You can either make a one-time donation to the site via Paypal...

...or you can subscribe and get billed monthly:

To join our e-mail list & get daily updates on new stories, e-mail us at
RSS Feed
Click here to add The Underground Bunker to your RSS Reader

Blogging Dianetics, Part 2: The State of Clear!

DianeticsStandardWelcome to our ongoing project, where we blog a 1950 first edition of Scientology’s bible, Dianetics, with the help of ex-Scientologist, Bay Area lawyer, and writer Vance Woodward. Go here for the first post in the series.

Last week, we started with the book’s opening sentence, which appears in a ten-page synopsis. That’s followed by a five-page introduction, a three-page guide titled “How to Read This Book,” and then another five-page introduction to Book One.

We now want to speed through all this frontmatter to get to the main course, so we’ll rapidly sum up what’s in it. In the synopsis, the boasting continues after the first sentence, which asserted that the discovery of dianetics was more important than the invention of the wheel…

— Dianetics (from the Greek for “thought”) is “the science of the mind,” and is simpler, as exact, and far more useful than physics and chemistry.

— Dianetics is actually a collection of pursuits in the humanities that have been brought together and made “precise.”

— Dianetics is an “exact science” on the order of engineering.

— Dianetics relies not on theories, but on axioms — in other words, revealed truths, not guesses.

— Dianetic therapy is able to cure, completely and with no chance of relapse, all “inorganic” and “psycho-somatic” illnesses (which, Hubbard says later in the book, make up 70 percent of all human ailments).

Following that synopsis, Dr. Joseph Augustus Winter provides his introduction, in which he proclaims dianetics a genuine New Idea and one that has proved useful in his practice.

By October 1950, however, Winter was out of the movement, disillusioned with Hubbard’s refusal to enforce some sort of standards that would keep rank amateurs from performing analysis on each other. In 1951, Winter published A Doctor’s Report on Dianetics, a book explaining his concerns with Hubbard. Winter’s introduction, not surprisingly, was pulled from future editions of Dianetics.

Next, there’s a short guide, “How to Read This Book,” and it contains some key concepts. Hubbard shifts from boasting about how he’s discovered a new modern science and turns his focus directly at the reader and his or her own mind.

HUBBARD: “As you progress in therapy the adventure is yours to know why you did what you did when you did it, to know what caused those Dark and Unknown Fears which came in nightmares as a child, to know where your moments of pain and pleasure lay.”

Vance, we’ve always thought this was one of Hubbard’s greatest insights — to make his processes always about the subject’s discovery of his own self, rather than to impose on him outside value judgments or historical information. We’re only a few pages into this book, but already this is a bedrock concept that forms much of the Scientology experience today — Hubbard’s followers spend decades chasing the dream of discovering secrets not about the world or the universe but about themselves.

VANCE: That’s a great observation. Hubbard regularly claimed in various ways that a person’s idea of reality is itself reality, always. It makes me think that he was actually writing to himself rather than to anyone else.

And one more important thing to take from the “How to Read This Book” chapter — Hubbard tells the reader that what he will find out about himself is probably what he suspected all along.

HUBBARD: “You will find as you read that many things ‘you always knew were so’ are articulated here. You will be gratified to know that you held not opinions but scientific facts in many of your concepts of existence.”

How seductive is that for the person who has suspected great things about himself and feels that he’s being fed a lot of lies by authority figures — doctors, politicians, science, the media?

VANCE: It’s almost hypnotic. Naturally we all want to find out that we were right. And here he is telling us that his science proves that we were right.

It’s a brilliant closed feedback loop: Hubbard gives you infallible, scientifically exact methods in order to discover that you were right about yourself all along.

We begin, even very early in this book, to see its seductive power for a certain kind of reader.

Hubbard then provides one more introduction, titled “The Scope of Dianetics,” to begin Book One, “The Goal of Man,” and the boasting is back.

— Mankind has been aching for a “science of the mind” as long as he has flourished on the face of the earth. “Rome went to dust for the want of it. China swims in blood for the need of it,” Hubbard writes.

We’ll skip past more proclamations of the superiority of dianetics…

Finally, after some 23 pages of windup, we’re ready for this adventure to begin in earnest, and we reach the first full chapter…

The Clear

The goal of dianetic therapy is to produce a person Hubbard calls a clear.

Hubbard sets out to define what he means by that, but in the second paragraph of the chapter he introduces another word that he will get almost as much mileage out of, and that is “aberration.”

We need to stop and consider that word, because Hubbard will use it incessantly, and in a slightly fetishistic way. Dictionaries will tell you that “aberration” is a form of “aberrant,” which emerged in the 18th century from Latin roots meaning to wander or go astray, and that it’s just a less common way of saying “atypical.” Snow in July, for example, might be aberrant weather, depending on where you live.

That is, there’s nothing morally wrong with snow in July, it just isn’t typical.

But “aberration” does have an additional gloss that carries a value judgment. Something is an aberration if it not only isn’t the norm, but it’s also less than optimum. (Snow in July might be great if you’re a skier. But a lack of snow at a skiing competition in February would be an aberration, because, frankly, it not only is atypical, it sucks.)

As we’ll see, Hubbard imbues “aberration” with special meaning and in a sort of Platonic sense — we’re all a bit atypical, apparently, or aberrated, and we have fallen away from a kind of ideal state — the clear.

Hubbard classifies the following as aberrations: psychoses, neuroses, compulsions and repressions.

While some might say that these are typical conditions found among human beings, Hubbard turns the notion upside down by saying that they are atypical and they indicate that we have lost our true, typical state.

A person who is clear would suffer from none of them. The clear also demonstrates an intelligence “above the current norm,” and lives life with “vigor.”

Vance, we’re only two paragraphs into the meat of this book, and Hubbard has already proposed that he’s found the superman, isn’t he? And that superman is in each one of us if we could just clear away our “aberrations.”

VANCE: Yeah, I think you got it. I mean, I’m pretty sure that “aberration” or “psychic aberration” were part of the general psychoanalytic lingo at the time, so maybe we shouldn’t give Hubbard too much credit for using the term. Anyhow, it’s pretty powerful as a thought tool. Yes, it sounds silly to think that you could get rid of all your aberrations. But just saying those words forces us to conceptually distance ourselves from our, uh, issues. “It’s not me, it’s my aberrations.” And here’s Hubbard telling us he’s got the solution.

“So, I don’t have to feel bad about being a nut case?”
“Nope, not your fault.”
“And I can do something about it?”
“Yup. Here’s your manual. Just add some hope, then shake with vigor.”
“But how can I shake with vigor if I can’t get vigor until I’m Clear?”
“Uh … Get lost kid. You’re buggin’ me.”

THE BUNKER: Let’s keep moving through the chapter. Here and again Hubbard drops hints that his discoveries are based on some large amount of laboratory testing which has been performed somewhere by someone. These allusions tend to be very vague and in passive voice.

But those tests have revealed, Hubbard asserts, that “clears” possess qualities that weren’t even suspected in human beings previously. (Again with the superman thing.)

Now there’s a lengthy and very dull discussion about the five senses, and how they work in variable ways for different people. Clears, however, get “maximum response” from their senses, depending on their desires.

At this point, Hubbard introduces yet another form of the word “aberration,” this time the neologism “aberree” — a person who still has aberrations and hasn’t reached clear. (Today, Scientologists refer to that person as a “pre-clear” or PC.)

Getting back to his talk of the senses, Hubbard makes the point that it would be awfully nice to recall moments from our past in their full, technicolor brilliance, with all senses firing. That way of remembering, he says, is “standard in a clear” even if unattainable by the ancients.

“What a clear can do easily, quite a few people have, from time to time, been partially able to do in the past.”

Hubbard then gives “dianetic names” to the senses that one perceives during this vivid recall of memories: “visio (sight), sonic (sound), tactile (touch), olfactory (smell), rhythmic, kinesthetic (weight and motion), somatic (pain), thermal (temperature) and organic (internal sensations and, by new definition, emotion).”

There’s no obvious reason why these “perceptics,” as he calls them, need new names. (And oiliness apparently came later.)

Is it just us, Vance, or is Hubbard using cute new names to pretend that he’s actually discovered something that isn’t really there? We can all imagine recalling events from our past in more vivid detail, and could probably convince ourselves of it from time to time. But so what? Is he actually laying the groundwork for the idea that he’s going to teach us to go back into our past, as time travelers?

VANCE: Without a doubt he’s leading up to that very idea: regressing into the past with hi-fidelity is in store. It makes me think of hypnotism and how people supposedly can be sent back into their past with extreme realism. When I first read Dianetics, I interpreted this chapter to mean that going Clear would enable me to revisit all parts of my past with super-fidelity, essentially at will.

Incidentally, Hubbard had a passing familiarity with Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics. (Later, he said in a lecture he didn’t actually know squat about the subject but was just going off what his friend had told him.) I suspect his desire to come up with precise definitions (i.e. one word = one definition instead of one word = many definitions) partly came out of that association. Either way, it all plays into the atmosphere he set. The subtext is, “I’m a precise engineer and this is an established subject. Please forgive me for being so meticulous. That’s just how we science guys roll.”

I know this will be a surprise for many readers, but of all the Clears I met (at least twenty but probably many more than that), none of them openly claimed, much less demonstrated, these kinds of abilities. As you move into the fold, you learn not to question people very eagerly about their abilities or status. You just get the sense that if you go too deep with your questioning (just curiosity, not even skepticism) you’ll deflate them, be disappointed, feel like an ass. We don’t want to deflate others without a damn good reason for it. What’s messed up is that we believers are able to write off each of these instances as being one-off cases. I mean, Jill might be Clear and a disappointment, but that’s just her, I guess. There must be plenty of Clear-acting Clears. When I go Clear, I’ll really be Clear. I mean, here are all these people in Scientology and they must have obtained the benefits that Hubbard is promising. So, the promised benefits of Clear must be obtainable.

I doubt anybody articulates this in his mind, but I figure it’s what keeps us coming back. We believe there’s at least the possibility of getting these great abilities, even if some (or most, or all) Clears that we know don’t have them. Hubbard wouldn’t just lie about it, would he? He couldn’t have bamboozled everybody. There must be some merit to what he’s saying. Right?

THE BUNKER: OK, we’re finally nearing the end of the chapter, and Hubbard has another claim about the abilities of a clear: he is a rational being that the aberree cannot hope to be.

In that sense, the clear has something in common with these new machine minds — computers — which are emerging in 1950. In fact, like a computer the “sentient portion of the mind,” Hubbard says, “which makes man Man is utterly incapable of error.”

Say what?

“This was a startling discovery when it was made,” he says in the passive voice, as if it were self-evident and a settled fact.

“Any person, aberrated or clear, computes perfectly on the data stored and perceived.”

But what could it possibly mean that man “computes” something as a sort of automatic machine, and that he does it on “data stored”? We’ll get an answer soon enough, but for now Hubbard asks us to marvel at the idea that there’s some kind of infallible ENIAC machine somewhere inside our heads that we can uncover if we erase our “aberrations.” Then, we will become perfect calculating horcruxes, enjoying the ability to recall our pasts with perfect clarity and free of all neuroses or compulsions.

And that inner person, Hubbard says, is good. (It’s the aberrations that are evil.)

This is the goal of dianetic therapy, to reach that state. But as for proof that any of this is based on more than the whims of a science fiction writer?

“Later there are experiments and proofs for these things and they can be measured with the precision so dear to the heart of the physical scientist,” Hubbard sneers.

So, Vance, that’s a large number of claims to finish out this first chapter — a new state of man previously undiscovered that gives us perfect, technicolor recall, imperviousness to certain ailments, “vigor,” and great eyesight — without a hint as to how this was actually discovered, under what conditions, and without any sense that it could be independently corroborated by other scientists. We’ll see if Hubbard comes up with more “evidence” later, but did it ever bother the Scientologists you worked with that all of these amazing claims and discoveries were coming from only one man, and one man who never seemed to show his homework?

VANCE: Yes, I have to imagine that most Scientologists do question how it is that this is all the product of one guy. But, generally, they figure that Scientology works as is, so we shouldn’t change it. We can point to old religions whose scriptures and doctrines have been … aberrated … through the ages. We can point to the inefficiency of committees, of mob mentality, of organizations losing their integrity to economic and political pressures. We know these things happen. A group just couldn’t come up with so much in-your-face truth. Old groups are sclerotic and resistant to new ideas. Individuals? Not always. And this Hubbard dude seems like a straight shooter. It’s almost easier to believe that a single high-integrity person could make all these startling discoveries rather than a group.

Also, Scientology fosters something of an individualistic ideal on this particular point. You’ve already pointed it out. The idea is that you were right all along (and everybody else was wrong, well, everybody except for that straight-shooting Hubbard guy who’s on your side anyhow).

Wow. I convinced myself. I’m about to hop in my car and head to the org.

THE BUNKER: Next week, Hubbard explains the meaning of life.

Blogging Dianetics, part 1: The opening sentence!
Blogging Dianetics, part 3: The Meaning of Life!
Blogging Dianetics, part 4: Dynamically speaking


Posted by Tony Ortega on January 11, 2013 at 07:00


UPDATE: It’s great to see Jefferson Hawkins in our comments. We’re going to post his contribution here, as it speaks so directly to the subject…

In a sense, Hubbard (and Scientologists) spent the next 30+ years backing away from the assertions in Dianetics. It was “scientific,” yet there were no actual research papers, research records (peer reviewed or otherwise), or anything else that demonstrated he had not, in fact, invented or borrowed the whole thing. I recall at one point I was working on writing an intriduction to Dianetics, The Original Thesis and asked the Archives department if I could see Hubbard’s original research papers and case notes. They said no such papers or notes existed. In other words Hubbard, who obsessively kept everything about his life from early childhood, had neglected to preserve these?

So after a few years, Hubbard backed away from the “scientific” claim and re-branded it as a religion. And even to this day, Scientologists will back off from the “science” claim and begin attacking “science” as inferior to Hubbard’s spiritual intuition if you bring the subject up.

