The Hubbard is Bare (Jacobsen)

8/6/2019 The Hubbard is Bare (Jacobsen)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-hubbard-is-bare-jacobsen 1/34

The Hubbard is BareBy Jeff Jacobsen

Copyright 1992; may be reprinted so long as it is

kept in its entirety and not edited.

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/cos/ftp/lrhbare.txt

http://www.xenu.net/archive/lrhbare/lrhbare08.html

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2

REVIEW OF HUBBARD'S THEORIES ........................................................................... 4 THE MURKY STATE OF CLEAR ................................................................................... 7

PROBLEMS WITH THE ENGRAM THEORY .............................................................. 11 1. CONDITIONING .................................................................................................... 11

2. THE INTELLIGENT MORON................................................................................ 12 SCIENCE AND DIANETICS.......................................................................................... 15

A REAL EXPERIMENT COMES UP DRY ................................................................ 17 HUBBARD'S SOURCES ................................................................................................ 20

THOMAS HOBBES .................................................................................................... 22 ALEISTER CROWLEY .............................................................................................. 23

GNOSTICISM............................................................................................................. 24 THE IDEAL DIANETICS SOCIETY.............................................................................. 30

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 32 FOR FURTHER READING ............................................................................................ 34







The ideas Hubbard borrowed were generally bizarre ideas to begin with, and his fertile,twisted mind altered and embellished them to produce an even worse hodge-podge.

It is a mammoth task to try to piece where Hubbard took ideas, since there is no definitive list

of works he had read. He did in the early years of Dianetics credit some people such as

Korzybski, Freud, and some others, but Sadger, for example, never shows up in any credit byHubbard. Thus, one has to pick an idea (from Dianetics or some writing) and practice a littledetective work to see whether the idea originated elsewhere. Of course, this bares me to

criticism that I am simply reading Dianetics back into some work that just happens to soundlike Dianetics, but in fact what I am trying to show is that almost none of the ideas in

Dianetics is new or unique, as Hubbard claims. My goal is not so much to trace back to thedefinite source where Hubbard took ideas, but to demonstrate that his "new" and "unique"

ideas are neither. But I think it is possible to show that Hubbard absolutely stole ideas fromsome definite sources, such as Sadger and some others without ever crediting their works. The

examples I have been able to uncover I am convinced are just the tip of the iceberg. There areideas, for example, from William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (which

coincidentally was first published in 1950) that I find markedly reflected in the organizationof Scientology. Were it possible to get a list of what Hubbard read, I am certain that a very

large volume could be written comparing what he read to what he wrote. It is most certainlyclear that Hubbard was first and foremost a synthesizer of ideas, not a creator.

Some of the sections in this booklet are the culmination and conclusion of about 5 years' part-

time research into Hubbard's teachings. I wanted to put down what I had learned in order tomove on to other topics. Towards the completion of this work, I was reading the Australian

"Report of the Board of Inquiry Into Scientology" from 1965, and was amazed to see thatsome of my research was a repetition of that work. The advantages to the Australian report are

that they were able to call many actual experts to give their opinion of Hubbard's theories.They also had representatives of Scientology at hand who were allowed to present evidence as

well, although they apparently did not produce anything that negates anything in my writings.This is a wonderful document despite its age, and I highly recommend it to anyone wishing to

delve deeper into the subjects I have written about in this work.

Actually, there should be no need to write about Hubbard's ideas at all, since most of them are

so absurd and indefensible. Hubbard's writing style is grandiose, difficult, exasperating, and just plain wacky. But despite all this, there are still around 70,000 Scientologists today who

consider Hubbard a genius and live their lives according to his dictates. Scientology stillactively advertises and recruits the unwary, and so long as this is happening, those of us who

know better must speak out and expose the lies and deceits. The way scoundrels win is byhaving no opposition. One of Hitler's first official acts when he became chancellor was to

silence his critics. If we as critics remain silent, Scientology can go a long way, and Hubbardknew this - hence the constant attacks by Scientology on its perceived enemies.

[1] Jose M.R. Delgado, M.D. PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE MIND (Harper

Colophon Books, New York, 1969) P.47-8.



REVIEW OF HUBBARD'S THEORIES

First I must tell you that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for most of Hubbard'stheories, despite his claim that they are "scientific facts". Secondly, Hubbard had no academic

background to come up with theories of the mind, despite his false grandiose claims of worldtravel and incredible education. Finally, the actual scientific community and in fact the real

world all dispute with credible evidence almost all of Hubbard's theories. Despite this,Hubbard still has a following. And since he and the Church of Scientology have placed his

teachings into the marketplace of ideas, it is useful to all interested parties to have these ideascritiqued. But first, a brief overview of those ideas.

If you already understand Dianetics and Scientology doctrine, you may wish to skip this

chapter as it is a general overview of these. Most of this booklet deals with the teachings fromthe book Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health and the basic ideas that sprang from

this work. If you are not clear on Dianetics, you should read this section in order to follow

large portions of this booklet. I will be brief yet concise enough for the reader to follow thedeeper discussions. Words underlined are Hubbard's terms that you should familiarizeyourself with. It is of course helpful to read the book Dianetics before continuing.

L. Ron Hubbard, author of the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health andfounder of the Church of Scientology, was a science-fiction writer before penning the book

that would launch his fame. Dianetics is a self-help book published in 1950 which claimed toinclude new and unique theories on how the mind works. Hubbard claimed that this work was

totally unprecedented; "...Dianetics was the bolt from the blue."[1] Mankind was destroyinghimself by various means "without any idea of what caused Man to behave as he did or what

made him sick or well. THE answer was, and still is, Dianetics."[2]

So there would be no doubt as to the originality of his ideas, Hubbard wrote that "Dianetics borrowed nothing but was first discovered and organized; only after the organization was

completed and a technique evolved was it compared to existing information."[3] According toHubbard, some philosophers of the past helped provide the foundation of Dianetics, but the

remaining research had been done "what the navigator calls, 'off the chart'."[4]

Dianetics became a New York Times Best seller in 1950, and has since sold many millions of copies.

Dianetics is a "science of mental health" as the full title of Hubbard's 1950 book declares. The

main theory of Dianetics is that the human has two minds, the Analytical mind and theReactive mind. The Analytical mind is a perfectly working device, and life would bewonderful were it not for the Reactive mind lousing up the workings of the Analytical mind.

The Reactive mind stores memories of events in our life when we were unconscious and in pain. These memories are perfect recordings of the events, but the problem occurs because

they are not stored in the Analytical mind. These memories can be triggered or restimulated by events in our environment that the Reactive mind interprets as similar to one of its

memories. When the Reactive mind spots such a similarity, it attempts to take over from the



Analytical mind. This is a problem because the Reactive mind is "moronic" and screws thingsup horribly and disrupts the proper activities of the Analytical mind.

The goal of Dianetics is to re-file these memories, called Engrams, into the Analytical mind,

where they can be properly indexed and utilized. The Reactive mind is an evolutionary

throwback to how animals think, and is therefore a weaker area of the mind in the human.

An example of an Engram in the book Dianetics is of a child whose father beat his mother

while the child was still in the womb (Engrams can be recorded from conception on inDianetics). The child was knocked unconscious from the beating and was in pain when the

father yelled "Take that! Take it, I tell you! You've got to take it!"[5] When the child grew upand something (perhaps the sound of the father yelling) occurred within the child's

surroundings that was similar to the recordings in the Engram, this keyed in or triggered theEngram, and the Reactive mind would take over, effectively shutting down the Analytical

mind to a degree and controlling actions based instead on the moronic interpretation of statements made in the Engram. Thus this child, because of the "Take it!" statements in the

Engram, becomes a kleptomaniac.

The goal of Dianetics is to remove all Engrams from the Reactive mind and clear them out,

transferring these memories into the Analytical mind where they can be properly utilized and processed. When the Reactive mind is emptied, or cleared, of all Engrams, the person is

declared a CLEAR, and from then on the person is able to utilize his or her mind to theutmost, operating on a heretofore unknown level of abilities.

Engrams are found through auditing, where one person asks another questions about his past

until an event with potential for an Engram is encountered. If an Engram seems to exist, theevent is then gone over several times until the auditor is satisfied that the Engram memory has

now left the Reactive mind and has been filed in the Analytical mind (see the section on Clear for more details).

Auditors are the practitioners that take you through the Dianetics process. They search your

past by asking you questions, looking for engrams to eradicate. Auditors do not have to betrained much at all, according to the book Dianetics. [6] So long as a person is reasonably

intelligent and communicative, he can audit after reading Dianetics.

