- A first few notices
- Reference to Robert Vaughn Young
- (1) Summary of the witnesses as forwarded in Don Lindsay's write-up
- (2) Reference made to ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’ (Russell Miller)
- Final notices regarding the write-up
This is a persistent rumour that is going around. It would seem that it established itself firmly since about the mid-80's. Investigated are the sources, if these would be reliable, and any other information that would shed some light into this matter.
This is about certain sayings that are attributed to L. Ron Hubbard, that are all dating back to the 2nd half of the 40's. These sayings go from “The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.” to “You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.” and “I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!”. There are some variations to this, but it comes down to that. Of course this would damage the repute of the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. One should thus watch for if these sayings may have been spread around solely for accomplishing exactly that, and place these phrases into the public mind. This then would come forth out of the same concept reasoning why members of the anti-Scientology movement always refer to L. Ron Hubbard as being a science fiction writer, when only 21% of just his fiction output could account for that in the pre-Dianetics/Scientology time frame (for evidence see here, separate window).
“‘Hubbard is a science fiction writer.’ (This is not too bad as people respect science fiction writers. But it is false. Hubbard only wrote 1,000,000 words of science fiction over a short period and wrote 14,000,000 words on other things. They plug ‘fiction’ to connect it to Scientology. Subtly clever.)” LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Jun 75 “The Enemy Line”)
The reason why they say that would be rather obvious though. You simply feed data that will place itself in people's minds, and when it is there it is hard to have them look at it again, or to change that. One should be very alarmed though for those individuals that intend to put phrases into our heads, and that will not invite your intelligence.
It is a rather commonly proposed view, as if these subjects of Dianetics and Scientology were thought up solely as a means to make money. You have to look where these views are coming from, and the prime advocate for them are those individuals that are opposed to these subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. This is entirely regardless if actually they would know/understand anything about these subjects themselves. My general experiences are that they can not actually discuss the subject. When you encounter this then you should be alarmed, as you will not learn about the subject itself from them. The question however is if the claim that is being made here has any truth contained within it? And if this would not be true, then what arguments can be hold up against the claim made? But first a case has to be presented by those that make the claim.
Now, there are 2 main angles here that should be looked into: (1) how reliable are the sources that claim it was all about the money, consequently can these be properly verified for their correctness and/or truthfulness, and when did they start to float around?; and (2) if the aim was to make money, and only money, then we should be able to find clear signs from its very inception that money was the driving factor and that in fact money was being made in abundance. With other words, how does this all work out in regards to the recorded history of the subject of Dianetics/Scientology and its affiliated organization?
Mind that I address the matter from its actual inception and only secondarily regard that what its outset may have turned into in later years. See, the claim that persistently is being made is that it was created for the money from the very start. And so, this is where I thus have to lay my focus.
The Don Lindsay write-up
(from his website)
Out on the Internet we find a fairly brief write-up circling around that has been copied to a variety of sites. It has a quasi investigative approach. I say quasi because it does not actually go very much into depth about the matter. It also fails to give all the sources for what it states. Then it makes some conclusions that are not particularly justified by the data that it is forwarding. Still this is a lot better than what we find elsewhere in the media, and out on the Internet. Most of the other overviews and utterances that we find do not invite any investigative mind at all. At least here we find a full assemblage of the arguments that are going around, and we get a list of names. The writer of the little write-up listens to the name Don Lindsay.
The little write-up can be found on his website: (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013)
(Notice: If the link here above doesn't work anymore, a copy can be consulted here, pop-up window)
The write-up seems to be from 1999 (it carries a last revised notice from 14 January 1999). A Google search performed 13 years later (Sept 2012) of the title of this particular write-up ‘The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.’, gave 33,800 hits. This write-up sure got to places. Further you will find that Scientology and/or the name L. Ron Hubbard pops up all over the place when scanning through all these hits. I then searched for this phrase + ‘Hubbard’, that gave 30,400 hits. Followingly I searched for this phrase + ‘Scientology’, giving 26,800 hits. This is all rather interesting. Now, why is this like that? Obviously this write-up or at least this topic appears to be a hot potato for some reason. We find it all over the place, copied to newsgroups, forums, personal sites, and so on. When looking a bit closer we do find that the bulk of these reactions are rather unfavourable in regards to the person L. Ron Hubbard and the subject of Scientology. It really does seem to work as a means of propaganda.
I thus thought that this was a good reason to look into this matter.
In its 1st paragraph Don Lindsay already notes: “For some reason, this is often mentioned on Usenet.”. Indeed this appears to be the case, but he doesn't go into explaining why this is. The Usenet newsgroup he undoubtedly refers to is a particular meeting place of primarily (not to say only) anti-Scientologists. It is here that they like to pat each other on the shoulder, it is basically their domain, and of course they will thus use this argument as often as they can. Does it bear any significance what they say? None in particular actually.
Also in its 1st paragraph he already offers a conclusion. I do not find this a very serious approach though. Anyhow he writes: “Evidence is discussed below, but the short answer is that it's almost certainly true.”. The talks about “evidence”, well, we'll see how solid that “‘evidence’” would turn out to be. Then followed with “it's almost certainly true”. Again, we'll see about that. Does Don Lindsay try to form our opinion about this matter at forehand, i.e. before he has presented his “‘evidence’”?
The 2nd paragraph reads: “The Church of Scientology has actually taken German publishers to court for printing this story. Stern won (see below).”. Now, why does he write that here? Is Don Lindsay trying to say something to us? You see, a court is not a fact finding entity. Al it does is making decisions alongside the paragraphs of text that are found in the US law. Be assured that it has many restrictions and loopholes. Just because some court decided something that is not in favour of the Church of Scientology (or whomever) really doesn't say very much at all.