Hubbard’s inability to produce anything that resembled a Clear was a continual source of embarrassment. If you listen to the Congress lectures (nothing I recommend by the way), he is continually asserting, “We’re almost there, we’re on the road to producing a real Clear, it’s going to happen,” and so on. Then about 1959, he says “we’ve bypassed Clear and we’re going straight for OT.” Huh?

Then all the excitement about OT, all the Advance magazine stories of OT Phenomena. Then after a few years, you see all the rationalizations and excuses for why OT “powers” never materialized – PTS, bypassed case, drugs, so on and so on. Now Scientology backs away from all those heady claims about OT. “He didn’t really mean cause over matter, energy, space and time…” I’ve had it explained to me that an OT is really just someone who can live a more successful life – a sort of Tony Robbins result in other words, not an advanced being with superior spiritual powers.

Dianetics was strong stuff. It made all kinds of amazing claims about the nature of man and the mind and how people could be Cleared. I got caught up in it. A lot of people did. Then when the results failed to materialize, you get the reasons, the excuses, the justifications. And Scientologists, like Hubbard, become masters at explaining away the lack of results.


Share Button
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Patti Thompson

    After over 30 years in the cult. I was told to redo the basic books and get a full understanding of what we all missed. After studying the chapter on the Clear in Dianetics I realized that the entire subject had failed. It was pretty stupid to make us all look at the early materials again.

    • John P.

      That is vintage David Miscavige — in his quest for short-term profits, he has absolutely no concept of the law of unintended consequences. There are countless other examples of this throughout his inept “reign of error.”

      • Vistaril

        Assuming David Miscavige is a true believer, I’m not so sure. At the time this started, It would have been apparent to him that there were no Clears nor any OTs. Given the absence of “Source” and as per KSW Standard L Ron Hubbard Scientology, there are only two reasons why no Clears or OTs could be produced: MUs and incorrect application of the tech . . . people must have gone past something they did not understand and/or Auditors were doin’ it wrong. L Ron Hubbard knew full well there were no such things, but Miscavige most likely didn’t – at that stage, anyway. Returning high level Scientologists back to the basics coupled with a firmer application of putting Ethics-in on both staff and public is the only in-tech on-policy solution available. Miscavige might have been better to have followed L Ron Hubbard’s own personal example and come up with another process, or level, or variation of Clear, etc. He probably didn’t have the kudos to get away with it but he did employ a Hubbardian tactic when he came with another “enemy” to blame the failure on: the eeeevil transcriptionists. Rather than “vintage Miscavige”, the return to the basics (or a similar ploy) is “vintage L Ron Hubbard”. IMHO.

        • sugarplumfairy

          dammmm.. It can’t be easy to be miscavige..

          • 0tessa

            No, and it sucks too.

            • Observer

              Miscavige is such a Big Being that his suckingness pulls everyone around him into a singularity of suck.

          • Midwest Mom

            New Reality Show: “It ain’t easy being Cheesy Miscavige”

            Bravo TV is bringing the cray-cray to America, with its new reality show “It ain’t easy being Cheesy Miscavige”, starring the pint sized bombastic Cult of Scientology leader, David Miscavige. We’ll follow the cray-cray day to day escapades of Tom Cruise’s bff and see first hand that while it may be fun to be the esleasiastical leader of a money grubbing abusive cult, it ain’t easy being Miscavige!”

            *The word “ain’t” is used for entertainment purposes only, since it ain’t a good word 4 riting stuf.

            • “Ain’t” causes MUs which are hard to word-clear since many dictionaries lack it.

        • DeElizabethan

          Visaril, some excellent points.

        • OTVIIIisGrrr8!

          We in RTC beg to differ, but there are hundreds of millions of OT’s and Clears in the Church of Scientology. You must have us confused some other Church of Scientology where there are no OT’s or Clears.

          • John P.

            I’m intrigued that you in RTC are admitting that there might be another Church of Scientology out there. I seem to recall reading on that the Religious Technology Center is supposed to spend an occasional moment thinking about trademarks and copyright stuff.

            [B]odies of copyright and trademark law have been developed and used to guard even religious Scriptures and symbols from misuse and alteration. It is this fundamental function of protecting the Scientology religion’s trademarks and advanced religious Scripture that Religious Technology Center provides. It is a function that guarantees the purity and workability of Scientology far into the future…

            Initially, Mr. Hubbard personally oversaw the orthodox practice of Scientology. As an integral part of that endeavor he also registered as legally protectable trademarks many of the religion’s identifying words and symbols, such as “Dianetics” and “Scientology.” These registered marks provided a legal mechanism for ensuring that the Scientology religious technologies are standardly ministered in exact accordance with the Scriptures and not altered by misappropriation or improper use. They also provided a legal mechanism to prevent anyone from offering some altered or inauthentic version of Dianetics and Scientology and representing it as the real technology.

            In 1982, Mr. Hubbard donated these religious marks to the newly formed Religious Technology Center and entrusted that Church with the responsibility of protecting the religion of Scientology by enforcing the pure and ethical use and standard application of his technologies. RTC thus maintains the purity of the technology and guards against any misuse or misrepresentation by legally registering, and where necessary enforcing, certain words and symbols of the Scientology religion as trademarks and service marks in countries the world over.

            Or are you guys spending too much time chasing either women of loose moral character who dig the fancy uniforms? Or perhaps spending too much time chasing that handful of bitter, defrocked apostates that generate so many laughs at your expense that you have somehow managed to overlook real, actual competition? Sorry if this seems like some serious backflash, but I’m just trying to sort stuff out in my little, degraded wog brain.

  • John P.

    Thanks for another trip through the cray-cray.

    The introduction: I think it would have been interesting to go through the front matter in more detail. Tony, you’ve talked a lot about the importance of distinguishing between Scientology beliefs and Scientology practices in the past. In looking at any other religion, this is sound advice and certainly avoids a lot of trouble. But I believe that Scientology has crossed a line that makes criticism of its beliefs entirely legitimate — because it has claimed that those beliefs are actual, verifiable history rather than articles of faith, and that Dianetics, the cornerstone of the whole thing, is an “exact science” like engineering, physics, etc. But of course, we all know that Hubbard pulled Dianetics and everything else out of his imagination (some would say out of a different source of output). So getting into some more of the quotes where he makes these extraordinary claims, and thus opens himself up to the requirement for extraordinary proof, and (failing proof) extraordinary ridicule.

    In retrospect, the notion that the point of self-help is to understand why you did something sounds reasonable on the surface, but today, most “psychs” would say that it can be useful (i.e., discovering that you drink in large part because you were sexually and physically abused as a child and that you have repressed these memories) but it is not essential, and that one can waste a lot of time searching for the causes of lower-grade but still damaging behavior.

    Cognitive behavioral therapy, which is generally accepted as one of the most effective methods for getting results, doesn’t focus on the why so much as empowering people to make changes. So Hubbard’s promise to turn the process into “the adventure […] to know why you did what you did when you did it” certainly sounds space-age and up-to-date by the standards of the day but then sets up the stage for insanity when carried to extremes — you did what you did because of clusters of dead space cooties clinging to your skin which must be exorcised in a years-long process. Yes, that from a book that claims to rest on “scientific principles” and “precision.”

    The Clear: The whole notion at the root of “aberration,” that we are inherently perfect but have fallen away from that perfection sounds appealing — after all, who doesn’t remember fondly some of the fun parts of childhood, filled with innocence and unadulterated joy? This is almost at the heart of much religion, the return to childlike purity of emotion and thought. But of course this also sets the foundation for later craziness in the cult’s unique flavor of beliefs, when coupled with Hubbard’s megalomania. “Scientology works 100% of the time when practiced standardly” is a source of a lot of the mind-fuck in the cult. If you’re not getting phenomenal results from practicing Scientology, it’s not just “one of those things.” It’s not the fault of Hubbard, who is brilliant and infallible. It’s you. So it seems that, quite quickly, progress towards that idealized state of perfection actually turns into negative progress away from “clear” — so people who already have a “sunk cost bias” from early auditing “wins” and from continuing to believe the principles early in the book about potential perfection are motivated to dig harder to undo their own incompetence at practicing things whose expression, shall we say charitably, is often not stated clearly at the level of the average reader.

    The idea that clears can have super powers certainly comes from the era of pulp science fiction. It’s not confirmed by contemporary neuroscience, which is discovering that the brain, while amazing and miraculous, is quite limited biologically in the accuracy of memory, the repeatability of reasoning processes, the processing of sensory information, and so on. It’s a big sloppy mess that works amazingly well but not like the uber-computer Hubbard envisions. It’s not engrams or body thetans that screws up our mental functions, it’s basic biochemistry.

    As far as why the senses need new names, this is part of standard cult behavior, to re-map language to make it easier to manipulate reality. You redefine even basic concepts where there is wide agreemeent to something slightly different, where the cult is the source of all agreement. Instead of the sense of touch that everyone conceptually understands, you have “tactileness,” which can be redefined to something that is later useful to keeping people hooked; “tactileness” can be defined as almost anything related to touch, such as the ability to touch things remotely… which opens the way to getting anyone who buys into this linguistic sleight of hand to open themselves up to expensive services to rehabilitate their sense of “tactileness” instead of just sanding their fingertips (like the safe-crackers in old movies do) to be able to sense when the tumblers on the combination lock fall into place.

    On this part we get the best Vance quote of the day, referring to Hubbard: “I’m a precise engineer and this is an established subject. Please forgive me for being so meticulous. That’s just how we science guys roll.” That’s even funnier than the line from Bill Murray’s fake scientist in Ghostbusters, “Back off man; I’m a scientist.”

    The fact that people never actually asked “clears” to show off their super-abilities is just amazing… just as it is amazing that clears, proud of their special achievement, never volunteered. So you end up with people accepting that their friends, perhaps even their spouses, have super powers, while tacitly agreeing that no demonstration is necessary. That’s one of the most amazing examples of brainwashing yet.

    • Inside the $hurch, we were chided for having “hidden standards.” Hidden standards were basically defined as expecting any particular thing from the training or processes. But in truth the whole scam was fueled on hidden standards, the thought that clears and ot’s had special powers, but wouldn’t demonstrate them because you as a lowly PC might get some idea that, that’s what YOU wanted from auditing, therefore setting yourself up for a loss. Okay, I have just twisted my brain into another knot even trying to say that.

    • Sherbet

      John P, I can’t believe you used the term “cray-cray.”

      • John P.

        I normally use that term when writing about Congress critters like Michele Bachmann or Louie Gohmert (or the unlamented one-term Alan West) and some of their theories about the universe. But it certainly applies here.

        • Sherbet

          Well, OK, but if I ever catch you using the term “va-jay-jay” in any context, you’ll take a mighty tumble off the pedestal on which I’ve placed you.

          • Midwest Mom

            The first time I heard that term, I thought it was a hip hop artist’s name.

            • LOL !! My daughter asked my husband “Pop…what is a virgin?” he freaked out and told her it was an airline

            • Sherbet

              Way off topic, but I can’t resist: I was at the theater, watching A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, which has characters of varying degrees of chastity and persuasion. The young girl next to me whispered to her mother, “What’s a virgin?” and Mom stammered through an explanation. On the way out of the theater, I whispered to Mom, “Now, I want to hear you explain what a eunuch is and why they were chosen to guard the virgins.”

            • LOL …that is funny 😉 We rented “Year One” and boy oh boy …did i have a lot of splaynin to do

            • moxonmoxoff

              zomg. this thread is killing me! thanks for the lulz. i’ll add a story:

              when Grease was released in 1978, I was about 8 or 9. Of course my mom took my little sister and I to see it, along with my grandmother. after the movie was over and the audience was making its way out, i turned to my mother and asked her “what does it mean the chicks will cream?” a few heads turned and my mother brushed me off with, i’ll explain later, while my grandmother just smirked. she never did explain . . .

              Go Grease Lightning!

              I have attempted to read the Dianutty. I had the same reaction another poster had: is there something wrong with my reading comprehension???? This series breaking it down is quite entertaining. Keep it coming!

            • Midwest Mom

              No. It’s him. Hubbard didn’t make sense.

            • moxonmoxoff

              Not a lick. I’m no botanist (in reference to that other comprehension-challenged poster), but I’ve read Chaucer in the original Middle English no problem. Not to mention any number of old common law cases by crusty eighteenth century judges. I have an aptitude for languages and absorbing jargon. It’s hard for me to believe that English was Hubbard’s first language–his diction and grammar are off-the-charts bad. My uneducated immigrant in-laws make more sense, for Jebus’ sake!

            • John P.

              Moxonmoxoff, we at Global Capitalism HQ hold Chaucer in particularly high regard, especially when read in the original Middle English. His command of snark would make him a worthy contemporary chronicler. Think of Mark Ebner, perhaps. Or, if he were musically inclined, the Medieval master would today perhaps be a lyricist for the source of all things cynical and ironic, the music of Steely Dan.

            • moxonmoxoff

              A little trip for you down memory lane. I was required to read this aloud in class with the Middle English pronunciation (which we learned from our linguistics professor). Some people really hated that class, but i LOVED it. LOVED IT.

              WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote,And bathed every veyne in swich licour,Of which vertu engendred is the flour;Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth 5Inspired hath in every holt and heethThe tendre croppes, and the yonge sonneHath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,And smale fowles maken melodye,That slepen al the night with open ye, 10(So priketh hem nature in hir corages: Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,

              And my personal favorite (and quite easy to translate for most):

              And up the window did he hastily,
              And out his erse he putteth privily
              Over the buttock, to the haunche bone
              And therewith spake this clerk, this Absolon,
              ‘Speak, sweete bird, I n’ot not where thou art.’
              This Nicholas anon let flee a fart,
              As great as it had been a thunder dint,
              That with the stroke he was well night yblint:
              And he was ready with his iron hot,
              And Nicholas amid the erse he smote.
              Off go’th the skin an handbreadth all about
              The hote coulter burned so his tout,
              That for the smart he weened for to die;
              As he were wood, for woe he ‘gan to cry,
              ‘Help! water, water, help for Godde’s heart!’