After Dianetics was written, Volney Mattheison introduced Hubbard to a galvanic skin

response meter. Hubbard decided to use this device as a tool to find Engrams. This device,which appeared in 1941 as a "new fun-provoking stunt for parties,"[7] simply registers the

differing conduction of a weak electrical flow through the body which can differ by how harda person squeezes the cans held in each hand or how much the person is sweating. Hubbard

called this device an E-meter. In any event, the goal was still to re-file all memories in theReactive mind to the Analytical mind.

The goal of Dianetics is to Clear the Planet, i.e. to process everyone on earth to the state of

Clear.



This, however, is not the end of it. While your mind may now be running at an optimal level,your soul, known in Scientology as a Thetan, is still troubled. Dianetics has supposedly fixed

the problems of our mind, but now the religion of Scientology must enter to cure the problemsof our soul. Every person is not just a person with a mental problem, but is also a reincarnated

spiritual being who has lived at least millions of years. Each of us has experienced an

identical horrible event whereby other Thetans were fused on to our own Thetan, and theseinterfere with the optimum activities of the main Thetan (our own soul). Scientology processing teaches the Thetan how to rid itself of these Body Thetans that are attached to us

somewhat like leeches, and also how to operate on a more efficient level.

L. Ron Hubbard claims to have been the first person to discover the truths of both Dianeticsand Scientology. Without his Tech, or methods to eradicate these hitherto undiscovered

impediments to life, there is no hope for mankind.

All the above has been deciphered from about 16 books by Hubbard, over 45 hours of tapedlectures, countless articles on and by the Church of Scientology, and discussions with several

current and ex-members. Hubbard is often times repetitive and undecipherable, sounderstanding some of his ideas is difficult. Take this sample of his writing;

In other words, Life, faced with a non-understanding thing, would feel itself balked,for Life, being Understanding, could not then become non-understanding without

assuming the role of being incomprehensible. Thus it is that the seeker after secrets istrapped into being a secret himself. [8]

It is this sort of stuff that makes Hubbard exasperating to try to follow.

The above is a brief review of a complex subject. There are many more points to this

teaching, but I will attempt to point out the intricacies when needed for the reader to followmy arguments.

[1] L. Ron Hubbard, DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS (Los Angeles;

Church of Scientology of California Publications Organization,

1951) outside back jacket

[2] Ibid.

[3] L. Ron Hubbard, DIANETICS, THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH

(Los Angeles; Bridge Publications, 1987) p.340

[4] DIANETICS, p.400.

[5] DIANETICS, p.281

[6] DIANETICS, P.225[7] Giant Home Workshop Manual, 1941. See The Survivor, volume 8, p.1

P.O. Box 95, Alpena, AR 72611

[8] L. Ron Hubbard, DIANETICS 55! (Los Angeles; Bridge Publications,

Inc., 1955) p.41



THE MURKY STATE OF CLEAR

It would seem that the first person to reach the state of Clear should stick out in history like asore thumb. After all, a Clear -

never has colds or accidents,

has a soaring IQ,

total recall of his entire life from conception on,

has cancer (possibly) and other physical deficiencies repaired,[1]

can compute in seconds what the average person needs 30 or more minutes for,[2] and

is the first case of a truly rational person.[3]

As Hubbard states, "We are dealing here with an entirely new and hitherto nonexistent objectof inspection, the Clear.".[4]

A Clear would be an immense boost to many social areas, such as law enforcement, where a

Clear could recall events when he was a fetus or unconscious and thus help solve crimes hemay have "witnessed" while in an unconscious state. Biology would make giant leaps if you

could really recall what you were thinking when you were a sperm or ovum (PlannedParenthood might be helped by having a person recall their life as an ovum; "could you have

stopped the sperm from impregnating you?"). Clears would be the most sought after people inmany sciences, in law enforcement, medicine, and other fields. Clears, being the most rational

and intelligent of society, should naturally rise to positions of power and authority in

academics and politics, making the world a better place to live.

This allegedly superhuman condition is the end result of Dianetics and the launching point

toward the upper levels of Scientology training. Any person not yet Clear is an aberrated person and not capable of full human potential.

It should be obvious to all, considering the incredible abilities and states of being involved,who the first Clear was. Just as we know who was the first man to walk on the moon, we

should all be taught who the first person in history to reach the state of Clear was. L. RonHubbard himself should surely have known who this person was, since he claimed discovery

of the condition.

Or was it Hubbard himself? Imagine, says Hubbard, an engineer who builds a bridge up to ahigh plateau that had never been visited by man. After finishing the bridge, "He himself

crosses and he inspects the plateau carefully."[5] Others cross after the engineer. This analogyis obvious. The engineer is Hubbard, and the plateau is the state of Clear. So Hubbard was the

first Clear, and to support this further is the "Scientology Catechism", which asks if Hubbardwas Clear, and answers "Yes- in order to map the route for others he had to make it

himself."[6]



Yet, in a speech in 1958, Hubbard said that the first Clears were people he was treating in LosAngeles while he was disguised as a swami.[7] The first of these became Clear "by 1947";

"these were the first Clears."[8] "There were people who were run on the old techniques whowere Cleared years ago," Hubbard stated on June 12, 1950. [9]

On August 10, 1950, Hubbard gave a talk at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles where heintroduced Sonya Bianca (aka Ann Singer) as the world's first Clear. [10] After she miserablyfailed recall tests on stage, she was never again referred to as the first Clear. This declaration,

however, seems to contradict the notion that Hubbard was the first, or even that the "swami's" patients were.

Hubbard declared Sara, his first wife, as the first Clear until she divorced him. [11] "He stood

up on stage in Los Angeles and announced that I was the first 'Clear.' I was soembarrassed..."[12]

Within Dianetics itself several Clears are mentioned, who would thus have to have been Clear

before 1950. A woman with twelve difficult prenatal engrams finally "progressed toClear."[13] A husband and wife team Cleared each other.[14] A pianist who was halted by hisengrams became "one of the best-paid concert pianists in Hollywood".[15] Others are

indirectly mentioned.[16] These pre-Dianetics Clears seem logically to be necessary,otherwise how would Hubbard have been able to describe what a Clear was like?

For example, how did Hubbard know that a Clear has "an increase in longevity which is at

least a hundred to one for every hour of therapy"?[17] Wouldn't at least one Cleared personhave had to have lived for quite some time before Hubbard, with his reported penchant for

scientific accuracy, could write this? Also, how did he know that about 500 hours of auditingis the average amount needed to produce a Clear,[18] and that it otherwise takes from 30 to

1200 hours?[19] This indicates that there must have been several Clears at the time Hubbardwrote Dianetics.

And last but not least, John McMaster was checked and double checked, and the Church of

Scientology officially declared him the first Clear on March 9, 1966.[20] Will the real firstClear please stand up?

Since it seems impossible to understand the state of Clear by observing the first example, letus come at it from what Hubbard wrote from his observations of Clears in Dianetics. "If this

person now feels he can solve all the problems of life, lick the world with one hand tied behind him and feel a friend to all men, you have a Clear."[21] Hubbard is helpful here,

although it could be argued that he is also describing a drunk.

Of course, Hubbard has more scientific sounding definitions: "the Clear is an unaberrated person... [who] has no engrams which can be restimulated..."[22] This sounds more helpful,

but how can you tell when there are no more engrams?

Engrams, those memories stored in the reactive mind, have to be found, and gone over and

over until the auditor perceives that the pre-Clear has come up through apathy, anger,



boredom, and finally laughter.[23] Once the pre-Clear is having a good time reliving hisfather's attack on his mother or his mother attempting to abort him (to use Hubbard's

examples), then the engram is said to have moved out of the reactive mind and into theanalytical mind, and the auditor moves on to search for another engram. Simply put, then, an

auditor has a pre-Clear relive an experience (which has pain and unconsciousness in the

experience) stored in the reactive mind over and over until the auditor is satisfied that theengram no longer affects the pre-Clear. At this point the engram is considered erased [note:there seems to be a contradiction here in that the auditor is not to evaluate for the pre-clear,

although here the auditor decides when an engram is gone].

Although Hubbard declared that anyone can audit (Dianetics is, after all, a how-to-auditmanual) there are many pitfalls an auditor must watch out for while searching for engrams.