Reference to Robert Vaughn Young
In its 5th paragraph it mentions something interesting. It makes mention of George Orwell having written something like that. The data at hand is that we do find in ‘Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters, Vol. 1: An Age Like This, 1920-1940’ (issued 1971), a letter that George Orwell (pen name of Eric Blair) had send to Jack Common in 1938 where he wrote: “... but I have always thought there might be a lot of cash in starting a new religion, and we'll talk it over some time ...”.
Then we have these statements from Robert Vaughn Young. He was a member of the Church of Scientology during 1969-89 (and not a spokesman for this whole time period as Don Lindsay states in his write-up). Now, according to the Don Lindsay write-up this Robert Vaughn Young had claimed that L. Ron Hubbard had learned about the Orwell quotation from him. Don Lindsay however fails to give a source for that. Either way this in turn would be rather interesting as the publication that contained the letter was not published earlier than 1971, meaning it was not available to the public prior to that.
There is this interview with L. Ron Hubbard that we find published in the ‘Rocky Mountain News, 20 Feb 83’. Robert Vaughn Young has admitted (in an essay published on a newsgroup, 23 February 2000), that he had “ghosted” the answers supplied in this interview (please take note that this was a written interview, a list of questions was send by mail, and a written answer was send in return to the interviewer). The entry in this interview in the ‘Rocky Mountain News’ reads:
“Q: Part of your legend is the story of a speech you allegedly gave to a bunch of science fiction writers where you supposedly told them if they really wanted to make money they should start a religion. What's the true story surrounding this frequently spun tale?”
“A: I'm afraid you've gotten me confused with another writer — George Orwell, author of ‘1984,’ ‘Animal Farm.’ It was he that made that remark in 1938. I've got a reverse one for you. The other day I heard whole passages from Scientology materials being attributed to Buddha!”
Don Lindsay further relates that “Young further states that he met three people who could remember Hubbard saying more-or-less the famous quote.”. This indeed is rather vague as it gives no details about when this would have been, recently or during the 40's; we get no names; and we can't base very much on the expression “more-or-less” that is used here. Don Lindsay also here fails to give a source for this.
Besides this we should watch for to give Robert Vaughn Young too much credence for the things that he says. Reportedly he had been a whistle blower of the Church of Scientology. He has admitted in court that he had been writing references that were later issued with the signature of L. Ron Hubbard underneath it. And many more such things. Some say that he came clean, and can/should be trusted. Well, I would not trust a person that much that has done the things that this Robert Vaughn Young has stated in court that he had done. If his integrity had been this low for so many years, why would that suddenly turn around 180 degrees? There is no particular logic found in that statement. It should not be questioned however that he was an able person and a proficient writer, but as history unfolds, and with the admittance of Robert Vaughn Young himself due to his behaviour, he appears to have been a rather weak person character wise.
This comment of mine undoubtedly would make the anti-Scientologist propagandist go out of their heads, after all Robert Vaughn Young is being regarded as one of their heroes. So to speak. Well, people, look at the data at hand! Now, what do you see? Just because you like what you hear someone saying, does not turn it true.
I am thus rather flabbergasted about the uncriticalness of this Don Lindsay when he in the fore last paragraph of his write-up actually includes “the three unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young” and near the end of his write-up states that he came to a total of “nine witnesses” that are in favour of that L. Ron Hubbard would have uttered the quotation. To “nine witnesses”? Are you kidding me? And if this is not enough Don Lindsay then states “There is some confusion and doubt about one of them”, and he does here not refer to “the three unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young”! Well, this is all very interesting then, indeed it is!
Well, Don Lindsay, have I got news for you, you ain't got “nine witnesses”!
(1) Summary of the witnesses as forwarded in Don Lindsay's write-up
Don Lindsay writes: “To summarize: we have nine witnesses:”
“Neison Himmel,” [Don Lindsay actually misspells this, should be Nieson Himmel]
►“-- reporter Neison Himmel: quoted in Bare Faced Messiah p.117 from 1986 interview. Himmel shared a room with LRH, briefly, Pasadena, fall 1945.”
►“-- Sam Merwin, then the editor of the Thrilling SF magazines: quoted in Bare Faced Messiah p.133 from 1986 interview. Winter of 1946/47.”
►“-- Bare Faced Messiah p.148. Reference given to LA Times, 27 Aug 78. Supposed to have happened in spring 1949.”
►“-- Messiah or Madman, p.45. No reference given.” “1947”
►“In 1994 Moskowitz wrote an affidavit.” “7 Nov 1948”
Don Lindsay notes: “There is some confusion and doubt about one of them (Sam Moskowitz).”. There are 3 accounts with different dates/years respectively 1947, 1949, & 7 Nov 1948. Also there are different spellings of the name Moscowitz and Moskowitz.
►“On 9apr94, firstname.lastname@example.org (Mike Jittlov) posted (about a conversation with Theodore Sturgeon)” “1940's”
Don Lindsay notes about Theodore Sturgeon: “He had an extremely accurate memory, and I'd trust Sturgeon over anyone else's account.”. The problem here is that it was the memory of Mike Jittlov that tells the tale.
“Lloyd Arthur Eshbach,”
►“Lloyd Arthur Eshbach was a science fiction writer and publisher between 1929 and 1957. His autobiography, says on pages 125 and 126 (about the events of 1948 and 1949)”
Don Lindsay notes: “Eshbach based his autobiography on detailed records and dated diary entries, and is therefore likely to be quite accurate on this point.”.
►“In a 1999 telephone interview, Mr. Ellison gave more details. In 1950, when he was 15, Ellison attended meetings of the Hydra Club.”
“and the three unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young.”
Note: In a 4th paragraph of his write-up Don Lindsay writes: “Another variant is that Hubbard talked of starting a religion to avoid taxes. Jay Kay Klein reports that Hubbard said this in 1947.”. We may safely assume here that he retracts this from his list due to Jay Kay Klein writing this affidavit in May 1993. Don Lindsay also fails once again to give a source for the original claim made in this 4th paragraph.
