>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? << Consult my want list here!
Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.
‘Criticismis ... as preferred by the best writers and speakers and as carrying no derogatory connotations. The proper aim and the content of a criticism have never been definitely fixed, and are still subjects of controversy, but the term usually implies an author who is expected to have expert knowledge in his field, a clear definition of his standards of judgment, and an intent to evaluate the work under consideration”
“Criticize,in its strict etymological sense, does not carry fault-finding as its invariable, or even major, implication: rather it suggests a discernment of the merits and faults of a person or thing”
(from ‘Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms’; 1951; page 210)
Scientology in the media and on the Internet (page 1, index page)
Propaganda, Internet groups, blogs, Wikipedia. These are all addressed here, from their basic outset to personal experiences.
My experiences with the various groups
a) Introduction; b) Forum #1 (Free Zone oriented); Forum #2 (Ron's org oriented); Forum #3 (anti-Scientology oriented, only for ex-Sea Org staff); Forum #4 (anti-Scientology oriented) (Includes: My tale; How another member of this forum was subjected to a similarly unfair treatment); Forum #5 (anti-Scientology oriented, originates from Norway) (Includes: (Introduction; FAQ and trolls;
Introduction of my person on this forum and approach; The Jason Beghe incident and getting kicked; The approach of the forum owner; Last comments); Forum #6 (Independent Scientology oriented)- c) Afterword; Additional comments (1) - The matter of communication & The use of the ‘ignore button’; (2) - Freedom of speech vs? Freedom of speech; (3) - Forums or counter ‘movements’ turning into cults themselves?
A few additional relative notices about Internet groups
Seeing OSA everywhere and anywhere ...; The anti- or ex-Scientology groups; The no-Scientologist
The phenomena known as ‘Wikipedia’
A general overview (Includes: A summary; The vandalization problem; The ‘no guarantee of validity’ situation; The use of warning banners in Wikipedia; The Wikipedia courthouse, the ‘three-revert rule’ (getting outvoted) & tracking edits); ‘Original research’ versus ‘authorities’ or Wikipedia's questionable foundation (Includes: Core content policies: ‘No original research’, ‘Verifiability’ and ‘Neutral point of view’; A widely accepted standard: ‘Consensus’); Personal experiences with editing on Wikipedia and boycotting it
(a) How are controversial subjects dealt with on Wikipedia? ‘September 11, 2001 attacks’; ‘Creationism’
(b) The (in)correctness of the Scientology related articles on Wikipedia
What you can expect while editing Scientology related articles; Various examples of Scientology related articles with misrepresentations: 1. The ‘Scientology belief system’;
2. ‘Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard’;
3. ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’ versus ‘Guardian Office’;
4. ‘Operation Snow White’;
5. Adding links to referenced studies to Wikipedia
The Swedish episode (my experiences editing on the Swedish Wiki)
Introduction and summary of my edits on the Swedish Wikipedia; My arguments; Blocked from editing on Swedish Wikipedia and action taken by me; How my write up (report) was received; Having an ‘agenda’; My edits on the Swedish Wikipedia remain intact till this day & Final notices
These overviews turned out much longer than I actually intended it to be. I guess that only those that are really interested in that what I address here will work their way through that what I have to tell. I have the choice to either shorten it and thus be concise or to maintain my detailness about matters. Few have shared a more detailed tale of their overall experiences, whereas many others tell rather brief overviews of isolated incidents out on the Internet . Therefore I chose to let it be as it turned out to be. Thus I present a fairly detailed but very accurate account together with argumentation about my personal experiences and observations.
That ‘dangerous’ Internet ...
The reality is that one has to be very careful with the information that is found in particular on the Internet. A lot of the information out there is from private persons. We find that a whole bunch of individuals are running around on various sites, blogs, forums (regularly in disguise) and run some propaganda in order to influence how the readers are going to interpret something. More than frequently the approach taken may be rather unprofessionally. One may just have taken bits and pieces from elsewhere on the Internet, adjust it a little bit, and then they promote that personal interpretation on some Internet site, blog or some webspace. Indeed we find that a whole lot of copying is being done on that Internet. Original research is sparsely found and thus rare. What you do find is a lot of rumours, hearsay and propaganda on this thing the Internet. The bulk of these may miserably have failed to actually properly substantiate their compilation with verified data, referencing and all that. Much, very much is in fact just assumed. A problem in particular is how that information is being presented. Then data, even obviously being available, if it be contradictorily, purposely may also have been avoided to make mention of. This is what is referred to as running a propaganda. These individuals that are involved with that habitually fail to use any kind of actual scientifically based research approach.