He may encounter a "lie factory" engram that makes the pre-Clear "remember" things thatnever really occurred. Hubbard offers no help in differentiating between actual engrams and

"lie factory" memories, and in fact says you will wind up in a "tangled hash."[24]

The "denyer" engram may hide itself by denying its own existence. Phrases in an engram like"I'm not here" and "forget about it" will hide its existence from the auditor because the pre-

Clear, in his aberrated state, takes language phrases in an engram literally. The method usedto find these is to GUESS at a phrase that may be in the engram. In one example, Hubbard

tells of an auditor who tried 200 phrases before he got one that seemed to fit the bill.[25] Thiswould seem by the auditing methods used then to probably have taken days of the auditor

telling the pre-Clear to "Repeat this phrase, 'you won't find me' (pre-Clear repeats many times. No apparent evidence of an engram, so...) Now repeat 'I can't be found'..." Doesn't this seem

to be a way to drive someone insane rather than therapy? And Hubbard says there arethousands of denyer phrases!!![26]

The "bouncer" engram is another deceptive type, with phrases like "get out," which kicks the pre-Clear out of the engram.[27] Again, the solution is to GUESS at a phrase since this is the

best way to find engrams.[28] Consequently a lot of guessing goes on in this precise"scientific" process of auditing.

The "holder", "misdirector", "grouper", and "derailer" all offer similar problems to the

auditor. And all the above are simply blocks to FINDING an engram. There are also problemsin eradicating the engram. You may think an engram has been erased, yet you may only have

reduced its effect on the pre-Clear.

There is even the possibility that the pre-Clear has engrams in another language that hedoesn't know about![29] How these can be declared eradicated when there is no proof of their

existence in the first place strains the imagination to the utmost.

The above (incomplete) examples of problems in auditing are brought up to show that finding

someone who has no engrams is a difficult task, since engrams according to Hubbard's ownwords are often hard to detect. And if just one engram escapes detection, you do not have a

Clear.



Let us consider a theoretical example of a person who knows Dianetics but is not a Clear.This person, during auditing, kicks in a "lie factory" engram, and since this person

understands the auditing process he is skillfully able to create fake engrams, and even canfake its eradication. His mother lived with her Greek parents until the fifth month of

pregnancy, and engrams in the Greek language were instilled in the fetus. The auditor found

prenatals in auditing (after the fifth month), and it was assumed that all were eradicated, sincethe person became much more assertive, happier, and the like after many hours of auditing.This person could be declared Clear because the "lie factory" engrams were skilled at hiding

by understanding the auditing game, and the foreign language engrams were never restimulated or found because auditing was done in English. This is a perfectly conceivable

case under Hubbard's theories. But a worse case might be when an auditor continuallysearches for weeks trying to find engrams that don't even exist, in other words, auditing a

Clear.

It should be obvious from the above that the entire process of auditing is subjective. Anengram is declared gone because the auditor perceives that the person has gotten better. A

Clear is declared because the auditor decides he is now free of "aberration" and"psychosomatic illness."[30] Hubbard even states that "The subjective reality, not the

objective reality, is the important question to the auditor."[31] This massive amount of subjectivity puts a strain on Hubbard's claims of scientific accuracy.

The auditor is continually required to make subjective decisions and yet is taught that the

entire process is a mechanistic, scientifically precise exercise. The auditor is never allowed toconsider that a hindrance to auditing is from anything other than engrams. If a person is

skeptical of engrams, the auditor is assured that an engram is causing the skepticism [32] andcertainly not a healthy amount of research on the part of the skeptic. When someone "resists"

auditing, that is caused by an engram rather than the person's conclusion that Dianetics isstupid. [33] Boredom is never from genuine boredom, according to Hubbard, but from an

engram. Consequently, anything other than full acceptance and submission to Dianeticsauditing must be caused by engrams.

This entire process of finding and eradicating engrams is totally subjective. AlthoughHubbard tries valiantly to make auditing seem a mere mechanical process [34] with his

engineering and scientific talk, the mind is not a mechanical object. It is the most complexdevice nature ever made, and has to this day baffled those who have tried to figure out how it

works. Personality, culture, upbringing, and more, influence individual actions, not just afinite set of past events incorrectly stored in the reactive mind.

In the real world, the state of Clear is basically a rank within the Church of Scientology. In the

real world, the superhuman qualities of Clear have not been perceived by independentinvestigators, nor have these superhumans been able to take over or at least greatly effect

society in any fashion. In other words, although thousands of people have obtained the rank of Clear, there is no proof that any of them fit Hubbard's grandiose claims for them in Dianetics.

Nor have they been able to accomplish what Hubbard claimed they could.



PROBLEMS WITH THE ENGRAM THEORY

1. CONDITIONING

Conditioning is an alternative explanation of people's behavior to Hubbard's engram theory. I

wondered why Hubbard argued that there was no such thing as conditioning35 until I realizedthat if conditioning exists, then many activities attributed to engrams could more rationally beattributed to conditioning, and thus, people could receive help elsewhere than from Dianetics.

Hubbard even unwittingly provides a good example of conditioning himself. A small fish inshallow, stale waters is bumped and hurt by a larger fish trying to eat him. The small fish got

an engram from this occurrence (pain and momentary unconsciousness being present). Thesmall fish is attacked again later in a quite similar manner, and the first engram is "keyed in",

thus reinforcing the first engram. From then on, whenever the fish enters stale, shallowwaters, he panics and heads elsewhere, even when there is no danger present.36 This is very

similar to Pavlov's experiments with dogs who drooled at the sound of a bell that normally

rang only when food was provided. Yet Hubbard claims that Pavlov's dogs "might be trainedto do this or that. But it was not conditioning. The dogs went mad because they were givenengrams."[37]

From Hubbard's own example of the fish, we can see that some things described as engrams

can in fact be better attributed to conditioning. The fish story could work just as well without pain and unconsciousness even being present, thus negating engrams. Were we to continue

following the fish around, he may at a later time figure out that stale, shallow waters do notalways include dangers, and thus may return to those areas to feed. Conditioning can thus be

unlearned, whereas engrams remain until audited out.

This is much more than a game of semantics. Conditioning is a learned pattern of responsive behavior acquired from repetitive stimulation of a certain type. Pavlov's dogs learned thatwhenever they heard a bell that food became accessible to them. They became accustomed to

anticipating food at the sound of the bell, so naturally they salivated at the sound of the bellafter a time, even when food did not always thereafter accompany the sound (this works with

humans, also). Hubbard's engram theory applied to this case cannot account for such behavior, since there was no pain or unconsciousness present during these experiences, and

thus no engrams were created. Conditioning is a danger to Hubbard's engram theory becauseit is an alternative explanation for certain behaviors. The fish in Hubbard's above example

need not have been knocked unconscious or even been in pain to learn to avoid certain areaswhere it regularly came in contact with an enemy. Pavlov's dogs did not have engrams that

made them salivate. Where engrams don't exist, there is no need for Dianetics.

Habits are also caused by engrams, according to Hubbard. Habits "can only be changed bythose things which change engrams."[38] Habits may be considered a simple form of

conditioning where a person unconsciously trains him or herself to perform a certain activityat certain times. A girl, for example, may twirl her hair when she gets nervous. A grownup

might bite his nails when he is under stress. If habits are engramic, as Hubbard states, then theonly way to stop a habit would be through dianetic auditing. But certainly common sense and



life experience teach that this is not the case at all. The girl generally outgrows her hair twirling, and the man can train himself not to bite his nails. There is no need for the engram

theory to explain habits, and in fact the engram theory is weakened by the constant experienceof people stopping habits without dianetic auditing.

2. THE INTELLIGENT MORON

The reactive mind, says Hubbard, is moronic. It considers everything in an engram to be

identical to everything else in the engram. "Recall that the reactive mind can think only onthis equation - A=A=A, where the three A's may be respectively a horse, a swear word, and

the verb to spit. Spitting is the same as horses is the same as God."[39] Remember thisexample, where the reactive mind cannot differentiate between a verb, an animal, the deity,

and an expletive.

Remember also that the reason engrams cause problems is that they replay past memorieswhere someone is stating something, and then the reactive mind literally interprets the

statement and causes the person to act on that statement. I have previously mentioned theexample of a child whose engram stated "You've got to take it." This child grew up to be a

kleptomaniac because the reactive mind literally interpreted this statement in the engram,although it was actually the father yelling at the mother while raping her.

But there is a contradiction here. On the one hand, Hubbard states that the reactive mindthinks in identities, A=A=A. On the other hand, the reactive mind understands a most

complex concept unique to man, language. In order to understand language, you must be ableto differentiate between sounds, such as "ch" and "th". You must be able to differentiate

between verbs and nouns. As anyone who has learned a second language can attest,understanding a language is an enormous analytical challenge, yet this is what is required of

the moronic reactive mind in Hubbard's theory.