In the last paragraph of his write-up Don Lindsay writes: “Conclusion: He definitely said it more than once.”.
Well, I guess this is just a matter of choice then. But there are other viewpoints on this write-up of Don Lindsay. For example did I find:
“I have heard various versions of this meme and was tempted to quote it in a comment on another thread. [This site] appears to do a fairly decent job of investigating the claim but leaves the conclusion based at best on anecdotal evidence that is disputed.
The closest thing the author of the site has to evidence is someone who said they were there years ago and heard it, or something like it said. Is there any evidence that Hubbard said this?” (source, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013)
I would agree with the above poster. Don Lindsay does not give very much to go on. Far too many years have past after persons coming forward. That one would remember such details after that many years (30-40-50 years) of some convention, that is just not very plausible at all!
As a comparison. Do you know about the story in where you line up 10 persons. You pass over some verbal data to the first person, just tell a short story, he will then pass it over verbally to the second person, and so on. When it has reached the last person, that data will have changed, and you will have a different story. Try it out, you will be amazed. We used to do this at school.
(2) Reference made to ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’ (Russell Miller)
The Don Lindsay write-up provides for 3 reference sources that go to the book ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’ (published 1987). And ... just to give a word of caution, as it's author Russell Miller has not shown to be the most reliable person around (see my foregoing article about his book and his person, see “‘Bare-Faced Messiah’ (1987, Russell Miller): The No. 1 book of the anti-Scientology movement or A matter of sheer anti-propaganda?”).
Besides this he says in his “Author's Note” that “This book could not have been written without the assistance of the many former Scientologists” (underlining is mine). The main problem here is that apparently the reputation of Russell Miller went ahead of him. Judging from the book that he finally delivered this distrust would have been justified. And so Russell Miller had to almost solely rely on people that had some sort grudge with either L. Ron Hubbard or the organization as “the Church did its best to dissuade people who knew Hubbard from speaking to me”.
Now we have this interview by Luke Muehlhauser on October 24, 2010 in where Russell Miller is being asked the following question:
“Now, there is a story that L. Ron Hubbard told one of his friends, that, you know, the fast way to make a lot of money would be to start a religion, shortly before he started Scientology. Did you, were you able to track down the truth regarding that story?”
And the rather interesting reply of Russell Miller:
“I was not, no, I confess I was not. I mean, I put it in the book as being something that allegedly [somebody once said], that he said, but, I couldn't, I was never able to find the source of that.”
Sound snippet (0:29)
Russell Miller seems to have forgotten all about the things he had written about, or did he make it all up? Well, at least he must have gone over it very quickly while ‘researching’ for his book, i.e. his meticulous research. An annotation has to be forwarded here that for this Sam Merwin, with whom Russell Miller reportedly had an interview (source ref.: “Interview Merwin, Los Angeles, August 1986”). We nonetheless find only one entry from this person in his book per the source referencing, and it is about this. I find this noteworthy, partly because Russell Miller doesn't appear to remember anything.
Final notices regarding the write-up
Don Lindsay writes in the fore last paragraph that “the Church's official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie.”. Ah, well, I am not sure what he refers to here actually.
First we got in the 2nd paragraph:
“The Church of Scientology has actually taken German publishers to court for printing this story. Stern won (see below).”
Later in the write-up we find:
“Now, there is a problem with the three Moskowitz reports. Specifically, the Church obtained affidavits in 1993 from David A. Kyle and Jay Kay Klein. Both names are well-known in science fiction, and both say that they went to the 7 Nov 1948 talk by Hubbard. Both say that they didn't hear any such statement. Puzzling.
I believe that these dueling affidavits have met in court. Stern, a German magazine, was sued by the Church, and the suit was thrown out of court after they obtained the Moskowitz affidavit.”
And this then gets to:
“And the Church's official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie.”
Well, Don Lindsay doesn't explain very much, now does he! His text overall is here confusing and unclear. I would assume here though that this final adjudication of Don Lindsay finds its base in that the affidavits provided by David A. Kyle and Jay Kay Klein clashed with an affidavit provided by Moskowitz in a German court of law and that the case was dismissed when the Moskowitz affidavit made its entry in court. Or it would seem that Don Lindsay finds that his forwarded ‘evidence’ is so overwhelming that he only can make one final conclusion, and that is that Church must have lied. Well, something like that. I fear that this is all rather thin though. It seems so that he deems that David A. Kyle and Jay Kay Klein also would have been liars. And Moskowitz? He is of course telling the truth, simply because we like his version of the tale better! Now, but wait a minute here! Didn't Don Lindsay write in the fore last paragraph in his write-up “There is some confusion and doubt about one of them (Sam Moskowitz).”? Ah, well, I guess the story is getting better and better!
Well, let Don Lindsay for starters give a verified source for that “Jay Kay Klein reports that Hubbard ... in 1947 ... talked of starting a religion to avoid taxes.”! Then we'll take it from there.
Not too often considered conceptions clarified
Religion or science?
The question to ask here if it from the very start was being addressed as and considered being a religion? Well, just take the book that started it all, published in May 1950. It's title already tells you: ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ and subtitled: ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Procedure’. Then in ‘Chapter I: The Scope of Dianetics, the first 4 words in the first paragraph read: “A science of mind ...”. Now, does that look like a religious outset to you?
Well, more precisely, a scientific practice that aims at achieving freedom of spirit.
We find the following text in the ‘Foreword’ of the little publication ‘Scientology: 8-80’ (Nov 1952):
“WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?
‘Scientology’ is a new word which names a new science. It is formed
from the Latin word, ‘scio’, which means KNOW, or DISTINGUISH, being
related to the word ‘scindo’, which means CLEAVE. (Thus, the idea of
differentiation is strongly implied.) It is formed from the Greek
word ‘logos’, which means THE WORD, or OUTWARD FORM BY WHICH THE
INWARD THOUGHT IS EXPRESSED AND MADE KNOWN: also, THE INWARD THOUGHT
or REASON ITSELF. Thus, SCIENTOLOGY means KNOWING ABOUT KNOWING, or
SCIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE.
