Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: An introduction to the media and Internet  or
     How reliable is the information found? vs propaganda
(Scientology in the media and on the Internet (1))
(to other Scientology pages)

>> 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.

        
‘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”
        
 
“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.

 
Index:

     Foreword
  That ‘dangerous’ Internet ...
  The ‘critics’ of Scientology
  The mindset of the propagandist
  The use of citations taken out of context (from the toolbox of the propagandist)
               - 1) “MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY.”
         - 2) “... By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not.”
         - 3) “The only way to defend anything is ATTACK. ... If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
         - 4) “... any person from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale should not have, ..., any civil rights of any kind, ...”, “... dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”
         - Final comments
  The social and the anti-social personality
 
Critique received from anti-Scientologists as well as Scientologists
      - Critique from churchgoing Scientologists overturned
- Critique from out-of-church Scientologists overturned

- Attacks and critique from anti-Scientologists overturned
 
Internet news groups, blogs and forums
 
Scientology and Internet groups
      - An overview
- My experiences with the various groups

- A few additional relative notices about Internet groups
 
Wikipedia or The burden of Sisyphus
 
Scientology versus Wikipedia
      - The phenomena known as ‘Wikipedia’
- (a) How are controversial subjects dealt with on Wikipedia?
- (b) The (in)correctness of the Scientology related articles on Wikipedia
- The Swedish episode (my experiences editing on the Swedish Wiki)
 
Conclusion
  Afterword



 
Back to Main Index Foreword

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.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index That ‘dangerous’ Internet ...

The reality is that one has to be very careful with the information that is found and particularly on the Internet. A lot of the information out there is from private unknown persons. We find that a whole bunch of individuals are running around on the various websites, blogs, forums (regularly in disguise) and run some propaganda in order to influence how the readers are going to interpret something. Of course this would be a rather unprofessional way of going about things. Here one may just have taken bits and pieces from elsewhere on the Internet, adjust it a little bit to one's liking, and then they post that on some website, 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 a lot of spreading about of rumours, hearsay and propaganda on this thing the Internet. The bulk of these may miserably have failed to actually properly substantiate their compilation and claim with verified data, referencing and all that. Much, very much is in fact just assumed or made up. A problem in particular is how that information is being presented. They may also choose to purposely leave out the data that contradict the point they are trying to make. If it was in the original, they may just ignore to include it in their own presentation. This in essence has then turned into running a propaganda. These individuals that are involved with that habitually fail to use any kind of actual scientifically based research approach.

It would be rather true that you on that Internet, regarding the subject of Scientology and Dianetics, that you generally either 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 unsuspecting Internet surfing community members. Here you also find a variety of offshoots of Scientology, generally referring themselves as Free Zone orgs or Ron's orgs. Various of these groups have their own websites, and generally they are not even related to each other although there may be found a common agreement among them. The agreement being that developments released since 1982 are being rejected.

Regarding research performed into the history of the Scientology organization or the tracking of its technology through time, here you will find few persons that have attempted to be truly objective and that do not actually run some sort of propaganda. I listed some of the more worthy ones on my link page.

It has been found that the position of the official Church of Scientology is that they also wish to provide you with their set of information and their interpretation of matters, naturally. It may however be perceived as worrying when they actively wish the prevent you from having access to particular information. Their tale of events is the only correct one, so they confide. Efforts are thus undertaken to control that Scientology parishioner through use of so-called censoring programs such as Net Nanny filter software (since 1998). This for surfing on the Internet and emails received. More about that here (separate window).


Caution is advised

The message forwarded here is simply that one should be careful with that which one finds on that Internet. For example per various ‘reliably’ official looking websites I got as the year that Mary Sue Hubbard was 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 should 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.”
        
Indeed they had 4 children together, however the above 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. If Mary Sue Hubbard (born 1931) had given birth to L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (born 1934) this would make for a very young mother indeed.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The ‘critics’ of Scientology

Who are these critics of Scientology? What determines a critic? These are relevant questions to ask. In regards to Scientology that what may be referred to as a critic may often in reality turn out to be a individuals that are determined to find fault with, which is the common dictionary take of the word.
        
‘criticism’: “1. disapproval; faultfinding;   2. the making of judgments; approving or disapproving; analysis of merits and faults” (‘World Book dictionary’ (1974 edition))
        

For this occasion and purpose however this would be more proper:
        
‘Criticism’: “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”. (‘Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms’ (1951 edition), see page 210)
 

The websites that we find on the Internet that have an anti-Scientology approach do they witness of a proper analysis having been exercised? Do we see listed a comparison of for and against arguments and an evaluation and conclusion drawn thereof? Are there indications found that any of these critics 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 can be split in 2 sequences. First an HCO PL was issued that removed/cancelled the practice of fair game, and 3 months later another HCO PL was issued forbidding the continued use of the term. Scientology critics now conveniently choose to ignore the reference that cancelled the practice, but instead put their whole focus on the reference that prohibited 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 when that common Scientology critic then is given the information about that, they ignore the information given to them, and persist in making the same erroneous claim. See more info at link here below:  (separate window).
    “Regarding ‘fair game’ - The anti-Scientologist is saying: ‘A trick is being played!’”