Hubbard does not grasp this contradiction at all. He skirts the issue to some degree, stating for example that you should never name your son a junior (George, Jr. etc.) since any engrams

with “George" in them will be interpreted by the reactive mind to apply to the junior when hegrows up (although, surprisingly, Hubbard named his son L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.). "I hate

George", for example, is incorrectly interpreted and applied to the junior, "though Mother meant Father". [40] But one can see in this case that the reactive mind could not tell one

George from another, although it could differentiate between the "I" sound and the "G" sound,and also understood which sound was the noun, which the verb, and which the pronoun. It

could not only differentiate the sounds into the three words, it could comprehend that "I"

meant the mother, "hate" meant dislike intensely, and "George" meant the junior.

Now, let us remember the previous statement of Hubbard where a horse equals a swear word

equals a deity. Consider also this other example, where "The reactive mind says 'NO!'Arthritis is a baby is a pig grunt is a prayer to God."[41] In this case a pig grunt cannot be

differentiated between a prayer, nor an animate object, for that matter.



According to Hubbard's theories there is a great gulf between the analytical mind and thereactive mind. They are in fact in different areas of the body, where the analytical mind is in

the brain and the reactive mind is "cellular". The analytical mind is said to be a perfectcomputer, making no mistakes and able to compute difficult items in split seconds. The

reactive mind is moronic and thinks that everything equals everything else. If it could be

shown that there was really little difference between the two or that they were so thoroughlyconnected that there was essentially no differentiation between the two, then Dianetics theorycollapses because its two major competitive components are revealed as in fact one. And this

in fact is the case:

As has been shown already, the reactive mind understands language, which is perhapsthe shining triumph of analytical thinking.

The reactive mind also makes decisions. It must decide one of five types of reaction toan engram that it will command the body to perform.[42]

It distinguishes in an engram between the ally and the enemy, if there are two or more

people present.[43] It chooses which valence, or which role, to dramatize from the engram.[44]

It decides which engram to restimulate if there is more than one engram with the samesensual recording being restimulated.

For Hubbard to call the reactive mind moronic, and yet declare that it can perform all thesefunctions, seems to be contradictory. Since Hubbard did not seem to perceive this

contradiction, he of course offered no explanation, so I offer two possible ones that could be presented to try to save the theory.

1) The reactive mind connects with the analytical mind and utilizes some of its abilities.2) The reactive mind is actually a part of the analytical mind.

Either of these solutions is, however, actually a death blow to Dianetics. The whole point of

Dianetics is that these two minds cannot communicate and are completely separate. Dianeticauditing, where one spends hundreds of hours searching out memories in the reactive mind, is

touted as the only way that memories in the reactive mind can be transferred to the analyticalmind and erased from the reactive mind. If #1 or #2 above were true, then this roundabout trip

into the reactive mind would not be necessary, since the two minds are already on speakingterms.

I understand that this point is perhaps hard to follow, but I have elaborated on it because I believe that if I am right, then the dianetic theory collapses right at the beginning of its

explanation of how the mind works. If there is no gulf between the reactive and analyticalmind (if this dichotomy even exists in reality), as Dianetics posits, then there is no reason for

Dianetics to exist, as there would be no need for auditing.



[1] DIANETICS, p. 24





[6] L. Ron Hubbard and staff, WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY? (Los Angeles;

Church of California, 1978), p.202

[7] L. Ron Hubbard, "The Story of Dianetics and Scientology" cassette

tape, 1958. tape #581OC18

[8] ibid.

[9] L. Ron Hubbard, RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY SERIES (Copenhagen,

Denmark; Scientology Publications Organization ApS, 1980) vol. 1,

p.84

[10] Russell Miller, BARE FACED MESSIAH (New York; Henry Holt and Co.,

1987), p.165

[11] Stewart Lamont, RELIGION, INC. (London; Harrap, Ltd., 1986) p.24

[12] Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., L. RON HUBBARD, MESSIAH OR

MADMAN? (Secaucus, NJ; Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1987) p.288


[14] DIANETICS, p. 502-3

[15] DIANETICS, p. 316[16] DIANETICS, pp. 211,228,311,552

[17] DIANETICS, 1975 edition, p.417. This is not in the newer

version.



[20] RELIGION, INC., pp.53-4







[27] DIANETICS, p.282-3


[29] DIANETICS, pp.418-419



[32] DIANETICS, p.246-7




[36] DIANETICS, pp. 88-9





[41] DIANETICS, p.323[42] DIANETICS, p.197-200





SCIENCE AND DIANETICS

L. Ron Hubbard constantly makes the claim that Dianetics is a "scientific fact." In fact, hemakes that claim 35 times in Dianetics. For example, "All our facts are functional and these

facts are scientific facts, supported wholly and completely by laboratory evidence."[1]Hubbard shows that he regards correct scientific experimentation to a high degree by carefully

hedging his approval of another scientific experiment done by someone else. This test wasconducted in a hospital to see whether unattended children became sick more often than

attended children. "The test... seems to have been conducted with proper controls,"[2] hecautiously states, not having apparently seen the entire written report.

In The Phoenix Lectures Hubbard is also critical of the early psychiatric work of Wundt in the

latter 1800's; "Scientific methodology was actually not, there and then, immediatelyclassified... what they did was unregulated, uncontrolled, wildcat experiments, fuddling

around collecting enormous quantities of data..."[3] And in a lecture in 1954, Hubbard

complained loudly and long about how poorly psychologists and psychoanalysts conductedresearch and how they neglected to maintain proper records.[4]

I am similarly cautious about Hubbard's experiments, especially since there seems to be norecord of how they were done, what exactly the results were, what kind of control group wasused, whether the experiments were double blind, how many subjects there were in each

experiment, and other pertinent data. I have asked ranking scientologists for this data, andhave fervently searched for it myself, and have yet to see it. This brings up the question about

whether Hubbard can call his original research science.

And, in keeping with the need to understand each word we use, it brings up the question of

just what science is. What does it take for someone to legitimately make the claim that hisideas are scientifically proven? When can something be called a scientific fact?

As with many subjects in life, the deeper one looks into science, the more complex it gets.There is not even one single agreed upon definition for science in the scientific community.

Those people who seek to establish a unifying definition are dealing in what is called the philosophy of science. One of the most respected and most influential of these is Karl Popper.

Popper claims that no theory can be called scientific unless it can be demonstrated thatdeliberate attempts to prove a theory wrong are unsuccessful. Thus, a theory must open itself

up to criticism from the scientific community to see whether it can withstand critical scrutiny.

Popper's formulation for scientific validation is;

(1) It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look

for confirmations.

(2) Confirmations should count only if they are the result of RISKY PREDICTIONS; that

is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an



event which was incompatible with the theory - an event which would have refuted thetheory.

(3) Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. Themore a theory forbids, the better it is.

(4) A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

(5) Every genuine TEST of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability isfalsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more

exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

(6) Confirming evidence should not count EXCEPT WHEN IT IS THE RESULT OF A

GENUINE TEST OF THE THEORY; and this means that it can be presented as aserious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory (I now speak in such cases of

'corroborating evidence'.)

(7) Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their

admirers - for example by introducing AD HOC some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory AD HOC in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a

procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the priceof destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.[5]

The falsifiability approach is a good one, because no theory can be proven unless every case

possible is individually examined to see that it applies to every possible case, which isnormally impossible to do. For instance, a popular example of a "fact" in science classrooms

of the 19th century was that "all swans are white." This was, however, shown to be untruewhen a variety of swan in South America was discovered to be black. This "fact" was proven

wrong by a previously unknown exception to the rule, and this example points out that it is

never entirely possible to prove a theory in the positive without examining every possible caseof that theory. (It is, of course, not possible to completely falsify many theories also, but for the sake of brevity I would refer the reader to Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery for

further arguments on this subject.)

Let us go now momentarily to one of Hubbard's scientific claims:

Its [the reactive mind's] identity can now be certified by any technician in any clinic or

in any group of men. Two hundred and seventy-three individuals have been examinedand treated, representing all the various types of inorganic mental illness and the many

varieties of psychosomatic ills. In each one this reactive mind was found operating, its

principles unvaried. [6]

After the brief previous discussion of science, we can begin to question Hubbard's claim to

scientific validity. Exactly who were these 273 people? Were they believers in Hubbard'stheories or a representative sample of the public at large? Exactly how was the experiment

conducted that proved the existence of the reactive mind? This needs to be known so otherscan try it to test for variables that Hubbard may have overlooked, to see if his experiment

produced a statistical fluke, and to help in conducting experiments to try to disprove the



theory. The more times an experiment is conducted, the more likely it is shown to be true,keeping in mind of course that no matter how many times an expedition went looking for

white swans, it would find them, so long as they didn't go to South America.