A science is not merely a collection of facts, neatly arranged.
An essential of a science is that observations give rise to
theories which, in turn, predict new observations. When the new
observations are made, they, in turn, give rise to better theories,
which predict further observations.
A science grows. Its most important growth is not in numbers
of facts but in the clarity and prediction-value of its theories.
Many fields which call themselves sciences substitute fact
collecting for theorizing, others substitute theorizing for
observation. Without both, there is no science.”
It still all had this focus on ‘science’ ...
And thus the claims that L. Ron Hubbard would have uttered these phrases about starting a religion to make a million at some instances in time varying from 1945 to 1949. Well, it all start to look a bit ridiculous, now doesn't it? Not to mention the coincidence that all these tales date to this particular time frame, directly prior to the publication of the book ‘Dianetics’ in May 1950. Isn't that something? You see, it was the SCIENCE objective that started it all, and NOT a religious one! This science in turn however, because it was addressing man as a spiritual being, and was aiming at to better the condition of man, of course this had a religious tenet.
This religious aspect however did not came really in vogue until so about 1954. One had applied for a religious status, and hoped to get its obvious benefits. However before one was being granted this status it had to make a suitable religious appearance. I have spoken with Scientology old-timers about this matter, and they tell me that suddenly there was attention on this religious aspect, and certain phrases in books had to reflect the religiousness. We suddenly got ministers and such things. Mind however that, as per its tenets, these subjects of Dianetics and Scientology are and have always been religious! But it had a scientific way of how to go about matters, that's all.
More relevant data about this can be consulted in the link here below:
Well, to be blunt about it. Not at all! There were some very clear guidelines in use. The basic outline and target setting we find is laid out in the following 2 references:
“(a)Cheap, broad services for everyone.
(b)Personal services at a much higher (but cheaper than any other field) price.” LRH (from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination
“As financial planning sees that pricing of everything sold is not too high to discourage the public and not too low to make the org insolvent.” LRH (from HCO PL 20 Nov 65 “Promotional Actions of an Organization”)
But you could even get it cheaper than that. This by means of just buying your training (do a course), and then work together with another person that is doing the same thing. Next you run the processes that you both have learned on each other. It all could become rather inexpensive.
Next to that you could start your own group and deliver these techniques to others as a so-called Field Auditor. You could just even earn of living from it. No tithe was asked for if you did not invite help from the organization. You were free to do like this during the first 30 years from its inception. And of course if you could not deliver results as a Field Auditor, you would soon lose out on your customers.
Then where do all the complaints from that Scientology services would ruin you financially and all that? Well, the main culprit for that could be said to be ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation”, this reference all by itself may not have been the problem. That what made it into a problem was that it was reinstated time after time and was not put to a halt until, so during the early 80's, the pricings had literally gone through the roof. It was this reference that introduced the system of monthly increases in pricings at a rate of 2 or 5% over the previous month. Run such a system a couple of years and you will quickly see what it will lead to.
A calculation guide that was already in place since 1964 should have prohibited all this. Unfortunately this is not particularly in use since that time:
“THE COST OF A CERTIFICATE COURSE MAY NOT BE LESS THAN ONE MONTH'S AVERAGE PAY FOR THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS GIVEN AND MUST BE IN CASH.
By average pay is meant the average upper lower class or lower middle class pay scale. (Example guesses: U.K. about £50. U.S. about $500. Australia about $75. South Africa about £80.) ...
ONEWEEK'S PROCESS (25 HOURS) SHOULD COST AN AVERAGE MONTH'S PAY (AS IN TRAINING).” LRH
(from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)
It may seem odd however that till this very day this reference remains a valid reference.
Then, you may ask, what about those confidential levels and the sums of money they are asking for these? Well, these too at some point, some decennia's ago now, would also have had very affordable pricings. Although it should be mentioned that since the early 80's we have New OT levels. See, they are actually something else and have also turned lenghty, something which the original levels were not.
Now, if Dianetics and Scientology and all that would have been created all for the sake of procuring money quickly. Then naturally you intend to get these earnings rather quickly, after all you want to get a result of your nice idea. This is why you thought it up in the first place. Now, how long would you be willing to wait till the big money would be rolling in? Well, would you wait till the early 80's? By which time you would have reached the respectable age of 70 years? I doesn't all make very much sense to do so, wouldn't you think!
If it was all for the money, then would you go around delivering some 3,200 lectures, writing and issuing a series of thick book volumes, having lots of conferences, spending much time on organizing, researching and traveling and many more such things? See, it just doesn't make very much sense at all. If you create a religion and are thus targeting for easy money you simply would not go through all such trouble!
As a person who as a young officer was serving night watches in Corfu Port Police when L. Ron Hubbard was there in the late 60s told to a friend of mine in 1996, during one of the visits to the island:
“I knew where his (L. Ron Hubbard's) cabin was in the ship because I had been invited to visit him there. At some point in time I realized that, for almost more than a month the light there never went off earlier than 05:00 a.m. in the morning, and I was usually able to see him on deck or getting off-board by 8 or sometimes by 7:30 in the morning. I said to myself, ‘Hey, he does this routinely though he is a middle-age man. Where does he find all that energy?’. Some two or three days later we received an order to drive them off-port.”
You may consult various data in much more detail in the below linked to analysis:
“I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.
I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than twenty-five.
Under other ‘systems of research’ it could not have been done. It was financed at first by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to western were consumed in a large part by this research - - but it was free to act if not free from sweat.” LRH (from “Introduction” of ‘Scientology: Clear Procedure - Issue One’ (1957))
Here we learn about the flip side of the coin. We are forwarded an opposing tale. Here the tale tells us that these subjects of Dianetics and Scientology have not being created for the sake of making money, instead it had cost money to be able to actually perform the research for these subjects! We hear here that for this purpose fact and fiction articles/stories were written 1932-50, then as soon as the subjects turned self-sustaining this fiction story writing was put to an end very abruptly. Now, this view would change things around a bit. The output of this fiction writing part of this legacy can be reviewed here (separate window).