It would appear that the vast majority of these anti-Scientology websites out there do not particularly answer to “have expert knowledge in his field”. Generally those websites that have their focus on only the bad side of the story have another aim with their presentation of information. Their only concern seems to be how bad it all appears to be, and certainly must be. There is no opportunity given for the reader to do a proper evaluation as you are only presented with one side of the tale. they are mostly all about to just find fault with.
A couple of websites that are around may intend to treat the topic fairly, but it may be found that they frequently suffer from lack of various pertinent information required to come to an evaluation. Some other websites may not have their information in proper order and can be in denial about various facts. In the below you will find examples where I had contacted various of these website owners to reach out to them about matters, but these were to little or no avail at all.

Are website owners or creators actual critics of Scientology? Per the definition of what a critic should consist of it does not appear so. Then what are they? Often I have found that they are propagandists that do not take very kindly at all when being criticized themselves.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The mindset of the propagandist

One has to understand the mechanisms of the mind prior to you being able to establish what actually is going on and enables you to put your finger on that what motivates people. Usually these are quite hidden to the person subjected to it. After all, understanding of other persons parallels to the understanding of oneself. This quotation here below probably sums it up very nicely.

        
“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  Sound snippet (2:21) 
        

 
Back to Main Index 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 and presented in ways to suit or satisfy own ends and may, at face value, seem to justify the claim (or accusation) you wish to make. The anti-Scientology propagandist indeed has not overlooked the possibilities of this tool 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 proper context. Next you the reader will have to make up your own mind about their significance or insignificance.

  
Go back
“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 from a policy letter, which is a particular sort of writing. Usually they are only a couple of pages long each. They are written to sort out 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 that time. Each policy letter addresses a particular area and/or topic. A routing found on the top to the left lays out its distribution. It has never been a means to break out some sentence or paragraph and enforce that to anything you may choose at will.

The above listed quotation is frequently used by the anti-Scientologist who present this in an effort to imply that the outset of Scientology would be all about money and nothing but money. Considering that there are 8 such rather thick book volumes filled with policy letters that comprise of some 4,400 pages of administrative information (as of 1974), then this one phrase broken out of there should not put much weight in the scale by comparison. The original context of the citation can be seen here below.

 
“The governing policy of Finance is to:
 
         A.
MAKE MONEY.
        
  B.
Buy more money made with allocations for expense (bean theory).
 
  C.
Do not commit expense beyond future ability to pay.
 
  D.
Don't ever borrow.
 
  E.
Know different types of orgs and what they do.
 
  F.
Understand money flow lines not only in an org but org to org as customers flow upward.
 
  G.
Understand EXCHANGE of valuables of service for money (P/L Exec Series 3 and 4).
 
  H.
Know the correct money pools for any given activity.
 
  I.
Police all lines constantly.
 
  J.
MAKE MONEY.
 
  K.
MAKE MORE MONEY.
 
  L.
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 to keep solvency afloat in an organization, and this could be any organization or activity. “The solvency of the orgs and areas is the responsibility of the FBO.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 29 Jan 71, Finance Series 1 “Finance Banking Officers”)  You will find this FBO in a particular division in that organization. Each division or department carries a certain responsibility for some area of the organization. This area here is the Treasury Division 3 which is the division which has as its aim is the solvency of the organization, and therewith works for a continuance of existence of that very organization. If not taken care of that an organization will go broke and disappear. As it will with any organization, group, mission, church, individual, etc., that will not take care of its finances, income and solvency.
Now, what would happen if the person in an organization that is responsible for keeping financing flow afloat would say: “No money? No problem, just come in!”. Soon you will have no organization.

I will quote here from 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 and concludes: “Unless all these actions are done, an org cannot in fact prosper, has poor credit and is generally upset.”  LRH.

  
Go back
“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 also taken from a policy letter. (see specific notices regarding this issue-type at the previous discussed citation)

This phrase may be used by the anti-Scientology propagandist to imply that the Scientology organization is out after to outrule existing law, and consider themselves therefore above the law.

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 talking about in the text foregoing it.
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 these 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 may hope that this clarifies this matter a bit.

Mind that 6 months following the release of this policy letter 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”).

  
Go back
“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.

If you cite something out of context and you leave out to explain why a particular text or rule came into being, then how do you know that you interpreted it correctly? Any piece of text can be twisted and deliberately misrepresented. This ‘Ability, Major 1’ talks a lot about law. Usually the best advice that can be given is that one reads the entire writing, and not not just an isolated piece of text broken out of it. This policy letter, at least in part, is about safeguarding the technology by exerting control over people that misuse or alter the technology for their personal benefit that then give a bad name to the organization.