Was Hubbard seeking confirmation in his experiments or was he attempting to refute his

theory, as Popper suggests a true man of science would do? Designing a test that will provideconfirmation of a thesis is not difficult. Below is such a test.

A REAL EXPERIMENT COMES UP DRY

Hubbard does mention an experiment to perform that can prove the existence of engrams:

If you care to make the experiment you can take a man, render him "unconscious," hurt him

and give him information. By Dianetic technique, no matter what information you gave him,it can be recovered. This experiment should not be carelessly conducted because YOU

MIGHT RENDER HIM INSANE. [7] {emphasis in original}

Three researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, decided in 1950 to give thisexperiment a try. [8]

If an individual should be placed, by some means of [sic] other, into an unconscious state,

then, according to traditional psychology, no retention of the events occurring about himshould take place and consequently, no reports of such events can be elicited from the

individual, no matter what methods of elicitation are employed (hypothesis I). According toDianetics, retention should take place with high fidelity and, therefore an account of the

events can be elicited by means of dianetic auditing (hypothesis II).[9]

The Dianetic Research Foundation of Los Angeles cooperated with the experimenters by providing a subject and several qualified auditors. The subject was a 30 year old male whoworked for the foundation and was considered a good candidate for the experiment by the

foundation since he had "sonic" recall and had been audited. The experiment was carefullylaid out according to dianetic theory and was at all times done under the cooperation and

suggestions of the Foundation.

The subject was knocked unconscious with .75 grams of sodium pentothal by Dr. A. Davis,MD, who is one of the authors of the experiment. When the subject was found to be

unconscious, Mr. Lebovits was left alone with the subject while two recording devicesrecorded the session. Mr. Lebovits read a 35-word section of a physics book to the subject,

administering pain during the reading of the last 18 words. He then left the room, and the patient was allowed to rest for another hour, at which time he was awakened.

Two days later, the professional auditors from the Dianetic Research Foundation began to

audit the subject, trying to elicit the engram, or recording of the spoken text that according todianetic theory resided in the subject's reactive mind.



The auditors did elicit several possible passages from the subject and supplied these to theexperimenters. The results were that "comparison with the selected passage shows that none

of the above-quoted phrases, nor any other phrases quoted in the report, bear any relationshipat all to the selected passage. Since the reception of the first interim report, in November

1950, the experimenter tried frequently and repeatedly to obtain further reports, but so far

without success."[10]

The experimenters concluded by stating that while their test case was only one subject, they

felt that the experiment was well done and strongly suggested that the engram hypothesis wasnot validated. I know of no other scientifically valid experiment besides this one by non-

dianeticists which attempted to prove Hubbard's engram theory.

Here was an experiment designed to confirm the engram hypothesis which, according toHubbard, was a "scientific fact." Apparently (or, perhaps, IF) Hubbard did this test he got

positive results. But this is a good example for showing that even one type of experimentshould be conducted several times in order to be sure of its outcome. Perhaps some neutral

party today could be persuaded to attempt it again.

There is one point I consider the most damning to Hubbard's attempt to cloak Dianetics in

scientific validity. While he seems to be inviting others to conduct their own investigations(and thus seems to be open to attempts to refute his claims), he never explains his own

experimental methods, thus closing the door to the scientific community's ability to attempt toverify his claims. In order to evaluate Hubbard's claims, the scientific community would seek

to replicate his experiments to see if the same results were obtained and to check for possibleinfluences on the experiment Hubbard may have overlooked. They would also, as Popper

suggests, try to shoot holes in the theory, either on a logical basis or by conductingrefutational experiments.

If Hubbard really respected science, he would have welcomed and helped the scientific

community in its attempts to both support and attempt to refute his theories. But he and hissuccessors in Dianetics and Scientology refuse to join in scientific debate over the merits of

Hubbard's ideas, maintaining a dogmatic rather than scientific stance.

My attempts to get the experiments from the Church of Scientology have been in vain. I havenever heard of anyone who has seen them, nor even anyone who claimed to know how they

were conducted. It is mainly for this reason, I believe, that Dianetics cannot claim scientificvalidity. Until Hubbard's supposed original experiments are released to the public, Dianetics

can only be called science fiction.

As a footnote, the only references I found to Hubbard's actual notes on any original

experiments were on taped lectures by Hubbard in 1950 and 1958. He stated in 1950 that "myrecords are in little notebooks, scribbles, in pencil most of them. Names and addresses are

lost... there was a chaotic picture..." A certain Ms. Benton asked Hubbard for his notes tovalidate his research, but when she saw them, "she finally threw up her hands in horror and

started in on the project [validation] clean."[11] In another lecture in 1958 he explained "thefirst broad test"[12] of Dianetics, wherein he would audit some patients of Dr. Yankeewitz at



the Oak Knoll Hospital without the knowledge of the doctor. Hubbard called these shoddilydone tests "significant", but added that they are "unfortunately not totally available to us".

[13]

If this is the type of material Hubbard was basing his "scientific facts" on, then there is

probably no need to even see them to be able to reject them with good conscience.

[1] DIANETICS, (1987 edition) p. 96


[3] L. Ron Hubbard, THE PHOENIX LECTURES, (Los Angeles; Bridge

Publications, 1982) p.203

[4] L. Ron Hubbard, "Lecture: Universes", 1954, from the "Universes

and the War Between Theta and Mest" collection, cassette tape

#5404C06

[5] Karl Popper, CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS: THE GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC

KNOWLEDGE (NY; Harper Torch Books, 1963) pp. 36,37

[6] DIANETICS, p.70-71[7] Dianetics, p.76

[8] Psychological Newsletter (Dept. of Psychology, New York

University, New York, NY) 1959, 10:131-134 "An Experimental

Investigation of Hubbard's Engram Hypothesis (Dianetics)", by Fox,

Davis, and Lebovits

[9] ibid. p.132

[10] ibid. p.133

[11] L. Ron Hubbard, "What Dianetics Can Do", lecture series 2, 1950,

cassette tape #5009M23

[12] "The Story of Dianetics and Scientology"

[13] ibid.



HUBBARD'S SOURCES

Advance comes from asking free-minded questions of nature, not from quoting theworks and thinking the thoughts of by-gone years.[1]

There is certainly no book in existence quite like Dianetics, with its wild scientific claims and

unsubstantiated arguments. The claim is that Dianetics was a totally unique theory of the mindwrought from Hubbard's "many years of exact research and careful testing."[2] But was it

rather a loose composite of already existing theories mixed with novel, unproven ideas?Despite Hubbard's claims of originality, many of the ideas in Dianetics were already existing

and even in vogue before Dianetics appeared. Either Hubbard really studied other (uncredited)works before he wrote Dianetics, or he wasted years of his time re-inventing the wheel.

Although there are no reference notes in Dianetics to see what are Hubbard's ideas and what

are borrowed, we can quickly eliminate the idea that Dianetics appeared "from the blue" by

Hubbard's own statements. In Dianetics itself is the statement that "many schools of mentalhealing from the Aesculapian to the modern hypnotist were studied after the basic philosophyof Dianetics had been postulated".[3] Alfred Korzybski, Emil Kraepelin, Franz Mesmer, Ivan

Pavlov, Herbert Spencer, and others are mentioned as resources in Dianetics, so we mustassume Hubbard was crediting these people to some degree. He must certainly have known,then, of at least some of the research from his time which will be mentioned in this article.

Hubbard in other settings acknowledged Sigmund Freud (especially through Commander "Snake" Thompson),[4] Count Alfred Korzybski,[5] and Aleister Crowley,[6] as contributors

to his ideas on the human mind. In a speech in 1958, Hubbard stated that he had spent muchtime in the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital medical library in 1945 during a stay for ulcers, where

"I was able to get in a year's study."[7]

In fact, many of the theories and ideas in Dianetics can be found in scientific and philosophical literature previous to the first publishing of Hubbard's theories. Parts of

Dianetics, for example, have striking resemblance to two articles found in Volume 28 (1941)of the Psychoanalytic Review.

Dianetics theory posits the existence of engrams. These are memories of events that occur

around us when our analytical mind is unconscious, and they are recorded in a separate areaof the mind called the reactive mind. A seemingly unique theory in Dianetics is that these

memories begin being stored "in the cells of the zygote - which is to say, with conception."[8]These engrams can cause problems for the person throughout life unless handled through

Dianetics auditing.