In addition to this there was also this battle fought to keep the subject under own control. And
so this adds a further aspect to the money angle. It had also cost money to keep its initial intent alive and the original subject not being interferred with:
“No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertizing - - another kind of slavery. No big RESEARCH FOUNDATION like Ford was here to interject their ‘America First’ philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn't own it. The work stayed free. Thus it prospered. It did not wither in support of some aberrated ‘cause’. It bloomed.
But the violence of protecting this work while continuing it took a toll nevertheless. Special interests believed it must be evil if they did not own it. Between 1950 and 1956, 2,000,000 traceable dollars were spent to halt this work. Newspaper articles, radio ads (as in Seattle from the University of Washington) bribed ‘patrons’, financed ‘patients’ all cost money.” LRH (from ‘Scientology: Clear Procedure, Issue One’, “Introduction” (1957))
This thus would oppose the claim as if L. Ron Hubbard would have thought up a religion of some sort for the sole purpose to generate finances in abundance just for personal profit. Then where is the evidence for the claims made that L. Ron Hubbard would have taken funds from the organization, as well where is the proof for the claims that he lead an extravagance life in luxury? These are the questions that are avoided getting an answer to, from those that oppose to these subjects of Dianetics and Scientology! So, ask them, and then see what happens! It will make them uncomfortable as they have no answer, they will either change the topic or come with another claim which they can not support, but you will not get a direct verifiable answer to your question. I know this, because I have repeatedly forwarded these questions to them!
For the full text of this “Introduction” where above quotations are taken from, see below link:
Per this it would thus seem that the primary income of L. Ron Hubbard were his book royalties and indeed none from any income supposedly received or taken from the Church of Scientology.
The audit performed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that took several years and that culminated in a declaration being issued on 1 Oct ’93, may have proven in essense that Scientology was not for profit per Internal Revenue Code 501(C)(3). This meant that no individual benefited and all funds went to support and fund the social benefit programs as assisted by and originated through the Church of Scientology. This decision resulted in, according the scientology.org website, that “On that day the IRS issued letters recognizing the Church of Scientology International and its related Churches and organizations—all 150 of them—as tax-exempt”. For more information about this go here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013).
So, whether L. Ron Hubbard said the phrase or not becomes irrelevant since today, and in an official capacity, we are looking att that it is rather well documented by the US government that it just wasn't so. There are some things to say about this though, but the core of the matter here is that the anti-Scientologist has to explain it, and thus far they have failed to address this. Instead they have found it more convenient to just ignore it.
What is the verdict?
Now, where does it all amount to? Don Lindsay came with a claim of “nine witnesses”. Well, he actually had ten to start with:
We had this Jay Kay Klein of whom Don Lindsay claimed that he had reported that “Hubbard talked of starting a religion to avoid taxes” (no reference given and contradicted by an affidavit written by this Jay Kay Klein). And so “and then there were nine”.
Three of these we can with a fling put behind us, as all we learned about them is that they are “the three unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young.”. Thus “and then there were six”.
Then we have the two remaining sources of Russell Miller that reportedly would have had a grudge of some sort. Of one of them, Nieson Himmel this should be rather obvious when we see that Russell Miller amongst other writes on page 117 of his ‘biography’ about “Himmel's distrust” and “Himmel, who was himself in love with Betty, was furious she had been seduced by Hubbard. ...”. Then Sam Merwin of whom we find only one single entry in Miller's book. This gets us to “and then there were four”.
Then Don Lindsay relates that “There is some confusion and doubt about one of them”, this being Sam Moskowitz (or Moscowitz). Accordingly “and then there were three”.
Then we have Harlan Ellison of whom Don Lindsay relates: “In a 1999 telephone interview” that“In 1950, when he was 15, Ellison attended meetings of the Hydra Club.”. But Harlan Ellison “did not claim to have remembered it word-for-word after 49 years”. Then Don Lindsay also accredits Harlan Ellsion with “I was there the night L. Ron Hubbard invented [Dianetics]”. In reality this had been an ongoing process that had started before he even was born. And so here we come to “and then there were two”.
Then we have Theodore Sturgeon. This source forwarded by Mike Jittlov that in 1994 relates about a conversation with this person. Note that this is actually a second hand source! The assurance of Don Lindsay that “He had an extremely accurate memory, and I'd trust Sturgeon over anyone else's account.”, doesn't change very much here. As the source (Mike Jittlov) is not the person accredited in Don Lindsay's write-up with “an extremely accurate memory”. And thus “and then there was one”.
Finally we come to Lloyd Arthur Eshbach. Here the source is an autobiography from this person that we find published in 1983 carrying the title ‘Over My Shoulder: Reflections of the Science Fiction Era’. Still the incident dates to 44-45 years back in time, about ... a dinner meeting and a hotel room. Here again we get an assurance from Don Lindsay that “Eshbach based his autobiography on detailed records and dated diary entries, and is therefore likely to be quite accurate on this point.”. Well, it would depend on whom you are talking about. Diaries do tend to contain wishful thinking. More importantly Lloyd Arthur Eshbach writes: “The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made.”, alright then. But here it comes: “What led him to say what he did I can't recall”. By his own admittance he is thus enable to relate about the actual context in where this would have been said! Even if it was said this would make up for a vital ingredient of how to interpret it. Well, there may be a particular reason why it was “stamped indelibly” in Lloyd Arthur Eshbach's “mind” as the phrase he recollects is: “I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!”. For all we know is that this is the concept that this Lloyd Arthur Eshbach himself came up with, and possibly played with. Do also mind my comment about “diary entries” here above. And so we can close this of with “and then there were none”.