It gets rough in the 2nd citation where it says: “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”. Followed by “well knowing that he is not authorized”. 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 article 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 exerting this 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
 

  
Go back
“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 2000s another new edition has been published.
If published on the Internet these citations often follow with the notice “[The ‘Tone Scale’ is Scientology's measure of mental and spiritual health.]”. A statement that is not incorrect, although it doesn't explain what it is about and its purpose.

The citations used focus only on this “2.0” tone. What is that, you'll ask? Are there other tones, what is that scale all about? At what practical usage do they aim? These isolated citations don't reveal 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 Scientology with it are something really bad. The common anti-Scientologist propagandist in particular will try to maintain 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 well extreme and unrealistic with the things they state.

If we for a moment look a bit more closely at 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 thus says “in any thinking society”. What does that mean? Do we live in an actual “thinking society”? If we look around at what is happening in society and recorded history through the ages we may not really get the impression that would be the case. Any type of government in a society that would advocate particular measures taken against, let's call them, undesirables, are bound to fall into very serious misuse. The citation in the book however appears to enervate itself.

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. The book that is totaling 469 pages is in fact a continuation of the earlier book “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” (1950). It basically deepens its principles.
The book is aiming to measure actual progress in an individual while using the processing principles from Dianetics, but also to determine which areas need improvement and to what level it can be improvement. For that reason it folds out, measures and identifies the various tones (levels) of human behaviour. The characteristics of human behaviour are presented in scales, but its purpose is to find out where and how conditions can be improved. The purpose of the book therefore is better explained by aiming to rid man of bad behavioural patterns rather than getting rid of people themselves.

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)
 

And:

        
“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)
 

 
Go back Final comments

The list could get long. On the Internet we find quite a few of these bits and pieces of text that are taken out of context. Commonly they are deliberately used to claim or support that valid wrongs had been found! The anti-Scientology propagandist can go at great length with this. According to them L. Ron Hubbard would also be a racist and a lot more of such demeanings, based on phrases taken out of context or that are wholly made up.
It is therefore advised to look more closely at these citations and regard in what original context they came, and what problem they tried to address or solve. They then usually enervate themselves if you get an understanding of that. It may then be found that, by themselves, they do not appear to imply the meaning that various persons have attached to them. With that it may appear that the common anti-Scientologist has a rather hard time even duplicating and understanding the English language itself. They, as my personal experiences tell me, always continue to insist that they have right. It didn't matter one little thing how much effort you put into this to try to get them to define words properly or clear up grammar specifications. Not in a single case could any of these persons, that were approached, admit that they might had made an error in judgment. Persistently it always ended with that they instead resorted to attacking and ridiculing the person.

For that reason I would urge any person to clarify the actual text and preferably in its original context.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index 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 explanation should be given here about this the social and anti-social personality. The Anti-Social Personality was first made mention of in a lecture given on 25 Aug 1966 as part of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course series of lectures. A month later we find this extracted from the lectures reissued as HCOB 27 Sept 66 “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist”. They also appeared in 2 articles in the Jan and Feb 1967 issue of the Scientology periodical Ability as “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist” and “The Social Personality”.
As late as 21 Aug 2000 the HCOB version was also issued as a policy letter as HCO PL 27 Sept 66 II “same title”. It goes into these anti-social characteristics at length and great detail.
Below the articles as they appeared in the periodical Ability:  (pop-up windows)
    ‘Ability 188’, [Jan 67] “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist”
  ‘Ability 189’, [Feb 67] “The Social Personality”

These articles may speak for themselves. The information they present is essentially a guiding rule or a foundation of how you may determine what kind of person you are dealing with, this being a social person or a not so social person. These criteria may shift and are also pending how a person is feeling himself right now. A real Anti-Social Personality (persistently suffering from a majority of these anti-socal characteristics) may more commonly be referred to as a Suppressive Person.
You may experience when dealing with persons that answer to various of anti-social criteria may be rather hard to have a sensible or constructive dialogue with. They tend to rather forcefully hold on to their argument and as a rule appear to ignore or are incapable to even consider contrary arguments that are folding out flaws in their reasoning. Their mind appears already made up and they only seem to have an eye open for that which acknowledges their preconceived conviction. These articles may make for an interesting read.

 
Conclusion

Back to Main Index Afterword

What message do we learn from the Internet? One may wish to summarize it with that the truth likely would be out there some place. The big ‘but’ however introduces itself with that it requires you to work your way through really a lot of information to finally get a gist of it. Truths generally are never found in the things that people may tell. We indeed find 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 persons that involve themselves with invalidation of alternate views that nonetheless are sufficiently supported, 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 incapable to do so because their prestige and their commitment to their selfrighteousness must be far too great to overcome. The ideal scene however is not composed of a lie. False information will enervate itself always 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. This will have a lot to do with personal insecurity and thus prestige. Therefore essentially you should not believe anyone. Don't believe me. Simply 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. And if they do it will commonly be for another reason then they will tell you it is.


“The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetan 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”)

 

Vocabulary:

     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 PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs 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 HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs 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).


Go to top of this page


Advertisement