But it is rather true that you on that Internet, regarding the subject of Scientology and Dianetics, that you generally find those entities that arduously defend it and on the other side those that fiercely attack it. Either of these sides attempt to convince the people that only they themselves have right. Attempts are being made to win the favour of the Internet surfing community members. Among these you also find a variety of offshoots of Scientology, generally they refer to themselves as Free Zone orgs or Ron's orgs. Various of these have their own websites, and generally they are not related to each other although there may be found a common agreement amongst them. The agreement being that developments released since 1982 are being rejected.
Where it concerns research performed into the subject of Scientology and Dianetics, this may be the history of the organization or its technology through time, you will find very few persons that have attempted to be truly objective and that do not actually run some sort of propaganda. I list the one's worthy of mention on my link page.
The position of the official Church of Scientology is that they appear to be aware of that as well. Here however a motivation appears to be that they don't want you to have certain information. By them only one interpretation is favoured, which is their version told of the tale. Efforts are thus undertaken (since 1998) to control that Scientology parishioner through censoring programs such as Net Nanny filter software. This for surfing on the Internet and emails received. More about that here (separate window).
Caution is advised
Anyway the message that I relate here is that one should be careful with that which one finds on the Internet. For example per various ‘reliable’ official looking sites I got as the year that Mary Sue Hubbard got married: 1950, March 1952, 30 October 1952 & October 1956. So, which is correct? This actual marriage date does bear some significance as it is often claimed that Mary Sue was already pregnant of their first child prior to marriage. I guess that someone will have to dig up the actual marriage certificate. And this is just a minor example. If pieces of the puzzle are missing one tends to assume how these pieces will look like.
For example I found this phrase in an article about L. Ron Hubbard on www.answers.com (a sort of Wikipedia off-shoot that you can not edit in). It said about L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard:
“The couple had four children: Diana Meredith de Wolfe, Mary Suzette Rochelle, L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (changed name to Ronald DeWolf), and Arthur Ronald Conway.”
(at least until April 2013 the page was listed at www.answers.com/l ron hubbard, now it moved to here, external link) (last checked: 14 Apr 2015)
Indeed they had 4 children together, however the above very nicely confused that the fourth child Geoffrey Quentin McCaully Hubbard had died in 1976. Instead is listed L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (changed name to Ronald DeWolf) who in fact is a son of L. Ron Hubbard from a previous marriage, and thus not a child of Mary Sue. Note also that Mary Sue was born 1931, and Ronald DeWolf in 1934. Indeed this would make for a very young mother. This example is obviously quite an error.
The ‘critics’ of Scientology
Who are actually these critics of Scientology? What determines what an actual critic is? These are relevant questions to ask. For many of those people that generally are regarded or referred to as the critics of Scientology may in actual fact be no critics in the true sense of the meaning of the word at all, but rather be some individuals that are determined to find fault with.
The ‘World Book dictionary’ (1974 edition) for example lists for ‘criticism’:
“1. disapproval; faultfinding
2. the making of judgments; approving or disapproving; analysis of merits and faults”
Then the ‘Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms’ (1951 edition) says that ‘Criticism’ is “as preferred by the best writers and speakers and as carrying no derogatory connotations. The proper aim and the content of a criticism have never been definitely fixed, and are still subjects of controversy, but the term usually implies an author who is expected to have expert knowledge in his field, a clear definition of his standards of judgment, and an intent to evaluate the work under consideration”.
And further says: “Criticize, in its strict etymological sense, does not carry fault-finding as its invariable, or even major, implication: rather it suggests a discernment of the merits and faults of a person or thing”. (see page 210)
The sites that we find on the Internet that have an anti-Scientology approach can they be judged being critical in the right sense? Has some proper analysis been exercised? Do we see pro together with anti arguments? Appear things to actually have been evaluated from a neutral basis? Are there indications found that any of these can rightfully claim to “have expert knowledge in his field”?