What we got here is basically the tale of the ‘Ten Little Injuns’ (or its more known variation the ‘Ten Little Niggers’). Neither of these ten ‘witnesses’ will do as evidence. All that we got are tales, called back from memory 40-50 years after the happening. We are facing far too many uncertainty factors. We can't particularly even place these phrases in a correct context in where they would have been spoken. And then we are persuaded to take it all seriously?
Just think about it, would you remember what someone had said 40-50 years ago? Could you recall the circumstance and the context in where something may or would have been said, this in some small informal after-congress gathering? Usually people would then also enjoy a drink of sorts. Most people would have a difficulty recalling such if it had happened just last week. Most people would remember only that they wish to remember, or rather what they thought occurred.
The final adjudication on this matter by Don Lindsay: “Conclusion: He definitely said it more than once.”, turns being rather ridiculous. He does not subject it to any scientific approach nor to a proportionate evaluation. This is surprising because if one goes to his site we find that he would be familiar with scientific and investigative methods of how to go about matters. Because he does not follow up on any scientific approaches, the question now surfaces why he wrote the article? So, what was actually his purpose?
When I was mostly done writing my essay I actually did find an intelligent reply to this matter on the ‘Yahoo! Answers’ site. I have decided to make it available in full in the link here below: (pop-up window).
Are there any witnesses that came forward prior to 1971 claiming that L. Ron Hubbard said that, thus before the year in which the letter written in 1938 by George Orwell was published? None thus far have come forward. Doesn't that strike anyone as being a bit odd? And why does anyone care today about a phrase that some persons claim has been uttered 40-50-60 years ago? Right, because it can be used for a particular purpose, which is to defame a subject matter through discrediting its founder.
Just suppose that if George Orwell could come to that conclusion, then would it be so impossible that L. Ron Hubbard or any other also could have come to a similar conclusion? Now, let's put it like this, if George Orwell (a person that just as L. Ron Hubbard wrote some science fiction) would have started a religion himself, would one then have accused him of having started that only as an attempt to make a fortune for himself? Yes, probably. Do mind that he did write ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’ that aim to expose human nature (the aberrative sort). Are people being crucified because they tell a truth? As this is what it then amounts to! You see, telling a truth does not also mean that one is guilty of taking advantage of that truth. These are 2 things.
I guess we have too many may be's and if's here. What you have to look for is results, results, and results. One should regard this technique of Dianetics that has been presented, does it deliver, or does it not deliver! All the distraction around it is just not very interesting. If it be L. Ron Hubbard, Woody Woodpecker, George Orwell, Piccadilly Jim or Queen Victoria that would have phrased that line. Then does it carry any weight at all?
Science versus Pseudoscience or Who is Don Lindsay?
Who is this Don Lindsay? Per his website “After 17 years around universities, and even more years in the computer industry, I am both a scientist and an engineer.”. From this index page of his website we also learn “My long-time Web hobbies are debating Creation/Evolution, Scientology and UFO/psychic stuff.”. (source, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013)
I will focus here on the Scientology topic, although he does not make clear why he is so interested in that particular topic. After all we have many choices we can make in this area. We can assume here that it is the scientific aspect, or rather the pseudoscientific aspect according to how Don Lindsay takes this. I think he likes to expose or sorts. A page on his web site folds out his view on it rather clearly. He gave the little essay the title “Hubbard said it was science”, but the banner title reads: “Quack ‘Religious Technology’”, you can consult that page here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). (Notice: If the link here above doesn't work anymore, a copy can be consulted here, pop-up window)
► The 1st paragraph starts with: “He said it very clearly, and on many occasions. He compared his ‘tech’ with physics and chemistry, and said it was just as precise.” Which actually can be deemed to be correct. It was all about working towards getting a predicted result and that can be repeated. (see further my response at Paragraph 2)
► The 1st paragraph continues with: “He said he was a nuclear physicist. He said he'd done experiments and had evidence. He put an equation in ‘Dianetics, the modern Science of Mental Health’.” This too would be correct. Some disputes however have been raised though about the accredited title of “nuclear physicist”. We find it in ‘All About Radiation’ (1957), it is on its title page. Further we find on the inside of its dust wrapper: “L. Ron Hubbard, who was one of the first nuclear physicists in the United States”. Elsewhere we may find: “L. Ron Hubbard, who was one of the first students of nuclear physics in the United States.”, the latter which may be a more correct designation. Although honorary titles may or may not have been given for the attendance. Either way, saying the former would add credibility to the writing. We don't know either who decided on this, but the designation stayed with the book, for a while at least..
► The 1st paragraph ends with: “He put an equation in ‘Dianetics, the modern Science of Mental Health’”. Indeed an “equation” which would be a scientific approach, no? Although Don Lindsay may be thinks differently as he stressed (as in irony?) the word Science in the title of the book, but he fails to elaborate that here.
The 2nd paragraph in full then reads: “Hubbard did not know the first thing about science. Chapter one of Dianetics is total proof of that, to a real scientist. (Nor is that ‘equation’ actually an equation - it just looks like one.) His science fiction has terrible lapses of knowledge and logic. He did study to be a mechanical engineer, but flunked out half way through. He got ‘F’ in Nuclear Physics.”. Don lindsay makes quite some statements here, but ... what does he show for it? He doesn't clarify anything at all actually! No verifiable examples or anything!
► So “Hubbard did not know the first thing about science.”? Well, L. Ron Hubbard uses the simple theory and result criterion. Meaning that if a predicted result, as per the proposed theory, does come through, and can be repeated. Well, then what you got here is applied science. I do intend to keep things very basic here, but this is the main outset of the scientific approach. Don Lindsay doesn't explain his judgment, and he seems to have missed what I tell in the above (or something). This makes me think that Don Lindsay is a theorist. You see, these days the so-called science package comes with a whole list of rules.