Dr. J. Sadger, nine years before the introduction of Dianetics in 1950, wrote that several of his

patients were not cured of their psychological problems until he had taken them back to their existence as sperm or ovum. He declared that "there exists certainly a memory, although an

unconscious one, of embryonic days, which persists throughout life and may continuouslydetermine an action."[9] Sadger spends much time explaining how his patients' memories of

the time when they were zygotes or even sperm or ovum had affected their adult behaviors,



are discovered and treated the problems vanish. In Pailthorpe's article we have a man who washopelessly traumatized by the events at his birth. He was cruelly kicked out of his "home" in

the womb, and his resistance to this was assumed to be the cause of the immediate traumas of the nurse's and mother's attentions (which were "painful to the child's sensitive body"[19]).

These traumas caused headaches and social disorders in adult life. Psychoanalysis discovered

the causes (birth trauma) and when these were brought to the conscious level with their meaning explained, the headaches and social dysfunctions were alleviated.

Dianetics follows this line of reasoning to a great degree. According to Hubbard, engrams(past traumas) are discovered in the pre-clear's past, and bringing these engrams into

consciousness (from the reactive to the analytic mind) alleviates the disorder. Hubbard claimsthat after auditing people (he had the pre-clear lie on a couch in Freudian imitation), "psycho-

somatic illness...by dianetic technique...has been eradicated entirely in every case."[20]

In Dianetics, the reader is left with the impression that the ideas of birth and pre-birthmemories and traumas, multiple abortion attempts, and fetal discomfort in the womb are new

discoveries. As can be seen, this is not the case. And there are many impressions of "new" and"unique" that are incorrect as well.

THOMAS HOBBES

Another important "discovery" of Hubbard's is that "Man, as a life form, can be demonstratedto obey in all his actions and purposes the one command: 'Survive!'."[21] Hubbard's four

"dynamics" of self, sex (meaning procreation), group, and mankind, all deal with survival of man. Although Hubbard makes grandiose claims that he discovered that man's ultimate goal is

survival, one can trace this idea back to Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher who wrote inthe 1600's. In his famous work, Leviathan, Hobbes wrote; "The Right of Nature... is the

Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of hisown Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his

own Judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto."[22] This, inHubbard's terms, is the first dynamic, or personal survival. Leviathan is divided into three

parts, on Man, Commonwealth, and Darkness. The first, in Hubbard's terms, could be said todeal with the first dynamic (self-survival), and the second with the third dynamic (group

survival). "The final Cause, End, or Designee of men... in the introduction of that restraintupon themselves (in which wee see them live in Common-wealths), is the foresight of their

own preservation."[23] Again we have an idea which Hubbard claims to have discovered,found in another's writings years earlier.

Coincidentally (?), Hobbes has some other ideas in common with Hubbard. At the beginningof every Dianetics and Scientology book is this note: "In reading this book, be very certainyou do not go past a word you do not understand."[24] Throughout both Dianetics and

Scientology training is the notion that words must be clearly understood before course studycan continue. This is a useful suggestion, and many Scientologists may believe Hubbard

"discovered" this idea, but Hobbes stressed it over 300 years before Hubbard did. InLeviathan, Hobbes derided others whose ideas he was critical of thusly; "The first cause of

Absurd conclusions I ascribe to the want of Method; in that they begin not their Ratiocination



[argument] from Definitions; that is, from settled significations of their words."[25] Hobbescovers this idea several times, stressing that "in the right Definition of Names, lyes the first

use of Speech; which is the Acquisition of Science: and in wrong, or no Definitions, lyes thefirst abuse; from which proceed all false and senselesse Tenets."[26]

I will leave it to the reader to investigate the other similar ideas between Hobbes andHubbard, and will leave the question open whether Hubbard borrowed rather than discoveredthese ideas, since again there is no complete list of what books Hubbard had read.

ALEISTER CROWLEY

Hubbard had clear connections to the occult. Even in the first publication of Dianetics in

"Astounding Science Fiction", Hubbard in explaining how he did his "research" into what themind was doing, says he used "automatic writing, speaking and clairvoyance"[27] to discover

what the mind's memory banks were doing. Automatic writing is an occult method of communicating with the spirit world, although psychologists consider its products to arise

from subconscious thoughts of the writer. Whichever is correct, it is hardly a method used bycompetent scientific researchers.

Hubbard's connection to the occultist Aleister Crowley is quite clear and noteworthy. Crowleycalled himself the Anti-Christ, the Beast of Revelations, and 666. Russell Miller has

adequately chronicled Hubbard's connection in 1945 to John W. Parsons, who headedCrowley's Ordo Templi Orientis chapter in Los Angeles.[28] Hubbard was an active member

in this group for several months, and first met his second wife there. The Church of Scientology claims that Hubbard was actually infiltrating this group in order to break it up,

but the following should suffice to dismiss this claim.

In the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures taped in 1952, Hubbard discusses occult magicof the middle ages, and recommends a current book - "it's fascinating work in itself, and that's

work written by Aleister Crowley, the late Aleister Crowley, my very good friend."[29] The book recommended was The Master Therion, (published in London in 1929) later re-released

as Magick in Theory and Practise. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. asserts that during the time when thePhiladelphia course was given his father would read Crowley's works "in preparation for the

next day's lecture..."[30]

There are interesting similarities between Crowley's writings and the teachings of Hubbard.Dianetics' Time Track, in which every incident in a person's life is chronologically recorded

in full in the mind, is quite similar to Crowley's Magical Memory. The Magical Memory is

developed over time until "memories of childhood reawaken"[31] which were previouslyforgotten, and memories of previous incarnations are recalled as well. Hubbard givesexamples in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course of several people remembering lives earlier on

earth, some up to a million years ago. The similarity between the Magical Memory and TimeTrack, then, is that they both can recall every past incident in a person's life, they both can

recall incidents from past lives, and they both must be developed by certain techniques inorder to make use of them.



Both Hubbard and Crowley consider it important to have the person recall his or her birth."Having allowed the mind to return for some hundred times to the hour of birth, it should be

encouraged to endeavour to penetrate beyond that period"[32] (Crowley). "After twenty runsthrough birth, the patient experienced a recession of all somatics and 'unconsciousness' and

aberrative content." "Thus there was no inhibition about looking earlier than birth for what

Dianetics had begun to call basic-basic"[33] (Hubbard).

Both Hubbard and Crowley are avowedly anti-psychiatry. "Official psychoanalysis is

therefore committed to upholding a fraud... psychoanalysts have misinterpreted life, andannounced the absurdity that every human being is essentially an anti-social, criminal, and

insane animal"[34] (Crowley). Hubbard considered that psychiatry controlled most of societyand was struggling to create their own 1984 world.[35]

Hubbard[36] and Crowley both posit the ability of the person to leave his or her body at

times. Crowley states that the way to learn to leave your body is to mock up a body like your own in front of your physical body. Eventually you will learn to leave your physical body

with your "astral body" and travel and view at will without physical restrictions.[37] Hubbardteaches the same, and his method of "exteriorization" is to tell the person to "have preclear

mock up own body"[38], which will send the person outside his body.

Both Crowley[39] and Hubbard[40] use an equilateral triangle pointing up in a circle as one

of their group's symbols. Both use Volume 0 instead of Volume 1 to begin enumerating their works. One could go on for quite some time listing the similarities between Crowley's and

Hubbard's theories and writings, but for more the reader is encouraged to look for him or herself.

In Crowley's Organization are several grade levels. To reach the Grade of Adeptus Exemptus

"The Adept must prepare and publish a thesis setting forth His knowledge of the Universe,and his proposals for its welfare and progress. He will thus be known as the leader of a school

of thought."[41] It is apparent that Hubbard has fulfilled this requirement.

GNOSTICISM

First, an explanation of what Gnosticism is. It is an old religious philosophy with Platonicroots. Basically, Gnostics believe that we as humans are "outsiders" to this material universe.

Our immortal godlike souls were trapped here in a body by evil forces, and we arereincarnated continually, while our true spiritual identities are clouded from our memory. It is

our task to discover the hidden knowledge, or gnosis, that will allow us to escape this evil

material world of illusion and return to our rightful place. We keep reincarnating until welearn how to escape.

The world seems to be 'the epitome of evil'. Because it is alien to their true nature,

human beings must renounce it and flee from it in order to be able to return to their heavenly home. To achieve this aim they must possess Gnosis, be reborn in their true

nature, and be baptized in the cup of knowledge into which the divine intellect hasbeen poured. [42]



Salvation begins with a messenger from beyond bringing the necessary knowledge tomankind, but this knowledge is given only to those deemed worthy, and even then one must

follow certain steps in order to arrive at the ultimate Truths. The individual must struggle toearn and then incorporate the secret knowledge needed to return to his rightful place.