The Fair Game riddle
As an interesting example one can regard how these so-called Scientology critics address the matter of fair game. This matter is actually split in 2 sequences. At first followed with the cancellation of the practice of fair game, and 3 months later a new HCO PL was issued forbidding the use of the term. These critics now chose to ignore the reference that cancelled the practice, but instead focus entirely on the reference that cancelled the use of the name. And are then forwarding the claim that L. Ron Hubbard played a trick here. Secretly ordering to continue the practice of fair gaming. And if that common Scientology critic then is given the information about that, they ignore the information given to them, and keep on making the same erroneous claim. The details about this can be consulted in link here below: (separate window).
And so it would appear that the vast majority of these anti-Scientology sites out there do not answer to “have expert knowledge in his field” at all. Generally those sites that have their focus on only the bad news have another aim with their personal presentation or display of their information. These sites only will fill you in on how bad it all appears to be, and must be. These sites will thus not provide you with an actual evaluation of a true reality of matters. You will be fed with a preconceived presentation of the topic. You will not be given an opportunity enabling you to do a proper evaluation or distinguish the information as you are persistently only given one side of the matter or rather an interpretation thereof. It is all about to just finding fault with. The majority of these anti sites aim to decide for you how things are. The presentations are in such ways as to hook you up on how these site or blog owners perceive it. It does thus not appear that these sites have any particular value.
Where we have the few sites that try to be fair, it will often be found that they have not taken in account pertinent information. Here this would be because they do not have all the information. Many of these sites simply do not have their facts always in proper order. I have found that they can be in plain denial about these very facts. In the below example I have repeatedly contacted each of these owners of these sites to no or little avail at all.
Are these people that are maintaining various of these sites actual critics of Scientology? Per the definition of what a critic actually is or what he should be made of it does not appear so. Then what are these people? Often I have found that they are propagandists that do not take kindly of being criticized themselves.
The mindset of the propagandist
This quotation probably sums it up very nicely. One has to understand the mechaninsms of the mind prior you being able to establish what actually is going on and that what motivates people. As hidden as these motivates are for the person that is subjected to it. After all, understanding of others parallels to the understanding of oneself.
“Now, this know-how situation with regard to the mind is very, very hard to arrive at. There are so many suppositions that—just walking through a forest of favorite beliefs. And when you realize that every case and every practitioner in the field of the mind would be concentrated on one aspect of existence and then dedicated to not observing existence except through that one evaluation of existence, you see at once the tremendous limitations imposed upon the discovery of anything about the mind, and then, secondarily, getting any application of any truth known. Do you see that this, then, would be a self-defeating proposition?
Not only are we given a vast panorama of data, any one of which is—Can be a favorite aberration (not a truth but an aberration, don't you see?) in this vast forest, but then we ask people who themselves are concentrated upon favorite data, you see—substituting for themselves to handle this situation—and you get a difficulty; you get randomity right there.
Now, let's compound the randomity and realize that knowledge about the mind means freedom for life and beings in this universe. Once you recognize that as a principle, you will see that anyone who is dedicated to total enslavement or the dwindling spiral or caving anyone in and caving everyone in, and so forth, are immediately not in favor of total knowledge of the human mind, but quite on the contrary are in favor of great ignorance.” LRH (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #308, renumbered 1991: #338 “Saint Hill Service Facsimile Handling”, given on 18 Sept 63)
Sound snippet (2:21)
The use of citations taken out of context (from the toolbox of the propagandist)
Citations taken out of context for even the most innocent phrases can be twisted around and presented in ways to suit one's ends and may seem to justify about any claim (or accusation) you wish to place. The anti-Scientology propagandist indeed has not overlooked the possibilities of this means and what it can do to support their cause.
Here I present a selection of a few of the most commonly used citations, tell a bit about them and then offer them in their correct context. And then you have to make up your own mind about their significance or insignificance.
“MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY.”
From HCO PL 9 Mar 72 I, Finance Series 11, “Income Flows and Pools, Principles of Money Management”.