The scientific method can be said to consist of:
(1) Ask a question;
(2) Do background research;
(3) Construct a hypothesis;
(4) Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment;
(5) Analyze your data and draw a conclusion, and;
(6) Communicate your results.
Or as per the ‘Oxford English Dictionary’ that says at ‘scientific’: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”. And this can be found to have been followed by L. Ron Hubbard in the book ‘Dianetics’. The approach is very acceptable for a science that aims at application. After all, that you want is the replication of a predicted result.
But today we have these new ways that place additional demands before science can be called science:
Amongst other this involves that other people with a particular renowned expertise (often acknowledged by a Ph.D. title of sorts), need to go over it and sort of go along with it. This is referred to as so-called peer review.
Then when this is over some official academic sort of journal needs to be willing to publish it.
Now isn't this interesting, you need to get it published in some Academic Journal before your practical findings can receive a science status. With other words if you control these magazines then you control the direction of science itself, or what officially will be recognized and referred to as being science. Are you unwilling to subject your research to these lines of operation, this outer interference, then what you got is a pseudoscience. See how this one goes? The reality of the matter is that these peer review systems and and all that which followed with it, subjects your line of research to demands that need to be accommodated with. If they say, change this and that, you have to comply. If you don't want to waste your time with all that, then again what you got will be deemed being pseudoscience. Another thing that followed with a refusal to subject oneself to this is that you basically would end up on a black list of sorts. If your research is pending funding by the government or something you will simply not get your application for funding approved. You see, present day people of the likes of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei are still restricted and controlled till this day. You submit to the demand, or else... The only thing that changed is the method, they don't torture you, burn you, or throw you in jail anymore. It all has become a little more subtle...
Now, is it so surprising that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't particularly keen to subject his research to all of that. Subjecting it to outer control? The reality here is that if he would have, we would today never have had the technology that he had organized.
► A 2nd sentence in this paragraph says “Chapter one of Dianetics is total proof of that, to a real scientist.”. Thus “total proof of” that “Hubbard did not know the first thing about science.”. Ah, ah, okay then ... So, Don Lindsay talks about a “real scientist”? Now what exactly does he mean by that? He fails to explain. “total proof of”? Well, keep in mind my comparison of the official take of science and pseudoscience in the foregoing. You tell me if Don Lindsay himself follows the steps of the scientific method!!!
(I skip Don Lindsay's comment in parenthesis (3th sentence), that is referring back to paragraph 1.)
► In the 4th sentence he writes “His science fiction has terrible lapses of knowledge and logic.”. Oh, “science fiction”, placed here? So, what is Don Lindsay trying to say here? Making a deliberate association as if the book ‘Dianetics’ would be itself science fiction? I fear Don Lindsay is a bit too transparent here! He doesn't investigate anything, he simply tells us! [and places this phrase in our mind this early on] Again, please mind, he only states, he explains or elaborates nothing!
► The 5th and 6th sentences read: “He did study to be a mechanical engineer, but flunked out half way through. He got ‘F’ in Nuclear Physics.”. Ah, and what about it? University studies are subjected to particular criteria. Passing tests and all that only tells us that you supplied an answer that someone would approve of. Really, that is all there is to it. Passing tests will not uncover an original mind. And a genius surpasses that which had already been established earlier! Only working along the lines that have been established already will kill or at least encumber research of terra incognita. Do you follow? We have this anecdote about Albert Einstein, that his general grades where not above average. He excelled in some area's, but not all. We all know what he turned out to be.
Besides that, what do we actually know about this awarded “‘F’”? What are the specifics? Where, whom, what circumstances? Now this “‘F’”, we always hear about this one “‘F’”, isn't that interesting. We do not ever hear anything about any other examination results, may be they were all A's? What do we know? Think, people! Ask about what we do not get to hear, but that obviously must be there! For all we know, that one “‘F’”, if properly authenticated could turn out to be because of some professor that followed everything exactly ‘by the book’, or he may have had a pick on L. Ron Hubbard for some reason. We don't get any information about the actual situation here. One can't make a final evalution if pertinent data is lacking. That is just no scientific approach.
Now, I myself have been digging deeper into this and we do get an indication that this rewarded ‘F’ would be factually correct. L. Ron Hubbard himslef reveals it, and he also reveals the circumstances. We find the following passage on tape lecture “Dianetics, The Modern Miracle” given on 6 Feb 52:“In the twenties I was fortunate enough to know Commander Thompson of the Medical Corps of the United States Navy. ... And the United States Navy, having heard of the work of Freud, naturally, took ahold of Thompson and they send him over to Vienna, and they had him soak up anything that Freud had to say and study very thoroughly under Freud himself. ... Why he took it into his head to start beating Freud into my head, I don't know. But he did. And I wanted very much to follow out this work–wanted very much to. I didn't get a chance. My father, a naval officer–a very fine officer but a very dogmatic officer about his opinions–said, ‘Son, you're going to be an engineer.’ So I talked right back to him and I said, ‘Yes, Father,’ and went on and took engineering.” LRH. From this we can infer that the subject was not his choice and also did not have his particular interest. Well, at least not at that time. Then we are familiar with the phenomena that one generally does not excel in a subject that is forced upon us. The grades themselves are further confirmed in the magazine ‘Adventure’, Vol. 93, No. 5; 1 Oct 35 in een article entitled “The Camp-Fire” where we read: “In spite of changing schools, I received an education. I have some very poor grade sheets which show that I studied to be an engineer in college.” LRH. And indeed the average grade he received at this George Washington University, School of Engineering wasn't a high one, but what does that tell us?
► A pick from the 3rd paragraph reads: “There has never been a demonstration of ‘OT superpowers’. And even the Church admits that most of the claims in Dianetics are false. Clears do get colds: they still wear glasses: they get old and die.”.
- Please, who ever said anything about “superpowers”? He does not either provide for a source. In essence all that auditing (or processing) does is removing mental barriers. If you were an illiterate before, you still would be that afterwards [although with less mental barriers].
