra always does such an excellent job of deconstructing LRH & his tech…as never in I’ve learned more about CoS & its leader, past (in Bare Faced Messiah) and present (DM) , that I understand why ppl stay in, why they leave & how destructive it is.
Jesus ascended physically into Heaven. How do we know? It’s in the Bible. If you doubt, you are inspired by Satan.
How do we know Muhammad is the one true prophet? It’s in the Quran. It’s written down. Don’t question it.
How do we know Scientology is true? LRH wrote it down. No questions allowed.
It’s all the same schtick.
Ken,
One difference is that information in the Bible and the Koran is free (or only the cost of the Bible/Koran) and upfront.
You don’t have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for an end phenomenon that tells you you mocked it all up.
Jesus himself did NOT “write the Bible”….the Bible was written by others who, let’s just say “supposedly witnessed” his turning water into wine, feeding thousands with a few loaves of bread and fish……testimonies more or less.
Outstanding post, keng! You’re right on the money! Hubbard never offered up his research and findings. Why? Because they don’t exist! There was never 30 years of research. He everything wrote off the top of his head. No research. None…
Ken,
While I can’t speak for believers of Islam, I can speak for many believers in Christ vs the fundamentalists (which sadly ALL religions, political parties, opinion groups… have).
I’ve experienced absolutely NO “you’re evil/inspired by satan or must be sinning” anytime I’ve questioned something – and I’m a big asker of questions! My sons had a bit of that experience at a particular church they visited (extremely fundamental & practicing some very twisted versions of “biblical truths” I later discovered) which I promptly addressed & they never went there again – so yes, I’m aware some extreme nutballs are out there.
But just as you can’t paint any one race or gender with a broad stroke, we don’t say all Scientologists or exes are/were unintelligent, evil or clueless (or deserving of the disconnection, lies & ripoffs…) the same respect should be extended for other religions as well. If Mike’s blog & the commenters here have taught me ANYthing, it’s that none of this nor any of us, are quite that simple described or dismissed.