            • John P.

              The first sample, the opening of the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, is as rich as anything written in Modern English, a language much better suited to poetry than what Chaucer could write in. Many people who learned to recite this in a class can still do so decades later; a beloved older aunt who taught college English could still recite the first 60-80 lines verbatim from memory even when she was past 90.

              And the second, the punch line from The Miller’s Tale, remains one of the funniest stories ever written in English. One of the definitions of extraordinary talent is the ability to write a dirty joke that is still funny 600 years after you wrote it. And that while holding down a “day job” roughly equivalent to the head of the National Security Council — Chaucer was one of the king’s key diplomatic advisers, and one of the highest-ranking commoners in the kingdom.

            • moxonmoxoff

              We in Domestic MicroBrew HQ have a soft spot for well-spoken men who love Chaucer, which is not to be confused with the soft spot (some might call “beer belly”) that loafs around our midsection. While we have heretofore not participated in any brain licking, we may be inclined to make an exception in the present case.

              Disqus people–please commence forthwith on the implementation of said “lick” button.

            • 1subgenius

              My daughter asked me what sodomy is. I freaked out and told her it was the theft of lawn material.

            • Sherbet

              1sub, between you and Alanzo and your quips, I can’t stop laughing. And I’m at work.

            • THAT IS AWESOME!!! ( i am in the airport waiting for a flight and laughing so hard people are staring at me )

          • BuryTheNuts2

            Good one.

          • Cray-Cray for the V-Jay-Jay!

            That is a profound summation for the entire Human Condition.

            • Sherbet

              You got me laughing out loud at that, Alanzo. You’re very clever! (And I doubt you got that talent from cos.)

    • “The whole notion at the root of “aberration,” that we are inherently perfect but have fallen away from that perfection sounds appealing — after all, who doesn’t remember fondly some of the fun parts of childhood, filled with innocence and unadulterated joy? This is almost at the heart of much religion, the return to childlike purity of emotion and thought.”

      True to varying degrees. A traditional Christian would tell you that the loss of perfection is due to the Fall (or Original Sin), that nothing we do in this life will restore us to that state and that pursuing pleasure (happiness) for its own sake and to the exclusion of caring for others is evil . A Buddhist would say that those fun parts are the entrapments of illusion that must be discarded to gain Enlightenment.

      • Yes. The whole assumption of Dianetics is that the human mind is like a perfect computer, which gives the correct answer instantly every time. But the problem, per Dianetics and later Scn, is that there are the “held down 7s” of engrams, which are gumming up the works and creating “aberration”.

        The fundamental flaw of Dianetics lies right here: The human mind is not like a perfect computer.

        This false assumption invalidates the whole subjects of Scn auditing, training, ethics and admin in Scientology. The whole thing collapses on this fundamental fact.

        The human mind is not like a perfect computer.


        • Pale Rider

          Ummmm…is there such a thing as a perfect computer??

    • Hubbard came from a time where computers were brand new and people believed that you only used 10% of your brain. Many of these myths have been thoroughly disproved and today we all know that computers make almost as many mistakes as your average human will.

      Imaging millions of people reading “I, Robot” and then reading “Dianetics” thinking that they could one day be as powerful as the robots were is actually quite revealing. Scientology has continually tried to keep their advertising in line with the current affairs of the world, but the actual words of Hubbard are becoming archaic. Even seeing the word “modern” on the cover is working to their disadvantage since it doesn’t take long to realize the book is 60 years old.

      Being as familiar with computers as I am today, if I picked up a book and read, “The human mind is as perfect as a computer.” That right there would tell me, “The human mind makes stupid annoying errors that make you have to do spreadsheets over and over again? I guess they are the same thing then. Case closed.”

      When I was a kid, I used to hear from Scientologists that Science Fiction was based on Science Fact because the authors drew on their “whole track memories” to write the books. So reading books like, “Ender’s Game”, I used to think stuff like that really happened. As I became an adult, I started to realize how utterly stupid that idea was. It makes sense to me, with the science fiction craze in the heyday of Scientology that they would have been able to capture a lot of membership using the OT/whole-track stories.

      It’s interesting to me to see how the focus of Scientology has shifted from the mysterious side of the religion so much that they even attempt to downplay it now. Society is not so much interested in mystery anymore as they are in knowing what the hell they’re getting themselves into. I think as a society we have evolved because we have seen what mystery has done to us in the past. So now Scientology tries to highlight their fake humanitarian efforts.

      • Observer

        Yeah, but Ender’s Game is a great book!

      • Unex Skcus

        “today we all know that computers make almost as many mistakes as your average human will”

        I’ve worked with computers for 3 decades, as a computer programmer. I have yet to see a computer make a ‘mistake’. However, I have seen a great many mistakes in the programs that humans write, including myself.

        01000111 01100001 01110010 01100010 01100001 01100111
        01100101 00100000 01101001 01101110 00101100 00100000
        01100111 01100001 01110010 01100010 01100001 01100111
        01100101 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00101110

        • The message was that computers are not perfect because they were created by humans who are not perfect. So while Hubbard’s analogy of the “clear” mind to a computer might have been effective back in 1950 when computers were first coming into existence, we know now that computers are prone to flaws, just like humans. So really a computer is comparable to a normal mind because they both make mistakes and are only as accurate as the information they contain.

        • Additionally, while Hubbard claimed the human mind has an infinite storage capacity, we are now aware that our memories and experiences are compressed into more easily stored sizes which sometimes loses less relevant data but preserves the most important data (occasionally the other way around). So just like a computer, the human mind has a limited storage capacity.

        • John P.

          For those of you who can’t work out binary to ASCII conversions in your head (I used to be able to do that, but in my advancing years only work in hexadecimal these days), he said “Garbage in, garbage out.”

          To that, I reply:

          01000011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100000 01110011 01110101 01100011 01101011 00101110.

          • Unex Skcus

            “Computers suck.” Agreed 🙂

    • DeElizabethan

      “you did what you did because of clusters of dead space cooties clinging to your skin which must be exorcised in a years-long process.”

      But John, you never hear or have read about the cooties or xenu until you reach OT3, no matter how long you are in. Now unless you get out and read the internet, do the 3 job or have an a ex friend, that info is kept secret in the cult and never admitted nor discussed. Should I have read or been told the truth “I would be a rich man, ya da,da,da, da, da,da……”

    • “In retrospect, the notion that the point of self-help is to understand why you did something sounds reasonable on the surface, but today, most “psychs” would say that it can be useful… but it is not essential, and that one can waste a lot of time searching”
      This reminds me of a sutra from the “Three Baskets” (the oldest Buddhist texts) called “Questions Which Tend Not Toward Edification” in which someone asks the Buddha four religious questions, I think they were “Is the universe infinite or limited?” “Was the universe created at some time?” “Are there immortal deities?” and “Is the soul essentially distinct from and capable of existing without the body?” The Buddha startles him by saying that it is not important for him to think about any of these questions: the Buddha is trying to teach him how to end self-inflicted suffering. “It is as if you have a poisoned arrow in you, but before you let me draw it out, you demand to know who shot you, and who made the arrow, and what kind of venom is it, and what kind of feather is that on the shaft? First let me attend to the wound, and then you will be at leisure to investigate those questions.”

  • j238

    The source material is so tedious. Is “Blogging Dianetics” really necessary?

    BTW, “Dianetics” is flagged in spellcheck. How widespread can it be?

    • whingeybingey

      I found it a fabulously interesting article – which is lucky because yeah the source material is bloody tedious. But this was up there with the best of the bunker IMHO. I can’t wait for the next one!

      • BosonStark

        Me too. I’m luvin this Tony/Vance/Dianutty stuff — asking the right questions and Vance’s responses are great. Already, it’s helping me understand the question Wright posed — why do people go for this stuff? What do they see in it — at least regarding Dianutty.

        As far as more detail, no please, this is fine. Keep it as simple as possible. Just the bloated writing style of Dianutty alone sends my mind swimming. Because of the lack of a demonstrable “clear,” it was hard for me to see what others saw in it. This is helping me to do that.

        Christians try to be like Jesus, in that they want to be loving, forgiving — turn the other cheek — it’s an ideal. Few of them expect to get to that state, but it’s having that as a goal that is supposed to be life affirming and worthy of striving for. What it devolved into through various sects and throughout history is another matter. The basis is a figure, Christ, for whom there’s little historical record. Also, these ideas became part of Western culture.

        Dianutty is contradicted by Hubbard’s own life — both his behavior and the results in the people closest to him. For example, how do clams get past the glaring contradiction that Dianutty offered all these answers, and health benefits yet Hubbard was a mess at the end, and croaked at 74? It seems like they move from something that was supposed to be practical or liberating to something that is way out there, on Target 2.

        • I think the answer is that Hubbard wasn’t seeking to better humanity. He was seeking to create a system that could control people. Hubbard is much like the Wizard of Oz in this sense – If you’re watching the pyrotechnics (in this instance, focusing on your “case”, looking only at what’s aberrant in you), you won’t notice or ask questions about the fat bald man behind the curtain. Not everyone could be drawn into Scientology. It could only capture people who could be hooked by it because it appealed to something in their personality or provided an answer at a time when they were vulnerable.

        • whingeybingey

          I guess so, although you have to wonder what would have happened with Christianity if there was an internet at the time. Up until then Hubbard and his followers did quite an excellent job of creating the mythology surrounding the man and rewriting his history. And Dianetics cannot be accused of not having high ideals, I don’t think. In my experience neither lives up to its promises, although Scientology is also dehumanising.

          • whingeybingey

            Well, heal the sick – raise the dead…. They are horrible promises to make to a believer who needs a miracle. Shrug. Dislike my experience all you like whomever did.

    • BuryTheNuts2

      This is funny stuff right here!

      This blogging of Dianetic’s is probably the only way most people will ever know what is really in it.
      The majority of people who actually have owned the book, have never read it. Because it is ridiculous….and it gets ridiculous right at the get go….as you can see.
      Hopefully Vance will be back from the ORG (faceitious) by next Friday for more insights into Dainutty…

    • It’s like Battlefield Spork:

      He waded through and summarized all thousand-some pages of Battlefield Earth for us, so we don’t have to (read his take-down of any randomly chosen chapter if you want a grin).

      • moxonmoxoff

        one of my favorites. 🙂

  • Vistaril

    Show me a motherfucking Clear

    . . . just one will do. kthnxbai.

  • JustCallMeMary

    Oh what fun! Tony and Vance tag teaming again to dissect more DMSMH! I’ll be back to digest Part 2 after I have my 2nd cup of coffee….

  • whingeybingey

    For years I believed that Hubbard’s research was actually contained in the Research & Discovery series – or blue vols. Imagine my surprise when I actually looked in them and discovered nothing of the kind. The lack of even self-published research from a man who issued documents like they were going out of fashion was a constant niggle in the back of my mind much as I did swallow the claims at face value when I was first sold the book and probably still have misguided ideas to this day that I first encountered in the Dianetics book. I have been laughed at for believing that the mind was composed of pictures. It had never occurred to me that this might not be true. I have to wonder what else is lurking in there that will emerge to embarrass me one day. However, feeling foolish is nowhere near such a problem for me as believing a conman’s made-up stories. It does make life difficult to navigate. What of my “knowledge” is fact and what is merely cult fiction?

    • BuryTheNuts2

      You sure manage to sum up good thought’s in your final sentence’s.
      I am noticing this in a pattern with you.
      Good job.

      • whingeybingey

        Thanks, BuryTheNuts2! I mostly lurk here, but I have always enjoyed your posts.

        • BuryTheNuts2

          MOAR Posts…I like you!

          • whingeybingey

            I like you, too!! People who talk too much are my favourite kind of people! Enjoy the wine, and happy Friday to you also! : ) I am actually having a Saturday at the moment SANS wine which is not nearly as much fun….

    • Kevin Hogan

      I have been pondering that myself, I see some new discovered science on TV and I think ,”The old man knew about that in the 50’s, how could he just be a shyster.? I’ve been out for over 20 years after having been in for 20. I was always a special case, “Dianetic clear!” and I was constantly in Ethics for trying shove “Keep Scientology working.” up some staff members arse. But then we were all special weren’r we, that was the “real” theta trap…carry on

  • BuryTheNuts2

    Reading “Clear” from the above perspective…It sounds like this is the “state” where you have achieved full robotic status. No HE&R,…you simply process data like a computer and your body is the dumb terminal.
    You are now “Clear”, from humanity.
    Sorry, I would rather accept myself “as is”…. neuroses, fuck ups, bad decisions and embarrassments included.
    I would much rather “feel” than not…….

    • You’ve hit the mark and also found a fatal weakness in the “Scriptures”, the image of the computer.Back in the 50’s almost no one knew what a computer really was or how it really worked. Science fiction had given them an image of a perfect, infallible,”scientific” super brain that could solve any problem and make any situation right. Thanks to over 60 years of exposure to the real thing we know “garbage in, garbage out” and “to err is human, to really screw up takes a computer.”

      • John P.

        Hubbard tried to tell his followers he knew all about computers. Go back to the Voice (at and check out the Birthday Event video clip re-enacting Hubbard visiting an early computer setup. As I commented in some detail at the time, Hubbard showed clearly that he had absolutely no clue about how computers worked, yet he claimed he “asked a question” of it and it crashed, irreparably. So given Hubbard’s minimal understanding of computers, for him to model the mind as a perfect computer-like machine is laughable.

        • N. Graham

          I love that clip! lol

        • There are so many gems in that Birthday Event video. You really get a sense of how he worked an audience. He could have been a really successful used car salesman. Just watch out for the buyers’ remorse.

      • DeElizabethan

        Got that right. I was impressed about the mind being a computer since I knew little about one. I never fully grasped it however and as you say “to really screw up takes a computer.” LOL.

      • BuryTheNuts2

        And I kinda hate i hit the mark…(say it fast)
        did that sound kinda “cat in the hat’?

        • Sorry, The Brits’ “spot on” does sound less aggressive. But I appreciated the perceptiveness of your understanding of the creepiness of the description.