Originally published in ‘The Organization Executive Course: Management Series 1970-1972’ (1972) on page 275, and reprinted in ‘The Management Series 1970-1974’ (1974) on page 384. Then issued in ‘The Management Series: Volume 2’ (1983) on page 523. In the present edition found in ‘The Management Series: Volume 2’ (1991) on page 353.
This is thus a policy letter which is a particular sort of writing. Usually only a couple of pages long each. And written for a particular reason concerning administrative concerns. Any of these policy letters were written at a certain time and developed in accordance to some solution to a problem or situation that existed at some time. A particular routing found on the top to the left indicates its distribution. Each policy letter addresses some particular area or subject. It has never been meant to be a practice to break out some sentence or paragraph and enforce that to anything you may choose.
This phrase in this form is frequently used by the anti-Scientologist and those that blindly copy it as to imply that the outset of Scientology would be all about the money and basically nothing else. Considering that there are 8 such book volumes with policy letters that comprise of some 4,400 pages of administrative information (as of 1974), then this one phrase out all of that really does not add much weight in the scale by comparison.
The original context of the citation can be consulted here below.
This policy letter lays out its “Governing Policy”:
“The governing policy of Finance is to:
Buy more money made with allocations for expense (bean theory).
Do not commit expense beyond future ability to pay.
Don't ever borrow.
Know different types of orgs and what they do.
Understand money flow lines not only in an org but org to org as customers flow upward.
Understand EXCHANGE of valuables of service for money (P/L Exec Series 3 and 4).
Know the correct money pools for any given activity.
Police all lines constantly.
MAKE MORE MONEY.
MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY.
A finance management which does not understand and USE these principles will be like a driver who hasn't the tech to drive a car. He'll wreck it or not driving it at all will have no transport.” LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Mar 72 I, Finance Series 11, “Income Flows and Pools, Principles of Money Management”)
It is all about solvency afloat of an organization, any organization. From HCO PL 29 Jan 71, Finance Series 1 “Finance Banking Officers”: “The solvency of the orgs and areas is the responsibility of the FBO.” LRH. Which is a particular division in any organization. Each division/department carries a certain responsibility for some area. This here is simply the division of that organization which has as its target the actual solvency, and therewith aims at a continuance of existence of that very organization. If it is not taken care of well the organization will perish and disappear. As it will with any organization, group, mission, church, individual, etc., that will not take care of its finances, income and solvency. This is basically a matter of being able to pay the bills! No one out there will be so friendly to pay your bills, whatever cause you may have. Sometimes this may even occur, but you can't count or rely and that. Now can you?
See, what would happen if the person in an organization that is responsible for to keep the financing flow afloat would say: “No money? No problem, just come in!”. Soon that organization will have succumbed.
In this respect interesting is as well HCO PL 26 Nov 65 “Financial Planning” which reads in its 2nd paragraph: “Financial Planning means – How to handle money and assets of an org so as to maintain outgo below income.” LRH. At the end of this policy letter it summarizes the actions described with saying: “Unless all these actions are done, an org cannot in fact prosper, has poor credit and is generally upset.” LRH.
“Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal.’ By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not.”
From HCO PL 4 Jan 66 VI “LRH Relationship to Orgs”.
Originally published in‘The Organization Executive Course: Treasury Division 3’ (1971) on page 56 and ‘The Organization Executive Course: Executive Division 7’ (1974) on page 578. In the present edition only found in‘The Organization Executive Course: Executive Division, Volume 7’ (1991) on page 1204.
This, as was the previous citation, is thus taken from a policy letter. (see specific notices regarding this issue-type at the previous discussed citation)
This phrase is used by the anti-Scientology propagandist in order to imply that the Scientology organization is out after to set rules in general. And if something would be illegal, then de organization should revert that, no matter what. Well, something like that.
The situation here is that this citation appears as the very last paragraph on this policy letter. Obviously the “‘this’” in “‘this is illegal’” refers back to what the policy letter was about in the foregoing text. That's all basically.
The actual citation reads: “Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal’. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not.” LRH. People on the Internet wove “[Scientology organizations]” into it.
The policy letter lists the various responsibilities worn by L. Ron Hubbard. It refers to these as various identities as follows: “LRH, An individual”, “LRH Trustee”, “LRH Board Member”, “LRH, Executive Director” and “LRH, Staff Member”. It describes them in the various parts of the policy letter.