- The “Church admits”? Where, whom, what is the occasion? And then, who actually cares about what they (some unidentified person) will say?
- Not all “Clears” get “colds” actually, but even this does not add anything to the case. Some non-Scientologists also never get colds, don't they? Don Lindsay seems to think that auditing procedures would be some panacea for these things, it is not. There is no all-cure one auditing procedure that eliminates colds. The matter is here that one needs to uncover that what actually caused that cold in that particular person. And I shouldn't have to say here that there are many causes/factors for getting colds. What should instead be looked at here is what changed after an individual was being subjected to processing? I am pretty sure that Don Lindsay never even looked into this even remotely!
There is one more thing to consider here. Which is the outset of this book ‘Dianetics’ that was published in 1950 with the aim to lay out the basic techniques and its possibilites. The definition of Clear as circumscribed in that book is simply the final product where one had set its aim. It is this one intended to finaly arrive at! A goal setting. Remember this scientific method and its step: ‘(3) Construct a hypothesis’? Well, here you have your hypothesis, further research was still ongoing. So, then why do we have this Don Lindsay complaining here about this then, if it did follow the steps of the scientific method? Why does Don Lindsay takes it for granted that one would have a perfect working technique from the very start??? Science doesn't work that way, it is a continuous process of developing, testing, evaluation, and so on. This until such time that one achieves a very high rate of confirmed predictability of near perfect results that are lasting. See, you are dealing here with changing people, the mechanics may be the same, but each individuals' experiences are still different. Don Lindsay seems to have forgotten about all these aspects and the scientific process here. May be he thinks that psychoterapy, psychology and psychiatry have a better record of actual research with predictability and repeated results?
► A pick from the 4th paragraph reads: “It works as a way to install a new belief system in the customer.”. This is not untrue actually, but the subject matter can not rightfully be blamed for that. It is what man does. See, the subject matter is a practice, not a belief system. Would you mind keeping to the facts, and not just repeat what some people out there claim! Please abide to your scientific method! You will however find people that will adopt anything into a belief system, with no understanding. The bulk of the members of the scientific community is guitly of that, which includes your little self (as clearly shown here). The fact remains that the subject matter itself repeatedly defies it!
I elaborate on this in the overview provided in the link here below: (separate window)
► In a 5th paragraph we find: “The ‘suppressive person’ theory encourages you to explain your personal troubles with a cheap band-aid: a scapegoat. And, of course, you should ‘disconnect’ from the scapegoat, so that other believers become a bigger and bigger fraction of your personal world.”. In fact, all that you are expected to do is handle a situation. If you do that, the “‘suppressive person’” will walk away from you! In fact “‘disconnect’” is only a short time solution while receiving processing or sorts, that was the original outset. I guess that Don Lindsay should dive a bit back into history, which thus far he didn't. I studied these matters however in great detail.
My studies and overviews of this can be consulted in the link here below: (separate window)
In paragraph 6, 7 and 8 Don Lindsay basically talks about himself:
► In the 6th paragraph Don Lindsay then states: “Who am I, to say such things?”. Well, indeed, “Who are you?”. Or should I ask “Who do you think that you are?”
In the 7th paragraph he then addresses one angle: “The important thing is, can I back up what I said? Can I produce, say, biochemistry texts contradicting Hubbard's claims about the Purification Rundown? The answer is yes.”. Good for you! Ah, “biochemistry texts”? “texts”? I fear that I am only interested in observed results, and I did see such things in regards to this. Many years ago I worked for a brief period as a volunteer with Narconon in the Netherlands. That you can show papers that would tell some theory is wrong doesn't say very much, as long as particular results and improvements can be gotten. I am also unclear regarding in which degree L. Ron Hubbard researched this himself. Does this exposes Don Lindsay as being a theorist, once again? Decide for yourself.
Then in the final 8th paragraph don Lindsay writes: “But if you insist on credentials: I have a Bachelors in Engineering Physics, and a Ph.D. in Computer Science.”. Well, I fear I am not very interested in your “credentials”, after all these only tell that you have performed particular studies at some place and provided the answers that the examiners wanted to hear. These papers do not tell a thing about who YOU are! The only thing that the reader should look for if this Don Lindsay actually applies knowledge to topics discussed here and now! I find that he fails to deliver, that he is a theorist, and that he miserably fails to actually enforce the scientific method onto this subject matter! On top of that Don Lindsay attacks a person who actually did apply it, but offers virtually nothing that would support this adjudication.
Now is this what a “real scientist” is composed of? Well, hell no, not to me it isn't!
Follow-up: Don Lindsay ...
I have given Don Lindsay the opportunity to respond to my own write-up. Is he still holding track of responses to these matters? I don't know really. However, there has been recent activity on his site. His index page has a last modified indication that gives us 16 August 2012. Some other pages I saw had a May 2012 indication.
My email message that was send to him 22 Sept 2012 read:
I released the following:
Scientology: A religion created for the sake of making money? http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1-d.html
You may if you wish comment on it.
I will say however that your write-up on the matter is really not adequate and has significant flaws contained within it. Besides that you have failed to address to complete story. You used no scientific basis at all. My wondering is why you wrote it if you had to treat this so light-heartedly?
We'll see what happens, but I do not have particular high hopes. This for obvious reasons. But then, may be I am in for a surprise.
5 July 2014: A good 2 years have passed now since I posted this, no response from this Don Lindsay has been received, and this is all pretty much as expected. A few appreciative reponses have been received, but the members of the anti-Scientology (religious) community seems to avoid it like the plague. And this too is as expected... after all, what else could they do?
I may hope that I've given you something you'd like to contemplate about... I have done my best to put together relevant information. If you find that I am in error or figure that you have some information that should be included, then please contact me about that.
audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code. HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window). LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. LRH ED:
‘L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC ED's (Secretarial ED's). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R) P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.