      • Eventually LRH gives an explanation of why he used that specific word “Clear” for the state he was after: he says it is like adding up a list of numbers, and getting the wrong answer because the adding machine is still carrying a former total, since you have forgotten to “clear” the machine (reset it to zero). When I first read Dianetics, I thought that was a stunningly mundane and unimpressive metaphor. I guess I just couldn’t see it through the eyes of someone from back in the days when computing machinery of any kind was a gee-whiz new thing.

    • 1subgenius

      Getting rid of the “reactive mind” is getting rid of human emotion.

      • BuryTheNuts2

        Where is the fun in that?

      • BuryTheNuts2

        Oh, and by the way “Dobbs”….(hands on hips and tapping foot)
        What was that Dr. Science stuff you were speaking of recently?
        My Mini Cooper wants to know!!!

        • 1subgenius

          Google is your friend.
          Mini-Cooper, meh.
          Here’s my ride.
          It is, by the way, the most beautiful car ever made.

          • BuryTheNuts2

            Ok, Ok,….You win…and its even bumble bee colors…
            You definitely win.

            • 1subgenius

              This is not a competition, only an exhibition.
              Please, no wagering.
              Still wondering why you brought up the Mini Cooper.

            • BuryTheNuts2
            • BuryTheNuts2

              No wagering? I was born in Las Vegas, Nevada……………Uh…DNA cannot be altered.

          • An original Fiat 500 (or is it the slightly larger 600?). Very cool.

    • EnthralledObserver

      I can’t fathom why anyone would want to rid themselves of emotion – unless, of course, you were trying to protect your secrets from He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

      • BuryTheNuts2

        Well, if you have ever been on the bottom, ground scraping end of that emotion…
        “Dark Matter” Depression…I guess it has it’s appeal…at least for a minute….

        But this too shall pass….And…you know what?…Without emotion….then WHY are we?
        Leave it to the “DATA” if that is all there is.

        When I feel pain……….At least I feel………..
        Art is Pain…Pain is Art…Just as love and hate are the left and right side of a mean absolute deviation………..
        Yet all connected in the end………no?

  • Observer

    “VANCE: That’s a great observation. Hubbard regularly claimed in various ways that a person’s idea of reality is itself reality, always. It makes me think that he was actually writing to himself rather than to anyone else.”

    Someone posted awhile back something to the effect that Scientologists are all running LRH’s case. If you’ve ever read his Affirmations/Admissions that rings true. They show that he was aware there was something wrong with him and that he was desperately trying to get control over it. IMO Scientology, and Dianetics to a lesser extent, were his effort to normalize himself by painting everyone else with his brush while elevating himself above them.

    Dianetics (again, IMO) was Hubbard’s case at the time it was written, and as his mental illness progressed, Scn evolved out of Dianetics and then devolved into an ever more abusive mess.

    Admissions link:

    • 0tessa

      I don’t know if you are referring to this, but I wrote a while ago that Scientologists or at least those in the Sea Org seem to be enacting the ‘bank’ of Hubbard.

      • Observer

        Yes, I think that was it. I believe you are correct in that observation.

  • EnthralledObserver

    I have recently been accused of not being ‘willing’ to even look at works by L Ron, so therefore I am not qualified to state an opinion on the subject over at Marty’s. and they want me to take a hike.. I thank you, Tony, for making available my new qualification… even if it is condenced to a brief summary, and largely had the piss taken out of it. 😀

    I can now go back and tell Valkov to ‘f’ off… and that I am a ‘she’, not a ‘he’!

    • Tell Valkov “Hi” for me, too!

      He and I have a Vaudeville act together.


      • EnthralledObserver

        Hurrumph… Marty deleted my response. I’m not allowed to say anything unless I very carefully word it, and even then I apprently don’t kiss arse enough.

        Fuck ’em… I’ll put it here!
        Dear Valkov,

        I trust what I have read of the opinions and anecdotes and facts relayed by a plethora
        of ex-members and critics such as Tony Ortega, to name only one; and on those
        sites I get examples of what L. Ron has written from various numbers of his
        works/notes/orders. Therefore I don’t feel I need to read every word myself to
        gain an insight into what is in the bulk of it. I can , and do, think for
        myself and am quite capable of assessing all that data and discerning for
        myself who has credibility. It’s not a skill only taught by L.Ron (supposedly)
        you know?

        Your assume that if I read L. Ron’s work myself I’ll suddenly ‘understand’ and also
        implies that I might change my mind; I can assure you I won’t (in fact I’d wager my opinion might just get lower), and I’m not interested in even trying to see if I might. I don’t need
        self-improvement, and my opinion is that no-one else (who is the ‘able’ that
        I’ve heard Miscavige refer to on an interview) really does either. Accept who
        you are, and deal with life accordingly. Perfection doesn’t exist – stop trying
        to chase it. Just be you, in all your glory, and act and respond in a way that
        makes yourself proud.

        Plus, I’m a busy mother of five, and other than finding this shocking
        issue/topic on the internet and feeling compelled to offer what I consider
        logical opinion to the discussion, I don’t have the time to read this dead,
        out-dated, narsissist’s ramblings – of which I hear the sheer volume would keep
        me busy fulltime for probably 3 years. So no, i won’t be going away for those 3
        years and come back so you can then deign me ‘informed’ and therefore, in your
        opinion, exempt from ridicule and worthy of a platform. I have a certain
        intelligence and life experience that I find valuable and useful too… maybe you
        should consider that I have something to offer you that does not come filtered
        through L.Ron Hubbard, hmm?


        • Oh snap ! I am a busy mother of just one ..and i STILL would rather watch paint dry .

          • EnthralledObserver

            Any excuse not to actually read LRon

          • BuryTheNuts2

            Kim, you are killing me today!
            Lovin’ it.

        • TheHoleDoesNotExist

          Insert: Applause, Applause

        • Excellent comment!

          And yeah, Marty is never going to print something like that. He needs his followers to be able to say “This person’s point is not worthy of consideration because of x, y, z”

          They need to have that trap door of “unworthy of consideration” in order to keep their worldview intact.

          Plus, even after you took that 3 years off to read all of L Ron’s books, you would not have listened to his tapes yet! And then, after you listen to all his tapes, then you would not have received auditing yet!

          I spent 16 years in Scientology and received thousands of hours of auditing, was a trained ethics officer, spent 7.5 years on staff and am a highly trained Scn administrator, spent 2 years on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course studying everything Hubbard wrote and said in fucking chronological order, and I am not qualified to have an opinion worthy of any Scientologist’s consideration because of x, y, z.

          It is their own blinkered avoidance, a cognitive dissonance reduction technique, which generates these standards you have to have before your points can be considered worthy of consideration. Just keep going. They need the new and different ideas injected into their environment. Pretty soon something will “indicate” and they will “pop” and realize what they have been doing to themselves.

          Keep up the great work!


          • EnthralledObserver

            Okee Dokee… Thanks! 😀

          • 0tessa

            You have an impressive record of Scientology study! I think you know your stuff.

            • While studying the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course I realized that I was witnessing L Ron Hubbard’s 1st brainwashing laboratory, the one he created before he went to sea and created his floating brainwashing laboratories in the Sea Org.

              To a blinkered Scientoiogist, though, I’m just a blown student, so therefore I’m just nattering because of my own MU’s on Scientology and unworthy of any valid opinion – even about my own experiences.

              I’ve never let that stop me, though.


            • EnthralledObserver

              No… don’t ever let it stop you. Great job so far! 😀

          • EnthralledObserver

            Yes, it’s people like you I rely on to make sure I understand precisely what is going on and wtf they are talking about with their scieno blabber.
            I honestly don’t know how they justify it to themselves, what are they telling themselves in their heads? Crikey.

            • EnthralledObserver

              Read it – thanks. Puts things in perspective, and makes me aware of myself falling into that trap too. Interesting.

            • moxonmoxoff

              Great post. Thanks for sharing. One thing I would also add (and which I don’t think contradicts anything you’ve said but simply elaborates a point I’m sure you’ve contemplated) is that not every instance of cognitive dissonance a person tries to resolve is to reduce suffering per se, but to simply resolve the issue in one’s head to have some finality about it. Not having this finality certainly causes suffering as to some issues (deeply held personal ones), but not always as to others. In either case, resolving the dissonance does bring about mental rest, so that the mind is not constantly whirring and retracing its steps in an endless loop. At least on that particular issue. Or so it is for me. I like to put things to bed . . . so I can obsess about other things. LOL.

              Glad you’re around here, Alanzo.

        • EnthralledObserver

          It seems Marty objected to ‘stooping to name-calling’ so I have reposted it without the ‘narcissit’s’ word – see if that appeases him. Seems alright when he calls Miscavige whatever he wants – hypocrite.

          • Careful. 😉 ..there might be someone reading your posts against good ole gentle meek and mild Marty . They show up here to give him one big emotional hand job . Ya know …since he is so full of knowingness…and beingness.. and stuff .

      • DeElizabethan

        I’m a witness to that. Lots of fun.

    • Hey …me too ! Great logic they have ….you got to join a cult to understand what it is like being in a cult . Freaking nuts. If you were banned from commenting is a badge of honor 😉

      • EnthralledObserver

        Working on it… :p

      • I have been banned at least 5 times from Marty’s blog.

        And that is just as “Alanzo”.


        • Wayne and Garth bow to you !! 🙂

        • EnthralledObserver

          lol… good effort!
          Hmm… you mean he ‘unbanned you’ four times???? LOL

          • Yes. He likes to make it look like you are lying when you say that you have been banned from Marty’s blog.

            Marty is a very clever and strategic kind of guy. He applies a kind of oriental logic where you both do one thing AND its opposite at the same time. Sometimes I admire the COVERT and OVERT nature of Marty’s Goals, Purposes, Plans, and Projects.

            Then I wake up and take a shower.


            • BuryTheNuts2

              How many times do you think they made Marty read “The Art of War”?
              In his position, he probably slept with it under his pillow.

    • I have pretty much stopped posting over there, firstly I am SOOO sick of being called OSA. $cns cannot survive without a constant target it seems. But the main reason is I was being given cramming orders from the M’s. Give me a break!

      (Cramming order; A list of words to clear and books to read because your opinion has not conformed.)
      Or as Vance puts it;
      “Yup. Here’s your manual. Just add some hope, then shake with vigor.”
      “But how can I shake with vigor if I can’t get vigor until I’m Clear?”
      “Uh … Get lost kid. You’re buggin’ me.”

      • EnthralledObserver

        That’s pretty much what happened to me over these last two days. I offer an opinion, they said’ ‘word clear emotion’, I offered my interpretation, they said “read ‘this’ book, by L.Ron which will clear it up for you’, I said, ‘as if, I prefer credible sites like Wiki would be more reliable :p ‘, they said ‘take a hike if you don’t want to learn’

    • John P.

      This is standard technique for Scientologists to attack the “cred” of people outside the cult — that an outsider can’t judge Hubbard’s work since they haven’t been “in.”

      The general principle does make some sense: I probably can’t critique the job an airline pilot is doing in the cockpit unless I’m another pilot. But there are plenty of endeavors in which a smart, hard-working person outside the discipline is able to render appropriate critique that is often extremely effective and accurate. The example I used in one discussion about this a couple days ago is figure skating judges: few international judges are current or former figure skating champions; it’s a different skill set that turns a person into one or the other. There are many other examples. And, certainly in the case of the cult, outside critique is probably more accurate, given all the brainwashing that takes place while people are sinking deeper into studying the Hubbard drivel.

      So this fallacy is an example of a typical mind control technique at work. It’s probably pretty hard to let go of this one when one is disentangling from the cult, since it is somewhat grounded in common sense. As a result, people are likely to question this far later in their process of rebuilding their lives than some of the other key precepts that they have to let go of immediately (Hubbard is infallible, Scientology works 100% of the time, etc.).

      • EnthralledObserver

        Hmm… yes, i see, and agree. I follow your posts closely, JohnP… you have such a way with words and a very clear understanding of life, so I perceive. You are one of the ones here that I take the most notice of – thank you for all you contribute.

      • You’re right. Of course the fallback position if “cred” fails is good old “argumentum ad hominum” (“What are your crimes?”)

      • JP,I think psychology calls it the “primary error”, am I right? I can’t quite remember fully, but I seem to recall having read something like that.

        The idea being that we all make the mistake of not putting ourselves in the other person’s shoes and assuming that because no one has experienced what we have that they cannot possibly understand our situation.

        After reading about that problem, I make it a point not to assume that people can’t understand what I have been through and additionally make it a point to put myself in the other person’s shoes when having a conversation.

        In other words, when you say, “Oh you haven’t read it so your opinion doesn’t matter.” You are absolutely 100% incorrect. Just because someone has no hands-on experience with something doesn’t mean they cannot inject valuable insight into a given situation. Sometimes an objective opinion can be more valuable than one from someone who is knee deep in a subject.

        Case-in-point being Tony Ortega and you on the subject of Scientology.

      • Ziontologist

        I enjoy reading your comments, and I thank you for your interesting interpretations, especially about the axioms! Hubbard claimed to have the ultimate knowledge, and you do a good job of turning it into the carny sideshow that it is.

        “This is standard technique for Scientologists to attack the “cred” of people outside the cult — that an outsider can’t judge Hubbard’s work since they haven’t been “in.”
        “The example I used in one discussion about this a couple days ago is figure skating judges: few international judges are current or former figure skating champions”

        I think this comment was made in response to something I said, and it’s an interesting observation. It reminded me of how some vocal coaches are very highly paid, not because they’re great singers, but because they can make great singers even greater.

        All I ever wanted to do on this blog was denounce the evil of Scientology, goof on it, while being honest about my own subjective experiences, which I think is key to understanding the scam. I wouldn’t put that in the same category as a “fallacy” or “an example of a typical mind control technique at work.”

        You are right about so many things, and I thank you for for many observations.

        • Midwest Mom

          Zi – Did you see my post to you on the Lawrence Wright thread about the assignment?