In the summary section at the end of the policy letter it says: (key selections)
“Our growth depends on our staying out of trouble, getting our lines in and keeping corporate structure straight. And understanding these separate identities or titles and functions and using them. ...
It is doubtful if this situation will change. As orgs grow, my assistants grow also and become more competent and refer less to me and work on delegated authority. My work is lighter the bigger we get so eventually I will hold only titles with no actions or duties. ...
My identities are therefore woven in to the pattern so they don't have to be altered to keep things going. ...
This is not only today then, but tomorrow as well and the above identities are firm as identities whether I am here or not. Even today 99% of my functions are done by delegated authority. ... We won't vanish if I as a person vanish. ...
So whatever happens to me as a person leave these LRH identities on the org unfilled and all will be well. If you try to fill them catastrophe will result.” LRH
Closed off with the final paragraph:
“Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal’. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not.” LRH
I hope this clarifies this matter sufficiently.
Actually 6 months following the above L. Ron Hubbard was already “resigning the title of Executive Director”. Noting that “This is not a retirement but is a resignation from all director posts and the conducting of organizations by myself.” LRH (from HCO PL 1 Sept 66 “Founder”).
“The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is ATTACK.”
“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
From periodical ‘Ability, Major 1’, [ca. mid-Mar 55] “The Scientologist: A Manual on the Dissemination of Material”.>
We find it reprinted in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume III, 1957-1959’ (1976) on page 157. In the present edition it is found in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume III, 1955-1956’ (1991) on page 47 & 48, ‘The Organization Executive Course: Dissemination Division, Volume 2’ (1991) on page 27 & 28, ‘The Organization Executive Course: Public Division, Volume 6’ (1991) on page 32 & 33, and ‘The Organization Executive Course: Executive Division, Volume 7’ (1991) on page 973 & 974.
This is thus not a policy letter, just an article published in a magazine although it deals with administrative matters and worked as a guideline. It is 21 pages long.
In so far the 1st citation goes, there is some reality about that, particularly in regards to the law. It can be twisted and suit your purposes if you have some advanced knowledge about the various law articles. Here there are loopholes to find. In fact the foregoing text in the article indicates that it talks about law. But you may say here that it uses the words “anything” and “only”? Well, you may to put that to test to other things then. When cited this phrase is often used isolated, but if we see the original complete text we find in the article the phrase quickly followed by: “whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law”. Well, have some conversations and debates, and ... closely observe. I have been involved for some time in debates about the evolution-creation controversy. I can pretty much confirm that if you have such hectic topics people can turn rather personal about it all.
The 2nd citation in a sense is interesting i.e. if you read it carefully. Of course it says at the end of the citation: “If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”. Indeed, that doesn't sound that nice. But when we go back little it says that here it is used “on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway”, clear enough? Followed by “well knowing that he is not authorized”, also clear enough? Then it “will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease”, which is what you want. So, would you want someone around that is copying your technology, making some personal changes (which is clarified within the original context) and then go out with out to make money for him/her/themselves?
There is an additional angle here though. And that is the matter about that a practice can not legally be copyrighted (per US Code: Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 102., (b)). For which reason it says in the original text a little earlier: “the least that could be done to such an area is the placement of a suit against them for using materials of Scientology without authority”. With other words, you scare them off by adding some pressure. This is basically what this part of the text is about. It never served anyone to be a sitting duck that is all silent and continuously gets run over.
A more proper context of the citations can be consulted here below. (underlining is mine)
“The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. ...
Another point directly in the interest of keeping the general public to the general public communication line in good odor: it is vitally important that a Scientologist put into action and overtly keep in action Article 4 of the Code: "I pledge myself to punish to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends." The only way you can guarantee that Scientology will not be degraded or misused is to make sure that only those who are trained in it practice it. If you find somebody practicing Scientology who is not qualified, you should give them the opportunity to be formally trained, at their expense, so that they will not abuse and degrade the subject. And you would not take as any substitute for formal training any amount of study.