There is a need for someone to bring this gnosis or knowledge to mankind:

It follows that this divine reality cannot be known through the ordinary faculties of the

mind. Illumination, revelation, the intervention of a celestial mediator is required. Hedescends from above to call the Gnostic, to rouse him from earthly sleep and

drunkenness, to take him back to his divine homeland.[43]

While on this earth, man is plagued by many difficulties which lessen his real abilities and

being. One problem to us all is that within each of our bodies is a plethora of spirits or souls,causing us harm:

A hierarchy of demons, servile and ready, is continually at work in everyone's body,transformed into a remorseless inferno in miniature.[44]

Mankind is also cursed with forgetfulness of his true home and true composition, being

blinded by this material world.

As with Christianity today, there were many sects of Gnosticism. The most famous Gnostics

were those that took the basic ideas of Christianity and mixed them into their ownotherworldly theories. One of the most dangerous enemies of the early church were the

Christian gnostic movement, for it greatly distorted the essential message of Christ and hisfollowers while using similar terminology. The early church fathers, such as Clement of

Alexandria and Tertullian, spent much of their time speaking out against Gnosticism.

Scientology, however, embraces Gnosticism. Its doctrines are gnostic, and it uses gnostic

writings to support its own ideas. For example, "Advance!" issue 93 has an article entitled"The Surprising Christian Tradition of Reincarnation", which relies heavily on gnostic

writings such as the Pistis Sophia (the best known of the surviving gnostic writings) tosupport its viewpoint. Scientology is clearly gnostic, by its own admission and by the

similarities to its own and gnostic teachings. Once again, ideas Hubbard declares to be newand discovered by him, are shown to be derived from old and widespread teachings in

existence long before he came along.

Hubbard claimed to be the sole source of the hidden knowledge needed to escape theseearthly bonds. "The mystery of this universe... has been, as far as its track is concerned,

completely occluded. No one has ever been able to make any breakthrough and come off withit and know what happened... I finally was able to make a breakthrough which brought people

through the zone safely."[45]

When Hubbard died in 1986, it was announced that he had left this "MEST" (the acronym of Matter, Space, Time, and Energy) universe to continue his work and research. In other words,



he had obtained the gnosis needed to break the bonds to this material illusory plane and travelto other worlds or dimensions at will.[46]

Hubbard was the sole source for the technology Scientologists need to break free from this

MEST universe. "Nobody else - NOBODY - ever discovered it."47

He is thus the gnostic

"celestial mediator" empowered to bring mankind the knowledge needed to bring us back home.

Another obvious connection to Gnosticism is in the upper level of training known asOperating Thetan III, or "The Wall of Fire." It is at this level that the Scientologist first is

taught that many of his problems are caused by other souls attached to his soul. These soulsare detached and sent on their way through the course training. The goal of OTIII is to rid the

individual of hundreds of "Body Thetans", or other souls attached to the main dominantindividual. No one is even allowed to see OTIII material until he has completed the previous

courses leading up to OTIII.48

This material is carefully guarded and treated as a great

important mystery to be imparted only to those proven worthy.

These great "discoveries" of Hubbard actually were taught as far back as 300 AD:

"For many spirits dwell in it [the body] and do not permit it to be pure; each of them

brings to fruition its own works, and they treat it abusively by means of unseemlydesires. To me it seems that the heart suffers in much the same way as an inn: for it

has holes and trenches dug in it and is often filled with filth by men who live therelicentiously and have no regard for the place because it belongs to another." [49]

Although this sounds almost identical to ideas in OTIII, it is in fact a quote from Valentinus,

one of the most famous early Christian Gnostics, writing around 300 AD. Valentinus taught

that there was more than one spirit within an individual, causing difficulties for the "host" or main soul of the individual. The gnostic Basilides also taught in a similar vein that man

"preserves the appearance of a wooden horse, according to the poetic myth, embracing as hedoes in one body a host of such different spirits."[50]

The above is similar to the New Testament idea of demons in that demons are "outsiders"

from the main inhabitant of the body and are problematic to the host. Gnostics, however,seem to feel that it is the normal human condition to have these other souls, whereas

Christianity considers this a rare aberration.

Another gnostic idea, that this is a world of illusion, is in Scientology doctrine as well.Scientology teaches that this universe we live in is the MEST (matter, energy, space, time)

universe that exists solely because the non-MEST beings known as thetans decided to agree to bind themselves to the rules and laws that we see operating here, such as gravity and the

speed of light: "a Thetan may postulate a material or mental condition and subsequentlyconsider that he cannot escape that condition, and succumb to the resulting illusion of

entrapment within it."51

Theta beings (Hubbard's name for the soul) lived here on earth bydwelling in a human body. Humans, that is, the living body, existed without the theta being









before the thetans were trapped in this material universe. Theta beings are "trapped" intohuman bodies by trickery and forget their true nature:

Your preclear was basically good, happy, ethical and aesthetic before the contagion of

the MEST universe got him. Then, still a thetan, he wasn't very good but he was still

trusting and ethical. Finally, when he had a body - well, look around.[52]

Scientology then shares the gnostic idea that mankind is separate from the physical universe

and is trapped against his will here.

As Gnosticism is a secret knowledge, Scientology hides its upper level or OT level teachings

under a strict veil of secrecy. When I visited the Los Angeles "Big Blue Building" of Scientology, I was invited to listen to some OT VIII's speak via satellite from the "Free

Winds" ship where OT VIII is exclusively taught. An OT VII on board said that the OT VIIImaterial is in a locked case, and the only way to open the case is to enter a certain locked

room and pass the case under a laser beam there. Scientologists are taught that if they hear the

teachings of OT III before they have taken the necessary previous courses, they will catch pneumonia and die.

Early Gnostics also used various methods to hide their teachings. The initiations were sosecret that today we can only piece parts of them together. The writings of many Gnostics

were purposely vague and incomprehensible, so only the initiated could understand them.

The goal of Dianetics and Scientology is to return the Theta being to its inherent abilities (i.e.freeing it from the laws of this universe) and remove it from its need to have a body. The sole

source for accomplishing this is the technology of L. Ron Hubbard, celestial mediator of thegnostic Church of Scientology.

Parenthetically, one can clearly see from above that these teachings clash with Christianthinking today. While Scientologists claim that "in Scientology there is no attempt to change

another's beliefs or to persuade the person away from his own religious practice,"53

in reality

there is an incongruity of beliefs that must fall either to the side of Scientology or Christianity.They are not compatible. Scientology is gnostic, which has been seen from almost the

beginning of Christianity to be a great threat to correct Christian dogma (see the Ante-NiceneFathers writings, for example), and it requires the belief in reincarnation, which is foreign to

Christian thought. Elsewhere I write about Hubbard's connection to Aleister Crowley, "myvery good friend," who called himself the anti-christ and taught accordingly. Hubbard

generously borrowed ideas from and admired the writings of Crowley. Obviously,Scientology's claim that their ideas will not interfere with a person's Christian beliefs is

absurd.


[2] DIANETICS, p.ix of 1975 edition.


[4] BARE-FACED MESSIAH pp.230-1

[5] L. Ron Hubbard, cassette tape, "Introduction to Dianetics",

Dianetics Lecture Series 1. 1950. Bridge Publications, Inc.

[6] L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course series, cassette





#18

[7] L. Ron Hubbard, “The Story of Dianetics and Scientology" , 1958

cassette tape #581OC18


[9] Dr. J. Sadger, "Preliminary Study of the Psychic Life of the

Fetus and the Primary Germ." PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW July 1941

28:3. p.333

[10] Sadger, p.343-4.


[12] Sadger, p.336.

[13] DIANETICS, p. 211.


[15] Sadger, p.352.



[18] Grace W. Pailthorpe, M.D., "Deflection of Energy, As a Result

of Birth Trauma, and its Bearing Upon Character Formation" (The

Psychoanalytic Review, vol. 27, pp.305-326) p.326

[19] Pailthorpe, p.307.


[21] DIANETICS, P.29[22] Thomas Hobbes, LEVIATHAN (London; Penquin Books, 1968) p.189

[23] LEVIATHAN, p.223

[24] DIANETICS, p.vii



[27] L. Ron Hubbard, "Dianetics: Evolution of a Science",

Astounding Science Fiction May 1950 p.66

[28] BARE-FACED MESSIAH pp.112-130

[29] L. Ron Hubbard, "Conditions of Space/Time/Energy" Philadelphia

Doctorate Course cassette tape #18 5212C05

[30] L. RON HUBBARD, MESSIAH OR MADMAN? p.305

[31] Aleister Crowley, MAGIC IN THEORY AND PRACTICE (NY: Dover

Publications, Inc., 1976) p.51 (originally published 1929,

London)

[32] MAGICK, p.419.

[33] DIANETICS, p. 171 and 172.