          • BuryTheNuts2

            MOM!!!…email me at
            I need to “comm” with you……
            it is about my “energy” and Your lack therof…

            • Midwest Mom

              I e-mailed you!

            • BuryTheNuts2


          • Ziontologist

            Thank you for the compassion, you are very sweet and I appreciate it, but it sounds like you are making assumptions about me that aren’t true. I’ve been back to school since I was a Scientologist. How much personal information do I need to share? Do I have to tell my whole life story before people realize that I’m for real?

            • Midwest Mom

              I’m sorry.

            • Ziontologist

              No, don’t be! You are very sweet and it”s obvious that you are reaching out in a way that is to be admired.

            • Midwest Mom

              Thank you, Zi. 🙂

  • Ze Moo

    “There’s no obvious reason why these “perceptics,” as he calls them, need new names. (And oiliness apparently came later.)” Don’t forget ‘havingness’, ‘beingness’, ‘AWARENESS OF IMPORTANCE, UNIMPORTANCE’. There are 55 perceptics in Capt Bill Robertson’s great list of perceptics.

    I don’t understand why ‘bloviatingness’ the ability to detect bloviation, isn’t a perceptic. It would seem to be a necessary part of scieno training.

    After one of those 3 hour David Miscavige speeches, does the audience give a ‘standing bloviation’?

  • BosonStark

    What about the contradiction between latching onto the idea of one individual like Hubbard — being easier than a group — yet Dianutty supposedly being a science?

    Science is about an individual coming up with a theory, and proving part of it, while others expand on it and use it, or disprove it. Dianutty was about Hubbard controlling it in a fixed manner and it being unchanged and undeveloped after his death, and remain as Source — never to be challenged. That to me, dispels any notion of it being a science.

    Dianutty was supposed to be so powerful that it would result in a flowering of invention in all fields — not a bunch of self absorbed actors who divorce a lot, dance, and collect lemurs. Just where is this flow of brilliant invention that would spring forth out of these “clears”?

  • “Hubbard’s followers spend decades chasing the dream of discovering secrets not about the world or the universe but about themselves.”

    How different this focus is from that of the major religions – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism. These traditions ask the follower center his/her focus on something beyond. Contrast Scientology’s focus with the following –

    “Let me not be overly concerned with that bothersome thing I call myself.” – Thomas More.

    “As our attachment to these three notions [the concepts of “I”, “mine”, “my body”, “my name”] grows stronger, we become more and more exclusively concerned with our own well-being. All our striving for comfort, our intolerance of life’s annoying circumstances, our preoccupation with pleasure and pain, wealth and poverty, fame and obscurity, praise and blame, are due to this idea of “I”. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (Tibetan Buddhism)

    • BosonStark

      This perfection and exploration of self has resulted in David Miscavige having perfectly polished light bulbs, a $150,000 stereo system, multiple vehicles, perfect abs, clothes, and shoes. He’s perfectly clear. A clear pretends they use Dianutty to cure their asthma, not nebulized steroids to control it. A clear pretends they have the perfect family, while their wife is missing and the rest of the family deserts them. A clear… KSW.

    • BuryTheNuts2

      Replace “I” with “Ego” and I think you have an answer. JMHO.

  • Midwest Mom

    “…simpler, as exact and far more useful than physics or chemistry”

    “…is an ‘exact science’ on the order of engineering”

    “A collection of pursuits in the humanities that have been brought together and made ‘precise’ ”

    “…relies not on theories, but on axioms -in other words, revealed truths, not guesses”

    “Dianetic therapy is able to cure, completely, and with no chance of relapse, all “inorganic” and “psychosomatic” illnesses”

    All of these statements all false, as well as ridiculous. Besides, I personally feel that gravity is more noticeably significant than anything Hubbard ever pimped.

    • John P.

      Yep, gravity is our friend (unless we’re climbing big hills on our bicycle).

      The statement about “it’s better because it’s based on axioms” is pretty interesting. The five axioms in Euclidean geometry (the kind we all learned in school) are pretty straightforward and are sufficient to model most of what we can observe in the physical world. And the axioms of Euclidean geometry all make sense.

      Hubbard was not content with five axioms. Nope, there are 58. Hey, if you’re the smartest guy ever, you certainly ought to be able to come up with almost 12 times as many axioms as Euclid. The first ten are as follows:

      Axiom One: Life is basically a static. (Definition: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.)

      Definition: In Scientology, the word ‘postulate’ means to cause a thinkingness or consideration. It is a specially applied word and is defined as causative thinkingness.

      Axiom Two: The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.

      Axiom Three: Space, energy, objects, form and time are the results of considerations made and/or agreed upon or not by the static, and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.

      Axiom Four: Space is a viewpoint of dimension. (Space is caused by looking out from a point. The only actuality of space is the agreed-upon consideration that one perceives through something and this we call space.)

      Axiom Five: Energy consists of postulated particles in space. (One considers that energy exists and that he can perceive energy. One also considers that energy behaves according to certain agreed-upon laws. These assumptions and considerations are the totality of energy.)

      Axiom Six: Objects consist of grouped particles and solids.

      Axiom Seven: Time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist. (The rate of their persistence is what we measure with clocks and the motion of heavenly bodies.)

      Axiom 8: The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.

      Axiom 9: Change is the primary manifestation of time.

      Axiom 10: The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.

      How many of these seem intuitive and obvious to you? How many of them just seem like random word salad? Oh, and given that Hubbard claimed to be a “nuclear physicist,” how many of these that have to deal with partcles, persistence and time would be considered consistent with the quantum mechanical theories that were in existence when Hubbard flunked out of a class studying them in the 1930s?

      So much of this is random doubletalk, not unlike the grandiose speech patterns of those schizophrenic homeless people that panhandle on street corners. Axiom 3 sounds like it could be a retelling of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle if you read it just right (it’s not), which might make someone who read about Heisenberg’s ideas in a high school physics class think Hubbard is a freaking genius. But it really is the foundation of the mind trap of “what’s true is what’s true for you” (in other words, you can disregard objective truth if you happen to believe differently).

      • Midwest Mom

        John, I suggest you take two Axioms along with two liters of vegetable oil every four to six hours. This will not only help cleanse your colon and semi-colon, but when combined with herbs and spices will make a zesty italic dressing for your random word salad. 🙂

        • 1subgenius

          The secret to good health is 6 glasses of water a day.
          —Woody Allen

        • BuryTheNuts2

          Please do not forget to add 6 oz. of wheat grass.
          This will help to make you more “sessionable”

          Trust me on this.

    • BuryTheNuts2

      There is no gravity. You are mocking that up.

      • BosonStark

        Midwest Mom’s mocking up of gravity is only holding her down, along with several misunderstoods. She’s got to expand, with the simplicity and preciseness of knowingness that is Dianutty.

        • Midwest Mom

          Midwest Mom’s figure tends to expand when she eats too many dianutty-nutter bars.

          • you could always get a “semi colonic ” …:)

            • Midwest Mom

              I heard that leads to conjunctive-itis Arr Arr (Re: the conjunctive adverb).

      • Oh that would be so funny if Scientologists did not actually believe that. It’s kind of sad really. Scientolgoists believe that we are only sticking to this planet because we are agreeing to it. Not because gravity is a real and measurable force.

        When I started gathering a cursory understanding of quantum physics is when I started to realize that some of the things which Hubbard (in 1950) so grandly claimed that “no body knew”, science had actually discovered.

        One of the last Scientology related conversations I remember having with my family was about the moon landing. In the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (oh Tony, you would have so much fun with doing a piece on those lectures), which is a series of lectures that supposedly describe the state of OT, Hubbard claims that Xenu put up a screen around planet earth that prevents thetans and organic material from ever leaving the planet. He described it as being 50 miles above planet earth.

        My family was agreeing that because of said screen that we could not leave earth and therefore the moon landing was fake and FOX was right in their special.

        I even asked about the international space station and explained to them that the orbit of the station is above 50 miles at times.

        That was when I realized that not only does Scientology ruin lives it also makes people stupid.

        • Midwest Mom

          I have a cousin who is a physicist with NASA. He loved the South Park episode which told the Xenu story, since it’s so hysterically funny and shows what an idiot Hubbard was with regard to physics and chemistry and all components and dynamics of science as a whole (not to mention everything else).

          Hubbard and Lindsay Lohan carry the same amount of credibility in the scientific world. Zilch.

          • John P.

            Hubbard and Lindsay Lohan carry the same amount of credibility in the scientific world. Zilch.

            Ouch. That might not be the ultimate insult but it comes fairly close.

            • BuryTheNuts2

              hmmm, she is a redhead…
              Well, sometimes…

      • califa007

        Gravity is really just the name given to the curvature of the space-time continuum.

  • Ze Moo

    Here are 2 wonderfully wacky Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman stories. I like to say you can’t make this stuff up, buy if you have sufficient imagination you can make up anything.

    The Uks Independent is almost a respectable newspaper.

    • BuryTheNuts2

      The pounding is absolutely relentless!
      I wonder how many Scientologist’s have been slapped silly by Davey in the last week?
      He must be beyond rabid by now and in an exhausting fit of manicical hysteria.

      • Ze Moo

        Karin Prouw is going to lose a lot of weight on the rice and beans diet. I saw a TV scientology commercial last night during ‘Big Bang Theory’. It was a 15 – 20 second one, Davey was preaching to the choir, but some clueless people might have been drawn in. The current CO$ media strategy is as ill-considered and it is wasteful of assets.

        • 1subgenius

          I don’t know where I got this, but your post made me think of “The Last Scientologist”.
          (Tom, turn out the lights, please.)

        • Midwest Mom

          I assume that most people who watch that show would at least have a computer and know all about Xenu, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, etc.and would know enough to look up Scientology on this point.

        • califa007

          Actually showing the commercials on TV is new. In the past commercials were made, shown at Scn events and enormous amounts of money collected to pay for their air time. But they were shown only once or twice, if at all, on some obscure (low rent) channel. The money went into SM’s slush fund. Recently I’ve actually seen some on major networks. DM has to be reacting. Everything he does is reactive – like relocating the hole. GAT II is supposedly coming and my guess is that it will attempt to address the loudest of the complaints. Too little, too late.

    • Sherbet

      Although I love stories like that, they continue to strengthen the public’s opinion of, “Oh, that silly scientology with their silent births and craziness!” which is pretty much what I thought before opening my eyes to the misery, lies, horror, disconnection, death, and extortion that scn really is. Still, it’s great to have the press unafraid to publish publish publish. Every time scn looks foolish, it’s one more point on the side of truth.

  • scnethics

    I read Dianetics cover-to-cover, and that’s what conned me into scientology. I was young.

    Out of curiosity, I pulled out the book and read through the first 20 pages or so to see what impression it gave me. What really caught my eye was how Hubbard was painting a picture of himself to the reader, while never openly talking about himself.

    He describes the state of Clear and the reader would assume that he has reached this state since he’s the founder of the science. When Hubbard talks about the state of Clear, he is actually bragging about himself.

    Here’s a great excerpt from page ix of the synopsis in the 2007 edition, where Hubbard is telling the reading how morally pure he is:

    — “That Man was good, as established by exacting research, was no great surprise. But that an unaberrated individual was vigorously repelled by evil and yet gained enormous strength was astonishing, since aberration has been so long incorrectly supposed to be the root of strength and ambition according to authorities since the time of Plato.” —

    He was setting himself up as a guru from the word go, and this surprised me, but what didn’t surprise me was how unscientific his assertions were, and how scientific he was trying to make them sound. Here are some of my favorites:

    Page x of the Synopsis, 2007 edition
    — “Completely aside from the fact than an exact science does not “believe”, but establishes and proves facts,…” —
    Of course, in science, there are no “facts”. Only theories, which may one day be proved false.

    Page 3 of How to Read This Book, 2007 edition
    — “As research progressed and the field developed, Dianetics began to simplify. This is a fair guarantee that one is on a straight trail of science. Only things which are poorly known become more complex the longer one works upon them.” —
    Oh yes, chemistry and physics are much simpler now than they used to be, as are medicine and psychology. Oh wait, was he taking a stab at these real sciences while trying to explain away why his “science” was so simple?

    Page 9 from Chapter 1, 2007 edition
    — “Of what must a science of mind be composed?
    1. An answer to the goal of thought.
    2. A single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and social derangements.” —
    Here he claims you can’t cure someone without telling them why they think or what purpose their mind is to serve. Also, a science must find a single source for all problems – what?! How about multiple causes like genetics and environment, which makes much more sense?

    • John P.

      Best line you excerpted: “As research progressed and the field developed, Dianetics began to simplify.” I took this to mean that his editors made him cut a ton of drivel out of the book because it would cost him sales; they had accurately measured the blather tolerance of his audience and found that early drafts would have been too much. Apparently, a 678-page paperback was just right but a 1,400 page paperback would have been too much.

      • scnethics

        It’s hard to believe his editors cut anything. There are seminars where you learn the theory and start auditing with a partner in only 45 minutes. It’s that simple, and yet the instructions for how to do it are so buried, you have to very carefully read the book to figure out how to get started yourself. If editors had cut out the parts where Hubbard describes your parents trying to murder you in your fetal state (or that the fetus was severely injured during sex), the book would have been MUCH shorter.

        • califa007

          The Dianetics book would lead one to assume there were wholesale abortions by coat hangar with multiple abortions per woman. Was anyone actually born? Abortion seemed the norm. And the dialogue! As I read the book I kept thinking of that old psych joke: “But, doctor, you’re the one who’s drawing all the dirty pictures.” There was no research; these scenarios were all from Hubbard’s mind and his mind was not in a good place.

  • 0tessa

    Yeah, well, in the end it was all science fiction! What else could you expect from a science fiction writer.
    But in Hubbard’s visio the fiction became scio: Scientology.

  • LemonLemon

    Seems like Hubbard likes to use the Greek and Latin languages to make his new invention of “scientology” and “dianetics” seem legit and official and based in something other than the clusterfuck of his deteriorating mind.