You would therefore delegate to members of the HASI who are not otherwise certified only those processes mentioned below, and would discourage them from using any other processes. More particularly, if you discovered that some group calling itself “precept processing” had set up and established a series of meetings in your area, you would do all you could to make things interesting for them. In view of the fact that the HASI holds the copyrights for all such material, and that a scientific organization of material can be copyrighted and is therefore owned, the least that could be done to such an area is the placement of a suit against them for using materials of Scientology without authority. Only a member of the HASI or a member of one of the churches affiliated with the HASI has the authority to use this information. The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.
The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.” LRH
“In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints.”
“There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”
From ‘Science of Survival: Prediction of Human Behaviour’ (1951). The citations are respectively found on pages 131 & 157 in the 1st part of the book.
Originally published as a limited edition facsimilé of a manuscript in early 1951. In printed form first published in August 1951. The setting of the text in the printed edition remained pretty much the same in each of the reprints until 1989. In this new edition we find the citations respectively on pages 145 and 170. Since the early 2000's another new edition has been issued.
These published citations often follow with the notice “[The ‘Tone Scale’ is Scientology's measure of mental and spiritual health.]”. A statement that, although it doesn't properly explain what it is and its purpose, is not incorrect.
The citations used focus only on this “2.0” tone. This as we can see is a bit limited. Now, what about any other tones, what about them? And how are they established? And for all what is the practical use of these tones, what is it used for? These isolated citations don't tell a thing about that. Nonetheless they are in the media and on the Internet used (in its isolation) to paint a picture as if L. Ron Hubbard and/or Scientology is/are something really bad. The common anti-Scientologist propagandist in particular will try to convince you that they are only out after to take control of this planet or sorts, and will do so by eliminating particular people. An association is then often made with Nazi Germany during World War II and their euthanasia. It is to be said though that these anti-Scientologists can be a bit extreme and unrealistic in their actual claims.
If we for a moment look a bit more closely at this part of the first citation we read “..., any person from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, ...”. It says in fact “in any thinking society”. Well, what does that mean? Do we live in an actual “thinking society”? If we look around at what is happening in society and through the ages we certainly do not get that impression particularly. Any sort of system that would advocate such measures physically in this society, are bound to get misused or misapplied sooner or later as time goes by. It should seem then that the text enervates itself.
Now, what is the real deal here? The original subtitle of the book (1st edition, 1951) read: “Simplified, Faster Dianetic Techniques”. Which perhaps describes the book more accurately. The book itself is divided up in 2 parts: “Book One: The Dynamics of Behaviour” and “Book Two: Dianetic Processing”. A folding map also followed with the book entitled: “Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation and Dianetic Processing”, which title should speak for itself. Totaling the book at 469 pages. The book in fact is a continuation of the earlier book “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” (1950). It basically deepens its principles.
And so the book is aiming at to measure actual progress in an individual when using the processing principles from Dianetics, but also to determine which areas need improvement and where it can be raised up to. Thus, enabling you to do all that, you then have to identify and define the various tones of human behaviour. Characteristics of human behaviour are put in scales, but its purpose is to find out where and how conditions can be made better and improved. Therefore it is about ridding people of bad habits rather than getting rid of people themselves. This is basically all there is to it.
A more proper context of the citations can be consulted here below.
“... the additional comment should be made that at the level of 2.0 and below, destructive arbitrariness, called for lack of a better word ‘authoritarianism,’ sets in; and that all laws made at this level, and on down the scale, will have non-survival results. ...
This does not say that individuals who lie potentially along tone bands from 2.0 down are actively criminal, chronically, or that they are actively unethical, chronically; but it does say that during periods of enturbulence they are unethical and immoral, and refrain from being so only in ratio to the amount of free theta they still have available. ...
In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints. And particularly, none below 2.0, chronically or acutely, should be used as witnesses or jurors in courts of law, since their position in regard to ethics is such as to nullify the validity of any testimony they might essay or any verdict they might offer.
