Daily Archives: April 29, 2013

The Quest: Quixotian or Gandhian?

On his ‘Dean of Technology’ course titled Class VIII, L. Ron Hubbard advises that the ultimate state of consciousness attainable in Scientology (dubbed OT, for Operating Thetan) is simple.  The state is attained when the individual no longer carries any lies with him.  An individual is as OT as he doesn’t walk about with lies.

So it is with Scientology itself.  As a subject it contains a wonderful body of technology for helping to strip a person of the lies through which he filters the universe around him.  The biggest problem with broad dissemination and application of that technology is its self-imposed prohibition on differentiating that technology from the broader body of Scientology work that is chock-full of lies.

Because of the religious cloak with which L. Ron Hubbard chose to enwrap Scientology, the discernment of truth from lies within Scientology is not an easy task.  L. Ron Hubbard wrote a large body of doctrine satanizing anyone who attempts to look at his body of work in a critical fashion.  In fact, the very term ‘criticism’ – at least when directed toward Hubbard or Scientology – has been solidly re-defined in Scientology to be the activity of only sociopaths and criminals.

Thus in 1967 Hubbard published an article in a Scientology journal for all Scientologists to heed and adhere to.  Entitled Critics of Scientology it pronounced the following:

Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea.  Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts…

…If you, the criticized, are savage enough and insistent in your demand for the crime, you’ll get the text, meter or no meter.  Never discuss Scientology with the critic.  Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.  And act completely confident that those crimes exist.  Because they do.

Hubbard issued dozens of pages of directives to his church to investigate  – with the aim of destruction of – critics of Scientology.  When the ‘technical fact’ he preached above proved to be utterly false (as determined by the intelligence agency he created to prove it – called the Guardian’s Office), Hubbard advised the agency to skip the investigations, create and plant and then ‘discover’ and expose the evidence of crime.  He was particularly vicious and ruthless in his directives to destroy those who attempted to clarify, refine, or simplify Scientology technology so as to reach more people effectively.

In a 1955 Professional Auditor’s Bulletin Hubbard directed Scientologists on how to deal with Scientologists not toeing the line with the religious cult of Scientology as follows:

Personally, if I were an auditor and found my area being muddied up to that extent, I would have a definite feeling, if I permitted it to go on, that I was not doing all I could do to spread Scientology in my area.  I would have taken such a screwball out of the running so fast he would have thought he had been hit by a Mack truck, and I don’t mean thought-wise.  But then the difference between me and an apathetic auditor is that I fight, and I get things done.

Hubbard advised that such screwballs be sued in the following manner:

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.

Hubbard dealt with what he called ‘squirrels’ (defined as those who alter Scientology) in such wise to the very end of his life.  In fact, the last person who served as his own auditor in the late seventies and who was the Hubbard-appointed senior-most Scientology technical  supervisor in the world, one David Mayo, was the final target of such Hubbard scorn.  When Mayo started practicing Scientology outside of the control of the cult in the early nineteen-eighties Hubbard directed that the church ‘squash him like a bug.’  Notwithstanding that Mayo’s essential ‘clarification’ concerning Scientology was that the violent, combative aspects were not true L. Ron Hubbard technology.

It is because of the above that the Office of Special Affairs continues to attempt to destroy my wife and me – and anyone else who does stand for truth when it comes to Scientology.  It is not because David Miscavige tells them to.  It is because they are religiously bound to attempt to destroy us by any means necessary.

The violent, reactive attitude toward ‘squirrels’ is so deeply implanted in Scientologists that even the latest ‘independent Scientology’ movement – which the church of Scientology dubs ‘squirrel’ – facily accuses people attempting to differentiate workable Scientology technology from its ample supply of lies as being ‘gestapo’, ‘war criminals’, and ‘Nazis.’

Ironically, this firmly implanted, combative attitude is one-hundred and eighty degrees, diametrically opposed to the attitudes, states of mind, and states of consciousness that sane, understanding application of Scientology processes are capable of bringing about.

My views and aims have not much changed in the past four years.  In sum, to the extent that that which works in Scientology can be differentiated from that which disables, by – among other things – radicalization, L. Ron Hubbard’s ideas have a future.  To the degree that differentiation process is killed, Hubbard’s ideas die.

I am letting it be known that in spite of the ample back stabbing, cur dog yapping, and undermining and severing of all of our sources of support that we’ve encountered in the past four years, we continue to pursue our course.  Whether the quest turns out to be more Quixotian or more Gandhian will likely be apparent by the end of this year in my estimation.

“Too much sanity may be madness.  And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be.”  – Dale Wasserman, playwright, attributed to Don Quixote author Miguel Cervantes in the play, The Man From La Mancha

“A ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.” – Mahatma Gandhi