    • BuryTheNuts2

      Um yeah, just like Science, Medicine, Philosophy, Classic and Modern Literature….etc. etc. etc.

      Since that is “root” language it would be hard for him to avoid….especially since he loved to take an original idea or truth and twist it.

      Klingon would have been somewhat more original….

      • LemonLemon

        LOL yeah, I know. But I mean legitimate branches like science, medicine, etc use root languages to tell something about the item. Hubbard probably used the root languages only to make his inventions seem to carry some weight.

        • BuryTheNuts2

          Hey, don’t you know how much LRH’s books actually weigh?
          Or that if you put all of his written pages from end to end you can make a bridge….to say…Venus?

          OK, OK, all joking aside…well maybe not….do you realize you have the word “legitimate” in a sentence right next to another sentence that begins with; Hubbard?
          Is this a chemistry experiment?
          Are you trying to make Tony’s blog explode?

          • LemonLemon

            Hehe Oh BurytheNuts, you are making me chuckle this morning! Hmm you are correct. The words “legitimate” and “Hubbard” should never be used in the same sentence, even when referring to different things. Even the close proximity within the sentence may cause some crossover ::gasp::
            I think the time-space continuum and my “beingness” may have collided.

  • TheHoleDoesNotExist

    Insert: Moan

    The moment you start viewing scientology as a religion/church, you are going to get unreliable, skewered results. Notice there is nothing about religion, gods, beliefs so far. Hubbard himself in a rare honest moment told his customers he resorted to the religion angle to skip past the tax man and shield himself from the lawyers. The Only people who keep pushing this angle as valid are those who either make at 15% commission or are power crazy.

    Hubbard says it is a therapy and that’s what it is, self help in the beginning. And the moment you start grabbing at One thing that pulls people in and hooks them, you are going to get unreliable, skewered results. A great con man always starts with surveillance to find out the marks’ hot buttons. When an entire organization runs a scam, it usually only focuses on one or two. The Hubbard organization did not, which is why it was so successful for so long. You cannot eat at a restaurant at Flag without being bombarded with surveys about the food, the service, your auditing, your courses, and at events it goes on before, during, and after. Then there are surveys in every single promo piece, and relentless phone calls of regging are interspersed with phone calls of yet more surveys.

    In actual fact, auditing/therapy is laid out in a Step by Step schedule, so it is Not individualized. However, your courses, your reg, and your ethics officer soon knows more about you than your own mother and This is where the individualization enters in. They know exactly how to manipulate you to do whatever it is they want, whether more money, more volunteer time, more spying, more book buying, more reasons to join staff, and on and on.
    So the full answer to what draws customers in is that the con is run to find out Exactly what it is that will you draw you in.

    Remember that approximately 85% of those that come in pile out the door within less than a year. The other 15% you can be assured are at some vulnerable peak in their life and/or have access to wealth. In today’s scientology market, there are so few coming in while long term loyal customers are leaving, that new shoppers get pounced on, a grave departure from the selling game, and they run, not walk, out the door. The draw is differently for every single customer in the beginning. Whatever hot buttons they find, it will be used to coax you into a warm, comfy honeymoon period. You get personal attention of people who seem to really care about your own personal goals and dreams and help you rid yourself of what is in your way. Most staff actually do/did care.
    But everyone has a different button to push, and besides attention, care, love bombing, you get to talk on and on about your problems. Now, even your best friends couldn’t stand listening to you drone on and on, hour after hour. So scientology offers that feel good service, and starts you off at a low, low price.

    I would say that the main Appeal in the beginning is the incredible relief you feel finally having an answer to that question: Why the hell did I just do/say That!? Most religions have always answered: You are evil, or possessed by Mr. Evil, repent, sacrifice, etc. Psychiatry was still in its infant stages, but they were starting to answer: Your mind is screwed up, it needs to be tuned up. Hubbard notice the popularity of this idea and used it as a selling point.

    Only in reason years has medical science been able to do research that is coming up with a new answer: It’s your brain, and we can repair some now, more later. And yes, Hubbard was trying desperately to cure his mental illness. The results of this, his “auditing” his case, appears to be paranoia and schizophrenia. If anyone wants to see how dangerous this quakery is, you need look no further than Hubbard himself.

    • BuryTheNuts2

      You, are my favorite poster.
      And this is why……

      • TheHoleDoesNotExist

        I just get cranky when I hear Hubbard and Religion in the same sentence, much like the above moan of Hubbard and Legitimate in the same sentence.

        What’s funny is that if you ask any ex scientologist what they wanted to get out of Clear or OT, first they might parrot long drilled phrases of fluffery pooh. But if you then ask them what they secretly wanted to do with those new powers, you will get hundreds of different answers, and some quite revealing.

        The garden variety bully, for instance, who inwardly feels insecure, will salivate over the thought of having more power over others and knows Exactly what he/she’s gonna do when OT. I had a friend who was crippled and was cruelly given false hope that he could be mobile again as an OT exterior. Some thought they could just snap their will and become owners of the company where they worked, just glow it all right. Of course, there were lots of ladies who had all kinds of fun ideas of what they’d do as OT Wimmen. I’m proud to say I never wrote up a KR on any one of them. It gave me too many good ideas.

        I just wanted to feel better. Oh, and save the world from crime and insanity and evil people who must actually be aliens in disguise. I was a science fiction fan of the 50’s and 60’s and 70’s. We sci fi fans and artists had some pretty wild imaginations, some having used and tired of drugs and lookin’ for a new high. My favorite fellow staff and public were these. We weren’t really crazy, just having fun bending the grey matter to see how far we could.

        There were others that were of the engineering types, pretty straight laced, conservative who were what we liked to call “solid citizens”. Lord knows what they called us behind the scenes. But if they were so smart, why were we the first to leave?

        Most staff I knew never read Dianetics because they couldn’t understand a word. Public pretty much the same, but they were more likely to pretend they did. (I met literally thousands of public and staff in my time in various countries). If you Did think you understood it, you probably were the perfect test subject, step right up and test your personality. Psychiatry was expensive and still considered quack. Dianetics was cheap, but it was really what was called Book 1 coauditing that started the coffee clutch fad. It was much easier, short step by step. Hubbard had a series of perfectly good con men as well as marketing brains (Jeff Hawkins would come later on, but a good example). Unfortunately, as soon as anyone got greedy or wise, he “cleared” them right off the books and the front lawn and gave each one the boot. I always smile when I hear a scientology referring to the famous “Boots in the Sky” article. They only Think they know what it means. (insert wicked laugh).

        • I’m not quite so put off by the description of Scientology as a religion. As John Sweeney points out, here in the US the cloak of religion gives Scientology a huge pass because we are uncomfortable with the danger of persecution. But as uncomfortable as it may seem, Scientology is a religion in so far as it speaks to the beliefs and aspirations of the followers and if we dig a little deeper we can find that to be a useful tool for evaluation. What is the ultimate aim of Scientology? To give the individual godlike power over matter,energy, space and time. In your case you sought to achieve this power for good. As you point out others wanted the power to control others (the “Mini Hubbards”?). This raises the question – does any human being possess the detachment and wisdom required to have such awesome power? If we’re honest we know that the answer is unequivocally “no” because we know that at the root of it all we are not perfect and that much of what we do results in things we do not intend, often in results that we regret. To achieve this end what does it ask of the believer? To focus so much on oneself that the individual becomes either immobilized by his or her inability to achieve “wins” or becomes self-delusional about his/her own powers. Neither of these outcomes is healthy for the individual.

          • BuryTheNuts2

            hmmmmmmmmmmmm. You make some very good points in the posts. I am very impressed with your logic.
            of course, I have also had vino… so I must excuse my response, because it is mostly hazy if not downright abstract,,,(giggles)
            Oneself, selfishness, ID, EGO…”I”
            while there may be some variations…Lines also blur…right?
            Gerald, We unique drones that we are …well…the Individual sometimes wins…In the END.

  • Midwest Mom


    • John P.

      If you want to escape the cult after that particular punctuation fiasco, is that a “colon blow?” And isn’t there a video about that somewhere? Like this:

      • Observer

        In DM’s case it would be a semicolon blow

      • scnethics

        It’s bigger than that – it’s a SUPER colon blow.

        • TheHoleDoesNotExist

          So That’s what it means when I hear people say “It’s all a huge pile of crap”, like the Super Pooper building.

        • Midwest Mom

          “Super Colon Blow” sounds like a movie title from the ’70’s starring Shelley Winters and Ernest Borgnine.

  • “Incidentally, Hubbard had a passing familiarity with Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics … I suspect his desire to come up with precise definitions (i.e. one word = one definition instead of one word = many definitions) partly came out of that association. Either way, it all plays into the atmosphere he set. The subtext is, “I’m a precise engineer and this is an established subject. Please forgive me for being so meticulous. That’s just how we science guys roll.”

    Interesting, and I agree with your analysis but I wonder if Hubbard in his attempt to be scientific isn’t giving short shrift to the creative people in the arts like poets who rely on the concept of nuance. The most ready, though not exact, example is the hackneyed one of the Inuit having something like twenty-seven words for “snow” dependent on each type’s characteristics. This came from observation and a desire to communicate that observation not from scientific testing.

  • Jefferson Hawkins

    In a sense, Hubbard (and Scientologists) spent the next 30+ years backing away from the assertions in Dianetics. It was “scientific,” yet there were no actual research papers, research records (peer reviewed or otherwise), or anything else that demonstrated he had not, in fact, invented or borrowed the whole thing. I recall at one point I was working on writing an intriduction to Dianetics, The Original Thesis and asked the Archives department if I could see Hubbard’s original research papers and case notes. They said no such papers or notes existed. In other words Hubbard, who obsessively kept everything about his life from early childhood, had neglected to preserve these?

    So after a few years, Hubbard backed away from the “scientific” claim and re-branded it as a religion. And even to this day, Scientologists will back off from the “science” claim and begin attacking “science” as inferior to Hubbard’s spiritual intuition if you bring the subject up.

    Hubbard’s inability to produce anything that resembled a Clear was a continual source of embarrassment. If you listen to the Congress lectures (nothing I recommend by the way), he is continually asserting, “We’re almost there, we’re on the road to producing a real Clear, it’s going to happen,” and so on. Then about 1959, he says “we’ve bypassed Clear and we’re going straight for OT.” Huh?

    Then all the excitement about OT, all the Advance magazine stories of OT Phenomena. Then after a few years, you see all the rationalizations and excuses for why OT “powers” never materialized – PTS, bypassed case, drugs, so on and so on. Now Scientology backs away from all those heady claims about OT. “He didn’t really mean cause over matter, energy, space and time…” I’ve had it explained to me that an OT is really just someone who can live a more successful life – a sort of Tony Robbins result in other words, not an advanced being with superior spiritual powers.

    Dianetics was strong stuff. It made all kinds of amazing claims about the nature of man and the mind and how people could be Cleared. I got caught up in it. A lot of people did. Then when the results failed to materialize, you get the reasons, the excuses, the justifications. And Scientologists, like Hubbard, become masters at explaining away the lack of results.

    • scnethics

      I never got anywhere with Dianetics auditing, which puzzled me a bit, until I got into scientology and was told that as it turns out, Hubbard way over-estimated the sanity and intelligence of people at the time he wrote Dianetics. In fact, most people weren’t ready for Dianetics until they were almost Clear! And even then, it was “New Era Dianetics” they would get. I thought to myself, “That makes perfect sense. I can’t get anywhere with Dianetics because of how screwed up I am.” – “Sign me up!”

      • Yes. “Dianetics was written at a time when the literacy level was much higher in society. There weren’t as many psychs in the schools, and drugs were far less common.”

        Oh! That’s why it makes no fucking sense!

        My needle’s floating!

        • scnethics


        • richelieu jr

          Well, as they say, ‘Whatever floats your needle’, right?

      • DeElizabethan

        In the early 70’s Dianetics was after the two intro courses, before the Grades. I had a successful drug rundown and found out why I needed to escape thru drugs or alcohol. Of course I could’ve gotten that help elsewhere but that’s where I was at the time. Then they kept changing the required courses or the bridge, almost drove me nuts.
        Btw, I still drink for fun, just to get high, relax, nice!

      • califa007

        I don’t think Hubbard ever over-estimated anyone except himself; he always viewed the public as inferior, low-life scum. The same attitude the church has today.

    • John P.

      Jeff, great post!

      I find it particularly amusing, and wholly within character, for Hubbard to leave all those amazing claims in Dianetics after who knows how many different editions. But the only time you got the explanation softpedaling all those wonderful promised rewards was after you had spent God only knows how many years and God only knows how much money going down the rabbit hole chasing them.

  • BuryTheNuts2

    OK, I had to do this, just for fun. The summary is great…needed in fact.
    But since I just love words and LRH had such an, er, way with them…….

    Here is some random (out of context as if that matters) Dianetics; from Chapter II, The Clear:

    Now it is a curious thing that although “everybody knows” (and what a horrible
    amount of misinformation that statement lets circulate) it is “human to err,” the sentient portion
    of the mind which computes the answers to problems and which makes man Man is utterly
    incapable of error.
    This was a startling discovery when it was made, but it need not have been. It could
    have been deduced some time before. For it is quite simple and easy to understand. The actual
    computing ability of Man is never in error even in a very severely aberrated person. Observing
    the activity of such an aberrated person, one might thoughtlessly suppose that that person’s
    computations were wrong. But that would be an observer error. Any person, aberrated or
    clear, computes perfectly on the data stored and perceived.

    Everybody Got that? Good!

    • Observer

      I compute that this is a steaming pile of crap. GIGO.

      • BuryTheNuts2

        Its a steaming pile of Lafayette Ron Hubbard….so yeah! A=A=A=A…..

    • Scientologists criticize psychiatrists for giving Hitler the idea for his “master race”, and yet here we have Hubbard claiming that everyone has the “maser race” inside of them but they just need his religion to bring it out.

    • Vistaril

      Just a few years after publication, L Ron Hubbard admitted that Dianetics (aka Book One) could NOT produce a Clear. Yet, even today, you will find Scientologists saying that it can. Talk about fraud!