This does not propose that depriving such persons of their civil rights should obtain any longer than is necessary to bring them up the tone scale to a point where their ethics render them fit company for their fellows. This, however, would be a necessary step for any society seeking to raise itself on the tone scale as a social order. A fundamental of law already provides for this step, since sanity, in law, is defined as the ability to tell right from wrong. The rational, and therefore, the ethical state of persons acutely or chronically below the point of 2.0 is such that it is impossible for them to judge right from wrong. Thus, by bringing forward a simple definition not only of right and wrong but of ethics, the existing fundamental can be put into effect, should it happen, by chance, that anyone care whither our social order is drifting. It is simpler to do psychometry on one-hundred and fifty million people than to bury a culture for which we and our fathers have striven these past hundred and seventy-five years.” LRH
(from “Book One”:“Chapter Twenty-One; Column S: Ethic Level” page 131)
“The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line--a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred--or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
The methods used by individuals on various levels of the tone scale in order to live with their fellows are as follows:
At 4.0, the individual uses enthusiasm, serenity, confidence, and his personal force to inspire those around him to reach up to a constructive level of action. Indeed, the presence of a 4.0, or above if the theta endowment of the individual is high, unenturbulates an area.
The 3.5 begins to employ communication and reasoning in order to invite the participation of others but still believes in bringing people up to a level where they will work with him.
At 3.0 we have the level where conservatism begins to enter the reasoning and where persuasion and social graces begin to be employed to invite the participation of others. Safety, security, and somewhat better survival conditions are the arguments used along this level of the tone scale.
At 2.5, the individual is relatively careless of the participation of others in his projects.
At 2.0 we begin to enter the domination band, which extends downwards to about 1.2. ... Here we have efforts to hammer and pound and dominate by physical strength, threats, anger and promises of vengeance. Here compliance is commanded, and lack of compliance is stated to mean death. Here we have emergencies being more important than constructive planning. Here we have all manner of undesirable things which, indeed, seem to be the primary business of men and nations today.” LRH
(from “Book One”:“Chapter Twenty-Seven; Column Y: Method Used by Subject to Handle Others” page 157-58)
And so we can go on and on and on ... We find quite a few of these bits and pieces of text that are taken out of context out there especially on the Internet. At which place these deliberately are used to claim that valid wrongs have been found! The anti-Scientology propagandist goes at great length with this. According to them L. Ron Hubbard would also be a racist and a lot more of such demeanings, all based on phrases taken out of context.
It probably gets interesting when one realizes, while looking more closely at some particular citations, that even various of these chosen phrases enervate themselves. They, by themselves, appear not to imply the meaning that various persons have attached to them. It appears here then that the common anti-Scientologist has a rather hard time duplicating and understanding the English language itself. They, as my personal experiences tell me, continue to insist that they have right. It didn't matter one little thing how much effort I put into this to try get them to define words properly or clear up grammar specifics. Not in a single case could any of these persons admit to me that they might had made an error in judgment. Persistently it always ended with that they instead resorted to personal attack.
For that reason I would urge any person to clarify the actual text and preferably in its original context. These days more complete snippets of these texts are fairly easy findable on the Internet. It remains however so that these anti-Scientology propagandists do have a serious problem with understanding texts!
The social and the anti-social personality
“Next door to the ‘theetie-weetie’ case is the totally overwhelmed condition we call SP (suppressive person).”
“The lowest confront there is is the Confront* of Evil. When a living being is out of his own valence* and in the valence of a thoroughly bad even if imaginary image you get an SP. An SP is a no-confront case because, not being in his own valence, he has no viewpoint from which to erase anything. That is all an SP is.” LRH
(from HCO PL 20 Oct 67 “Conditions, How to Assign”)
Some notices have to be made about the so-called social and anti-social personality. During the mid-60's we find the release of HCOB 27 Sept 66 “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist”. They also appeared in 2 articles in the Scientology periodical Ability as “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist” and “The Social Personality” (see respectively ‘Ability 188’, [Jan 67] and ‘Ability 189’, [Feb 67]).
As late as 21 August 2000 the HCOB version was also issued as a policy letter as HCO PL 27 Sept 66 II “same title”. The Anti-Social Personality article had actually been extracted from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #78, renumbered 1991: #441“The Anti-Social Personality”, given on 25 Aug 66. It goes into these anti-social characteristics at length and great detail.