      • BuryTheNuts2

        That is the thing…If someone could put all of his shit into any kind of “bullshitometer computer program” and cross reference dates, lies, contradictions, etc.
        He would negate everything he ever said at some point.

        Do you remember the original “the Fly”
        The cat “Dandelo” I think was it’s name…
        The wife wants to know where the cat is…
        Mad Scientist:….
        Dandelo….is a stream of cat atoms………..As he motions to the sky.

        bullshit=bullshit…yada yada.

  • Ze Moo

    Jason Bighe said it best, ‘Show me a mo-fo clear’. Given the screwed up lives of the Celbutologists, I have to wonder why Lron touted them so much. Even in the 50’s, the gossip rags dug out great (and sometimes true) gossip.

    “A new book written by a Pulitzer winner called Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief
    claims that the Church of Scientology viewed actress Nicole Kidman as “a gold digger who was faking Scientology” when she was married to Scientology mascot Tom Cruise, and that Kidman was an active participant
    in the search for her successor as Tom’s beard-wife, who of course wound up being Katie Holmes. Now the Church’s lawyer (who is also Cruise’s lawyer, of course) is saying that the book is fake and dumb,
    basically. He told Page Six: “The chapter about Tom is based on provable lies by a bunch of bitter ex-Scientologists. The book itself is boring.” Ha. Good third grade response. It’s lies and and boring. Who cares. “The book itself is boring.” Nobody asked you for a review, bub. “The book is factually incorrect and it’s also stupid and the author is ugly.” A measured response! It’s no wonder everyone loves Scientologists. [Page Six]”

    I am of the opinion that Tom eventually divorced Nicole Kidman because their marriage was approaching its 10th anniversary and under California law divorcing spouses with 10 years or more of marriage have to split everything 50/50. It was a simple business deal that became too expensive for TC. TC is the very definition of self-centered putz.

    • Actually I think that the 50/50 applies immediately after marriage, and that can even be eliminated by a prenuptial agreement which most rich people use when they get married.

      I think you are referring to the threshold that determines whether or not the financially superior spouse must pay alimony or not. Considering that both Nicole and Cruise were wealthy at the time, and that alimony is meant to help the less financially able spouse preserve the lifestyle which the wealthier spouse provided for them, somehow I think alimony may not have been applicable. If it was it probably would have been immaterial in the big picture. Regardless, alimony only persists as long as the spouse receiving it stays unwed.

      The only reason I say that is because their divorce is well known within Scientology to have been because of her father’s profession. Most Scientologists consider her an SP who was holding Cruise back from being the Xenu Jesus that he is today.

      • Ze Moo

        I love the ‘Xenu Jesus’ line. I think that California becomes a ‘community property’ division of martial assets state after 10 years of marriage. If Nicole’s father’s occupation, being a psychologist was such a problem, why did Tom marry her? I know scienos hate anything to do with mental health, but the anti-nicole stuff only pops up in an effort to explain the divorce.

        At one point in the Tom-NIcole war, TC said ‘Nicole knows what she did’. I don’t know how to process that statement. Either NIcole used her influence to keep TC away from scamatology or there was an affair. I suspect a smoke screen was put up to keep TCs ego happy. Tom has become a poster boy for scamatology, just like he wanted to be. Of course he doesn’t understand the difference between being laughed at and laughed with.

        • Observer

          I doubt the idea that anyone could laugh AT him ever enters Tom’s vacuous little head. He’s the Biggest Movie Star in the World, as well as this sector’s Third Biggest Being, so how could anyone ever find him ridiculous?

          • Plus the running …i mean that guy runs like a homo novis or something

            • Observer


            • Midwest Mom

              Kim, read some of your comments from the Hollywood Reporter in the voices of characters from South Park. For some reason, when I read “The tech doesn’t work!”, it reminded me of one in particular, but I’m not sure of his name.

              It’s hysterical.

          • BuryTheNuts2

            You used “Vacuous”…
            I love that word…Like..uh…in a really erotic way…

            • Observer

              I, um … *crickets*

            • BuryTheNuts2

              if is starts with a “V”…oh vey…
              It is my own personnnnnnnnnnnnnnnal fetish……..LOL

        • EnthralledObserver

          I’m suspecting, given Nicole’s apparent perplexed reaction, that whatever she ‘did’ was something Miscavige selected from her Scientology folders and showed Tom. And Tom doesn’t even have the decency to confront her about it – just dropped the bomb of divorce. Leaving Nicole to wonder jsut what it was that she’d done. Probably was ‘old’ confessions, used to further Miscavige’s agenda for Cruiseypants.

        • BuryTheNuts2

          she was screwin Evan McGregor…at least that is what Capt. Howdy said..(i think)
          I believe him…he is omniscient!

          • Espiando

            If she was…we’ve seen him in the buff in a number of movies. Would you blame her? He’s packing more than one lightsaber.

            • BuryTheNuts2

              Did you ever see Velvet Goldmine?
              Holy moly!

          • Captain Howdy

            I got that from a comment that marc headley left on a blog, which i assumed was in his book. Supposedly DM became aware of this liaison and used it to lure TC back into the fold.

      • Xenu Jesus …my next t-shirt 😉

    • 1subgenius

      “I have to wonder why Lron touted them (celebrities) so much.”

      Oh, come on, you know the answer: advertising.

      You be trollin’.

  • Ze Moo

    Another nice book review of Lawrence Wright’s Going Clear in the NY Times.

    • Espiando

      Hey, a new Jared Diamond book! I’ve got to put that on the shopping list along with Going Clear.

  • LongNeckGoose

    On the mystery of the missing research:

    1) In the older editions of The Original Thesis/The Dynamics of Life, Hubbard gives case histories for 3 of the 20 cases he’d successfully treated. One is a middle-aged former military officer, quite a bit like Mr. Hubbard. The second is a younger woman, about the same age as Mrs. Hubbard #2. And the third is a black “swamp worker” (not sure what a swamp worker is but I get a pretty vivid image of him). I’m not buying the swamp worker thing. So I’m thinking that their research was pretty much on each other.

    2) Then he was supposedly a lay practitioner of some kind at an institution in Savannah, Georgia. Has anybody ever checked to see if there really was such an institution, and whether they really let laymen come in and do research on their patients (even if the layman in question was a published pulp fiction writer)? I’m guessing that there would be legal issues involved with that.

    3) And of course, he said he did research by opening up a storefront in Hollywood, wrapping a towel around his head, and calling himself “swami.” We have some “psychics” conducting the same kind of research in the poorer areas of town even today. You don’t really need a grant for this. This type of research finances itself.

    4) Then finally, when John Campbell published Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science in the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction, a self-selected group of science fiction fans began a trek to Elizabeth, New Jersey to get auditing. (There was a short window between the two, because “engrams” were still called “norns” in the magazine article.)

    I would guess that any research subject mentioned in the book would have had to have come from one of those four groups. Pretty thin proof for a scientific discovery on the same magnitude as fire, the wheel, and the arch!

    • scnethics

      2) Legal liability indeed. I read a transcript where he described inflicting serious pain on a psychotic patient to bring them to present time.

      • Lovely ..just lovely ..( shudder )

      • Hey… I think you just found the thing that proves that Scientology encourages beatings.

        • scnethics

          Ha Ha – The Code of Honor

          12. Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.

          • BuryTheNuts2

            The Eleventh Satanic rule:
            When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

            Which sounds worse?

            Just sayin’

  • Tony, if you keep accurately defining Scientology jargon we are going to have an army of people who speak Scientologese!

    Abberation is definitely a pejorative term. It is the Scientology version of “sin”. Abberation is often used to put Scientologists down because of the nature of the term. As a matter of fact, when I read it I was taken aback for a moment.

    I haven’t used Scientology jargon in so long that I forgot what a strong, negative connotation that word had. Having been raised in Scientology, my parents used those words during discipline. So you can imagine my momentary relapse when I saw you use that word, Tony.

    The fact that you understand the importance of that word in Scientology just shows me how deep down the rabbit hole you have gone. If I didn’t know how well versed you were in the ways of Scientology before, I certainly do now. It’s fascinating to me, to see someone like you who has gone so deep into Scientology, but from the other side of the fence.

    It really shows how important the cult environment and the cult methods are to making sure that someone learns about Scientology at the correct pace before becoming inoculated against the fraud. Otherwise someone can become extremely knowledgeable about the subject, but not be pressed to hand over millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of their lives to the cult.

    Tony, most Scientologists would envy the level of knowledge you have attained. It’s ironic that the cult considers you someone to be feared when you probably have done more to enlighten people on the world of Scientology than Scientology itself has.

    • 0tessa

      My english dictionary says about aberration: mental aberration = disorder of the mind.
      It is also used in physics. The same word exists in my own language (dutch), meaning a mental disturbance.
      The word existed before Hubbard used it. He might have read some books on psychology, I’m sure, and borrowed the term.
      Imo it has nothing to do with the christian notion of ‘sin’. The scientologese equivalent of that is ‘overt’.

      • No one is disputing that the word existed before Hubbard used it. Hubbard just gave the word his own little twist. In Scientology the word is used in a demeaning manner. WOGs are often referred to as “abberated”.

        Examples of abberations:

        Oral sex
        Mental disability
        Physical disability
        Birth defects
        Not being able to understand the words of Hubbard
        Wearing glasses

        Whereas most religions teach you that, “You are perfect in the eyes of God because he made you as you are.” Scientology and Dianetics teach you that you are supposed to be perfect, but right now you are all fucked up. Never fear though, Hubbard can teach you the way!

        • Midwest Mom

          I love how it says, “Not being able to understand the words of Hubbard.”

        • This is a good example of the fact that whenever anyone tells you certain kinds of sex acts among consenting adults (or one consenting adult and her hand/favorite toys) are Bad and Wrong, you need to run far, far away. Also whenever anyone blames the disabled for their disabilities. Also whenever anyone claims that if you can’t understand their reams of gobbledygook, there’s something wrong with you.

          • Sorry i always bring up sex, but I’m just trying to show how important it is behind the closed doors and walls of the cult’s buildings. They focus on it very, very heavily.

            • BuryTheNuts2

              Derek…sex is awesome..bring it “up” all you want. We are adults here.

            • Espiando

              Derek: You, more than just about anyone, have every right to focus on that subject when discussing your discontent with the cult. It’s not something you have to explain or ask forgiveness for. We didn’t do it with Michael Pattinson, and we’re not going to do it to you. Heavy ethics and disconnection for being what you are is repulsive.

            • Don’t apologize for bringing up sex! The more we talk about it honestly, the less messed-up we all get about it as a society. And in this context, it’s necessary to shine a light on how… “aberrated” Hubbard himself was, trying to keep everyone in closets. Or ships’ lockers.

  • Hubbard’s son Ronald DeWolf claimed that the early clears did have advanced abilities. Advanced enough, at any rate, to see the kind of person Hubbard really was. The implication was that processes were changed so that Hubbard’s followers would think the emperor had clothes.

  • 0tessa

    Let’s add some music to all these aberrations:
    Aberrations of the Mind is the ninth album and final album by Swedish heavy metal band Morgana Lefay, released March 19, 2007. This is the first album with Pelle Åkerlind on drums.
    I wonder whether the songwriter knew about Miscavige…?

    [edit] Songs

    All music & lyrics written by Morgana Lefay

    “Delusions” – 3:14

    “Make a Wish” – 3:18

    “The Rush of Possession” – 3:57

    “Depression” – 4:18

    “Caught in the Treadwheel” – 3:55

    “Reflections of War” – 3:46

    “Face of Fear” – 3:23

    “Where I Rule” – 3:36

    “In Shadows I Reign” – 4:31

    “Aberrations of Mind” – 4:00

    “Vultures Devouring” – 3:34

    “Over and Over Again” – 5:54


  • From the post: “But “aberration” does have an additional gloss that carries a value judgment. …Hubbard imbues “aberration” with special meaning and in a sort of Platonic sense — we’re all a bit atypical, apparently, or aberrated, and we have fallen away from a kind of ideal state — the clear.”

    Hubbard’s retooling of the meaning of “aberration” was, in my opinion, was one of his most subtle cozenage tactics. Evaluation of a PC’s case during auditing is strictly forbidden. Yet the manner in which Hubbard came to apply his alternative meaning of aberration is exactly that – evaluation of a case. The concept of aberrations ultimately became the platform for Hubbard’s engram theory and if aberrations as he defined them didn’t exist, then there is no real therapeutic need to process one’s engrams. So in a sense, aberrated tendencies is the bait for the auditing trap while the temporary euphoria from blowing charge on engrams is the song and dance.

    The quintessential importance of Hubbard’s emphasis on aberrations throughout the majority of “The Bridge” (sans OTVIII) becomes readily apparent in Hubbard’s later works where the definition of it was expanded over time. It didn’t stop with reaching Clear, and the more past lives somebody found the more room they had for aberrations. Evidence of this shows up in the “Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary” publication, where unlike other key concepts first defined in DMSMH the first definition listed is not only lengthy but sourced as coming from “LRH Def. Notes” meaning the Tech Dictionary itself. And the final word on that initial definition is:

    “…When a person has engrams, these tend to deflect what would be his normal ability to perceive truth and bring about an aberrated view of situations which then would cause an aberrated reaction to them. Aberration is opposed to sanity, which would be its opposite.”

    So as Scientology practices evolved and ran much deeper than just basic dianetics therapy, so did the meaning and importance of aberrations. If you have engrams, they cause you to have an aberrated view of the world around you, which in turn causes your reactive mind to act in an aberrated fashion, and then that causes more engrams.

    This ultimately makes for a vicious little circle of deception where finding and curing one’s flaws only leads to finding more flaws. It is no wonder so many Scientologists speak of being convinced that when auditing doesn’t work, it must be them – they are doing something wrong, they are at fault, and come to believe their case is worst than they originally thought. Kind of like quicksand, the more you realize your stuck and struggle against it the faster you sink.

    • John P.

      I clicked “like” for this comment but that seems insufficient. I guess I’ll just have to give it a “Very Well Done!”

  • 1subgenius

    Don’t try to follow the “logic” of the insane. You will go insane trying.
    I concluded that on my own, but I found out I was not the first.
    (I have yet to discover an original thought.)

  • BuryTheNuts2
    • Observer

      Wow, everyone’s piling on! When Davey’s head finally explodes it’s going to be Krakatoa all over again.

      • BuryTheNuts2

        If I was at Int. base right now…you could not stop me from blowing…
        I would be so freaking scared of that little nut-bag about now I would go right through the fence if I had too.

        • Pretty sure “blowing ” comes under the list of aberations ( or cums …all depending if you are doing it right )

          • BuryTheNuts2

            OMG! Baaaahhhhaaaa
            Girl, you are so bad…
            I like it.

            • on my 2nd beer at the airport bar …pretty soon you will be able to hear my Boston accent ! 😉

            • Midwest Mom

              I didn’t know you were a pilot! 🙂

      • TheHoleDoesNotExist

        I’ll be checking Google maps to see if any of Hubbard’s 30 ? Dianetic Xenu volcanoes are exploding. I Did feel a little tremble when Sweeney unexploded this week.

    • TheHoleDoesNotExist

      Oh my freakin’ goddess…. I haven’t read it yet. Just saw the headline and thought I’ll have to get a glass wine and a large side order of parmesan popcorn. I’m gonna call this month “BAMuary 2013”

      EXCLUSIVE: Director Paul Haggis speaks out about Scientology in first television interview

      • BuryTheNuts2

        Don’t forget to tell him he has to go get the mail..
        Otherwise…I think you got it!

        Just make sure that thread count on the sheets is nice and high….we still got 3 weeks in OrgasmaJanuary.

    • 1subgenius

      Nice. The piling on is continuing.

    • DeElizabethan

      Thanks for the Vance link.

      YEA! for NBC. It’s marked down. Don’t know what I’d do without you guys to give links, news, etc. My server was out all day. I have a part-time job now and really appreciate keeping up with things. So thanks again. 🙂

  • DeElizabethan

    Tony, you certainly “tell it like it really is” along with Jeff Hawkins and Vance. Thanks I was one of those duped by believing what Hubtard said too. My interest In particular was “As you progress in therapy the adventure is yours to know why you did what you did when you did it, to know what caused those Dark and Unknown Fears”. Now I look at it and say who cares and it wasn’t worth it.

    • TheHoleDoesNotExist

      D, that “who cares” is a profound mind shift that I truly understand and can appreciate.

      • BuryTheNuts2

        I raise my glass to you and to D.
        Here you are, finally Free.

        • DeElizabethan

          Cheers *o/* to us all us, lovers of freedom.

      • DeElizabethan

        Yes, and I was being polite, ha,ha. Nice to be understood and not alone.

    • BuryTheNuts2

      Dee, do you read Vance’s Blog?
      I love that thing!

      Recipe is:
      1/4 “Makes me think”
      1/4 “Oh, come ON!!!???
      1/4 “I wish I was as funny as this guy”
      1/4 “WTF dude”…Uh, Really?

      I either read it and leave slightly high…Or I need a couple of asprin.

      • DeElizabethan

        No, where to find? thanks.

        • BuryTheNuts2

          Once you have read the Scientology stuff….Please don’t ignore the Futurology and Travel stuff. He is a gift that keeps on giving. We owe Tony O. for this guy…big time.

          • DeElizabethan

            BTN, I owe you a hermongous buritto or whatever. Wow, his blog has some fantastic stuff, what a guy with words. Absolutely love him and will even read more. Somehow got too wrapped up with threads and missed his site. Cheers to Tony and to you! I’m subscribed now so no prob….

  • SP ‘Onage

    “In 1950, speaking to an audience of 6,000 in the Shrine Auditorium, Los Angeles, Hubbard introduced a coed named Sonya Bianca as a clear who had attained perfect recall of all “perceptics” (sense perceptions) for every moment of her past. In the demonstration which followed, however, she failed to remember a single formula in physics (the subject in which she was majoring), or the color of Hubbard’s tie when his back was turned. At this point, a large part of the audience got up and left. Hubbard later produced a neat dianetic explanation for the fiasco. He had called her from the wings by saying, “Will you come out here now, Sonya? The “now” got her stuck in present time. As for Hubbard himself, he freely admits he is not a clear. He decided, he says, to devote all his energies to giving dianetics to the world rather than spend more time having himself processed.”

    Ha! If “Clear” was/is so great, how come LRon wasn’t one?

    • 1subgenius


      • SP ‘Onage

        LOL! Talk about a “Con” gone wrong…heh! Wonder if his face turned red…like his hair?

    • BuryTheNuts2

      I know that was a rhetorical question since you have read his drivel….

    • Observer

      He may not have been clear, but he sure had OTVIII-level superpowers in the areas of lying and hypocrisy.

  • we’ve always thought this was one of Hubbard’s greatest insights — to make his processes always about the subject’s discovery of his own self

    No, it was one of Freud’s greatest insights. Freud didn’t follow through, but others after him, and before Hubbard, did. Hubbard did NOT come up with this. Actually, it was one of the central themes of the transcendental and romantic poets, too.

    Hubbard had this many actual original insights or creative ideas: zero. Unless one counts his realization that he could make a ton of money by starting a cult as an original insight. But no, there had been plenty of greedy cult leaders before Hubbard as well. The man hadn’t an original cell in his body.

    • BuryTheNuts2

      No, it was one of Freud’s greatest insights.


  • t1kk

    Hubbard went from clinging to science as cover for its authority to clinging to religion for its protections, in both cases his creation failed to stand on its own. I’d never noticed when I’d first read Dianetics how early he’d set out the “what’s true for you” maxim but there it is, Hubbard giving license to heed one’s inner voice as an authority while simultaneously laying false empty claims to the existence of actual authority. You can self-validate because this has been validated by expertise I won’t and can’t identify. The seeds of everything Scientology became are right here.

    • richelieu jr

      They still go back and forth all the time.. It’s shell game..

      You ask a scientific question, ‘Oh, but this is a religion!’

      A religious one, ‘This has been scientifically proven!’..

      Can I see the proof?

      ‘No, those are sacred texts and it is insulting to be asked about them’….

      Scientology should change its name to Entheta ‘R’ Us…

  • Captain Howdy

    The Captain Howdy All-Stars: “Death Is Not The End”

    Seeing as how I almost croaked tonight (usual O.D BS), this song has been running around in my head, lol

    • Midwest Mom

      What? Howdy, are you home?

  • moxonmoxoff

    Ya’ll are on a fucking ROLL today. DYING OVER HERE!

  • richelieu jr

    This seductive idea of ‘You always knew you were right( and reassuring people of their own importance and infallibility strike me as one of the most insidious parts of Scientology and also absolutely integral to the adolescent seduction of Ayn Rand’s work- You are constantly reassured that your worst personality traits are pluses, that you are better than others, that is is the way it is meant to be…

    Then the old switcher– to the Emperor’s New Clothes- If you don’t see them, you’re not up to snuff, the others are passing you by, you are at risk of losing that great entitled feeling (here I am talking Hubbard, not Rand)

    Then of course, it’s all US and THEM, Scientologists adn Wogs, Wizards and Muggles Job Creators and Parasites…

  • LANCE: “… of all the Clears I met (at least twenty but probably many more than that), none of them openly claimed, much less demonstrated, these kinds of abilities. As you move into the fold, you learn not to question people very eagerly about their abilities or status. …”

    Hubbard’s reasoning was that we all suffer from soul trauma not only from our individual past lives soul trauma experiences, which we rid ourselves of that influence when we use Hubbard’s “Clearing” pseudo-crank therapy; but the next larger whole swath of mental trauma to deal with, is the leakage of mental trauma, coming from the minds of the tens of thousands of souls and soul-clusters who are affixed to all of us.

    So the Hubbard theoretical explanation for WHY the lower level “Clear” Scientologists are still acting odd and not entirely “Clear” like the perfect first Book “Clear” advertisements, is because of all the other “case” we have smothering us, leaking onto us, from our hitch-hiking souls and soul clusters that leak their mental garbage onto us.

    Which is why, it is important to understand Hubbard’s theoretical stuff, and get it really down.

    Then, all of the Hubbard other craziness, dovetails!

    He, Hubbard, felt he could NOT tell the lower level case people, and not even tell people going Clear, that they still had MORE case to deal with, because it would confuse and mess up all his beginner crank therapy techniques, which he’s neatly summarized, and laid out, to get people up to Clear.

    What it actually opens up, is a whole other more detailed criticism of Hubbard’s actual “Bridge to Total Freedom” crank therapy and his OT 3 exorcism therapy, and the flaws in his actual addressing what he claims is the mental debilitating stuff that keeps each of us human beings in the mental degraded states we are in!

    The reason Clears are fragile, is they are now more powerful, after going Clear, at least, and a Clear person’s thoughts will trigger one’s surplus soul’s or soul clusters to “wake up” and reverberate some nasty bunch of their trauma back at the Clear person!

    This is laid out, by studying the theoretical writings, particularly the OT 3 Course materials, and the Class 8 Course materials, and reading the all important “NOTs Indoctrination” bulletin, where Hubbard gives tidbits of the theoretical background, why we as humans are so deeply burdened with these past lives traumas, both our own personal past life traumas, but all the trauma and implanted nasty degraded debilitating trauma coming at us mentally, telepathically, from our loads of surplus souls that infest our bodies.

    The peeling OFF of all the past lives traumas, and peeling off the surplus souls (who when they are exorcised using Hubbard’s exorcism procedures) those souls take their mental garbage off of us too!

    Hubbard just laid into his movement, so many layers of problems, by keeping the full lineup of theory of what he honestly believes are all of our “case” problems, from us, so that the members trip over all the inconsistencies.

    Only when members get out, and read the above materials (OT 3 Course, CLass 8 bulletins that go into the problems that the surplus souls can cause, NOTs Indoctrination bulletin which is the best Hubbard summary of all of his writings) and the ex members really put it all together, with all of Hubbard’s years of other writings on the Bridge steps, only then can one “get” why Hubbard made such a mess of it all, and why he was so inconsistent, and why he had to do all the hyping.

    Hubbard was himself doing patchup finding more of the surplus souls that infested even him, as late as December 1985, a month before he died.

    He absolutely still believed the surplus souls, and all their mental case stuff they leaked into our minds, was way much more important to finally making humans truly spiritually cleaned up and understanding of themselves as the pure soul that each of us are individually, MINUS all the past lives mental gunk we have still leaking into our pure soul minds.

    Aw, such a huge huge fantasy waste of people’s time!

    Arthur C. Clarke’s two sentence dismissal of Hubbard is the bottom line.

    Hubbard went crazy and made a lot of other people go crazy, is roughly what Clarke said.

    • DeElizabethan

      You got a handle on that, good Chuck, thanks.

  • Another final thought of advice, from L. Ron Hubbard, to the world, is Hubbard screaming utterances, which I hope someday gets into the public domain….

    “….there are a lot more body thetans than anyone realizes…..[ah, scream, uh, scream, aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh! …]- Hubard screaming.

    It would explain all, to have that Hubbard screaming clip, released, at some Scientology event, just like they replay Ron’s Journal 67 clips over and over.


    Found this link in a Salon review of wright’s book – a review of Dianetics from 2005!

  • 8T

    It seems that the church uses opposition as a propaganda tool – they want to twist the story so they are made out as people persecuted for their beliefs. If you think about it aren’t ALL religions were made up? For instance, Scientology books should be in the science fiction section of libraries….. and The Bible should be in the Fantasy section next to Harry Potter. As a spectator of this quirky sci-fi religion and it’s constant tabloid stories and also as someone who likes to study world religions….. I see a better approach to opposing & weakening the organization. Groups opposing it should take aim at certain aspects that resonate with the members themselves – such as mention that certain people should be gotten rid of quietly and without sorrow etc. (science of survival). Also, they should hit hard on passages from LRH books on the role of women, the dated and bigoted view on gays, and his odd ayan rand paranoid libertarian views, his fantastical claims that it can cure diseases like cancer. etc. lol. Forget about the Xenu story, who cares. It is crazy, but so is believing in that there’s a guy with horns and a tale called the devil. Also doesn’t the bible make fantastical claims about Jesus healing people – and the controversy surrounding Christian Scientists etc. If you look at other religions – lets say the Catholic church for instance – what really changed it was Martin Luther, Calvin and then it kept splintering over and over again, that’s how it was really weakened – through competition, through changing the doctrine, altering and revising. Buddhism came from Hinduism, Christianity broke away from Judaism, and then Islam broke from the two. Thomas Jefferson took a pair of scissors and glue to the Bible – removed the fantastical claims. Why doesn’t someone do the same to Dianetics? Paul Haggis’s catalyst for leaving the Church was Proposition 8. So it seems like there might be a good market for a new liberal and Revisionist* break away. Like Jefferson, delete all the passages that are fantastic – delete bigoted remarks about minority groups, gays, women etc. – remove passages opposing communism. etc. etc. I’m no scientologist. I’m also no christian either, but I definitely think it’s a good & healthy thing that there are progressive christians out there to counter some of the crazier elements in fundamentalist or conservative branches. If we want to ever see the abusive church in decline – there must be counter movements on the rise – competition for members – cheaper auditing – etc. In my opinion this is the best mechanism to break the camel’s back. That’s how it’s happened with historically with other movements

  • Karen Eckhoff

    I’ve only recently become interested in this, and find it very helpful to understand a timeline of LRH’s activities and fallings out that occurred so early on, and lack of any real credibility from the start. He came out swinging at detractors and built so many layers upon layers of excuses, explanations, distractions, and lies to protect his enterprise from the IRS and plain old common sense, that paranoia became de rigeur, and one of Scientology’s main operating principles.

  • Kevin Hogan

    I’m specialer than all you guys, I was “Dianetic Clear” Persistent needle floater. That became a problem after a while, of course.