Below the articles just as they appeared in Ability: (pop-up windows)
These articles may speak for themselves. There could be said to exist a relevance with how Scientology generally is presented in the media and in public places. The information they relate is basically the foundation of how to determine with what kind of person you are dealing in regards to being social and being anti-social. In fact it lays out in rather great detail what to expect if you would be dealing with that what is referred to as the Suppressive Person. You however have to decide for yourself if there is any truth in what these articles have to say about these matters.
At the time of me adding this chapter and these articles I had already finished my chapter “The ‘critics’ of Scientology” and my overview of ‘Internet news groups’ and ‘Wikipedia’. It was not until I considered addressing and analyzing some of the renowned anti-Scientology sites that my attention actually got drawn to these articles. A particular Internet site that was claiming to expose various within Scientology put out various conclusions about Suppressive Persons (SP's), but it ‘blishfully’ failed to make reference to these articles here which could be seen as the foundation to and that lay open clearly the concept of the phenomena. Then I realized that there is also a rather clear resemblance with the general behaviour that I was subjected to on the various message groups/forums and in particular from those that opposed to Scientology as a whole. You may find that various of these persons rather forcefully wish to hold on to their argument and as a rule appear to ignore or unable to consider contrary arguments that fold out flaws in their reasoning. It is my experience that you actually seldom get into an actual discussion (as in exchanging viewpoints) with these people. Their mind appears already made up and only seem to have an eye open for that which acknowledges their conviction. I decided accordingly that this page should not be without this information. Indeed what these 2 articles relate about is interesting. Read them and then consider what they say.
About critiques received from anti-Scientologists as well as Scientologists to my Scientology pages
It does appear that my pages and my person have been under attack from a variety of different people/groups. Basically any person that would indicate that some values are be gotten from these subjects of Dianetics and Scientology will in some degree suffer from receiving these critiques. It is unavoidable.
At below link I give various examples of these critique received together with some further notices of the phenomena: (separate window)
What message do we learn from the Internet? One may want to summarize it here with that the truth most likely would be out there. This comes however with a big ‘but’, because one has to work one's way through a lot of information to finally get to the gist of it. Truths generally are never found in the things that people may tell. We indeed find many, very many propagandists and misguided individuals out there.
In my personal opinion any person that advocate destruction of materials, or purposely excludes or ignores verified information, or those that involve themselves with invalidation of alternate views that nonetheless are sufficiently supported by fact have something to hide or are in fear of something. They are not looking, and they don't want to look. Or it must be that they are unable to do so due to their fixation towards their own right(ful)ness. The ideal scene however is never composed of a lie. False information will enervate itself in due time. As soon as enough people will see and acknowledge that, it will then fall and perish. All this is just a matter of time ... the question is, will we see that day in our lifetime?
It appears so that we have many a person out there that thinks that they know something when in actual fact they do not. No doubt this will have a lot to do with personal insecurity. So in essence don't believe anyone. Don't believe me. Make out matters for yourself!
It is a simple reality that if you don't get in line in any group of people, that in the final end you are bound to get kicked out of there.
“The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank*. Thetans* without banks
have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only
on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are
individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise
above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent
done.” LRH (from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)
confront: 1. To stand facing or opposing, especially in challenge, defiance or accusation. (OODs 27 Apr 72) 2. To face without flinching or avoiding. (OODs 27 Apr 72) 3. To be able to see what is or isn't before one. (CBO 190) 4. Direct observation. (HCO PL 18 Sept 67) Free Zone: Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PL's are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window). P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor. SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’. ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window). valence: 1. What we usually mean by valence is somebody else's identity assumed by a person unknowingly. (17ACC-10, 5703C10) 2. the valence mechanism produces whole people for the preclear to be and will include habits and mannerisms which are not mentioned in engrams but are a result of the preclear's compulsion to copy certain people. (Science of Survival, Bk. 2, p. 202) 3. a valence is a false or true identity. The preclear has his own valence. Then there are available to him the valences of all persons who appear in his engrams. (Science of Survival, p. 106) 4. a valence is a substitute for self taken on after the fact of lost confidence in self. (SH Spec 68, 6110C18) 5. the combined package of a personality which one assumes as does an actor on a stage except in life one doesn't usually assume them knowingly. (5707C17) 6. there are many valences in everyone. By a valence is meant an actual or a shadow personality, one's own valence is his actual personality. (Self Analysis, p. 159).