[34] MAGICK, p. xxiv

[35] L. Ron Hubbard, "What Your Donations Buy", church pamphlet

[36] DIANETICS pp. 340f.

[37] MAGICK pp. 146-7

[38] L. Ron Hubbard, THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, (Sussex,

England: The Department of Publications Worldwide, 1954) p.226f

[39] Francis X. King, MIND AND MAGIC (London: Dorling Kindersley

Ltd., 1991) p.100. see photograph.

[40] see for example the bookends of Hubbard's Research and

Discovery series.

[41] MAGICK p.236[42] Giovanni Filoramo, GNOSTICISM, (Cambridge, MASS:Basil

Blackwell, 1990) p.9

[43] GNOSTICISM, p.40


[45] " Advance!" issue 93, p.16

[46] International Scientology News, issue 8, p. 3.

[47] International Scientology News issue 8 p.7

[48] The material has been released publicly in court cases.

Scientologists refuse to read it, however, until they reach the



proper level of training. They believe they will die if reading

it unprepared.


[50] The Ante-Nicene Fathers (WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

Grand Rapids MI) reprinted February 1983. Volume 2, p.372.

[51] L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENTOLOGY: A WORLD RELIGION EMERGES IN THE

SPACE AGE, (Church of Scientology Information Service,

Department of Archives, date and location not listed) p.23

[52] L. Ron Hubbard, A HISTORY OF MAN (Sussex, England; Department

of Publications Worldwide, 1961), p.55

[53] Staff of Church of Scientology, WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?

(Kingsport Press, Inc., 1978) p.199



THE IDEAL DIANETICS SOCIETY

...if anyone wants a monopoly on Dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasonswhich have to do not with Dianetics but with profit.[1]

Hubbard's goal from the beginning was to "clear the planet", in other words, to see that

everyone on earth became a clear. Up until the time that this happened, he envisioned a sharpdemarcation in status between clears (real people) and pre-clears (deficient people). Only

clears, for example, could marry and bear children.[2] And if pre-clears did have children,they would most likely be taken away to avoid the "restimulative" affects that parents would

have on the child.[3]

"Perhaps at some distant date only the unaberrated person will be granted civil rights beforelaw. Perhaps the goal will be reached at some future time when only the unaberrated person

can attain to and benefit from citizenship. These are desirable goals."[4] Would pre-clears

have any rights whatsoever? And what indeed would be the fate of those unfortunates whorejected Hubbard's ideas, or even spoke out against him?

These questions can be answered to some degree by looking at the organizations that Hubbard

built, and the status of people within and without these organizations. Non-Scientologists arereferred to by Scientologists normally as "wogs"[5] or "raw meat,"[6] depending on whether

they were being considered generic outsiders or potential members. The judicial system inoutside society was referred to as the derogatory "wog law". Outside society was an evil place

surreptitiously controlled by psychiatrists, who ran the media and governments. Psychiatryhad been attacking Dianetics from its inception, claimed Hubbard, "because they feared that

as our power increased they would lose their easy appropriations and fail in their plan for a

1984 World."[7] It was to be a fight to the finish between the evil outside world and thevaliant crew of Hubbardites.

The goal of a Clear Planet was always the important thing. If someone got in the way, theycould be smashed. Hubbard wrote the famous "Fair Game Policy" in 1967 in which he

declared that anyone caught disturbing Scientology's mission could be "tricked, sued, or liedto, or destroyed."[8] Another process called R2-45 involved making a person "go exterior"

(i.e. leave his body) by shooting the person in the head with a .45 pistol. Hubbard did not sayto use this process, however, because "its use is frowned upon by society at this time,"[9] but

there have been some disturbing incidents relating to R2-45.

Hubbard created a Guardian's Office, whose members were responsible for bulldozinganything or anyone that may stand in the way of Scientology. After the G.O. was disbandedwhen Mary Sue Hubbard and other G.O. officers were sent to prison for infiltrating federal

offices, the Office of Special Affairs took over the G.O.'s duties.

Within the organization, ethics took on strange meaning. The purpose of ethics was "TOREMOVE COUNTER INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT,"[10] which could be

interpreted to mean to remove those obstructions to the church's accomplishing its goals. A



member stayed in good standing, not by being a good and moral person, but by making surehe was producing for the church - "a staff member can get away with murder so long as his

statistic [i.e. work record] is up and can't sneeze without a chop if it's down."[11] If the goalof a cleared planet was getting closer, and all nay-sayers and critics were silenced, then all

was well in Hubbard's world, regardless of how these were accomplished.

Hubbard ruled the organization of the church like a dictator with an eye for detail. Everystructure and action of every Scientologist was covered by some policy order or writing by

Hubbard. These had to be strictly followed. If someone was not producing as much as wasexpected, he may be sent for a security check on the E-meter (a crude lie-detector) to see if he

may be a subversive or suppressive person. If a member seemed to be hindered by critical parents or a spouse, he would be ordered to "disconnect," or cut off communication with,

those people seen to be impeding the work of the church. Most outside interests and activitieswere given up to devote all possible time and energy to the church's goals. In fact, members

of the Sea Org, the innermost unit of the church hierarchy, sign a form pledging to devotethemselves to Scientology for the next billion years.

The church has its own penal system known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF). Those

who have gone through the RPF describe a system similar to conditions in a gulag, wherethere are scraps for food, little sleep, constant physical labor, and intense degradation.[12]

In short, what Hubbard created was one of the closest replicas of George Orwell's 1984 worldin existence.





[5] DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY TECHNICAL DICTIONARY, p.471[6] ibid. p.335

[7] "What Your Donations Buy" church of Scientology handout, p.3

[8] HCO Policy Letter October 16, 1967

[9] L. Ron Hubbard, THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY (Sussex, England;

Department of Publications Worldwide, 1954) p. 120

[10] HCO Policy letter of 18 June 1968

[11] HCO Policy letter of 1 September AD15 (i.e. 1965)

[12] A PIECE OF BLUE SKY, p. 206



CONCLUSION

Toward the end of my research on this booklet, I was contemplating whether I really neededto read Korzybski's Science and Sanity, the gnostic Pistis Sophia, and to listen to about 40

more hours of Hubbard's taped lectures I had access to before I could call my research done. Idecided that this was a case similar to the nuclear arms race; you don't really need 30,000

atomic bombs if you already have 300. In other words, there is a point of diminishing returnsin gathering the lies, distortions, errors, and wacky ideas Hubbard promulgated. After you

have so many, there's really no reason to keep gathering. Fortunately for both of us, I decidedthat I had compiled enough evidence already for my purpose, which was mainly to show

Hubbard a fraud for claiming that his ideas were his invention and the only hope for mankind.

I understand, however, that there are people who say "so what if he was a fraud, the tech.works!" To this I respond, what do you mean by "works"? Do you mean that you feel better

after auditing? Do you mean that you can actually leave your body? That you can alter the

physical universe? That your IQ was increased tremendously, that you never have colds, thatyou are now more confident? Just what do you mean? I think what these people mean is itmakes them feel better. To that I would agree. But I also hasten to add that just feeling better

is not all there is to life. In that case a lobotomized drunk might have the ideal life, since he isnot burdened by any worries and always has that alcoholic high.

I would submit that our goal should be not just feeling good but also learning about andlearning how to live in the Real World. There is a Real World that we all share (except,

perhaps, for lobotomized drunks). In this world, both of us will die if hit by a bus doing about60 mph, even if one of us thinks that by positing a world where he survives such an encounter

that he thereby will survive. In this world, neither of us can control street lights just by our

will so they will turn green before we get to the intersection. And in this world, Scientologytakes you away from the common sense and actuality of the Real World by taking you to aFake World where you sacrifice reality for a sense of belonging and well-being.

So, yes, Scientology works, so long as you wish to live in the Scientology World. But if you

want to live in the Real World, it doesn't. I was in a cult myself for 6 years in my own FakeWorld. From that experience I can say that I prefer the Real World with its uncertainties and

problems to my Fake World where I knew all the answers and felt the bliss of my mysticalexperiences. The Fake World is an easier world to live in, but what's the point? What is

gained by living like some kids today so deeply involved in Dungeons and Dragons fantasythat they loose sight of food, sleep, jobs, family, friends? The Emperor in his new fake clothes

was quite happy amongst people who also "saw" his wonderful robes, but when confronted bya child from the Real World, his Fake World disintegrated. Is living in a Fake World really

worth anything? I think not.

There is much more evidence that has been presented by others on the history of Scientology,the biographical data on L. Ron Hubbard, and the horrible experiences that many

Scientologists have had. It was not my goal to even touch any of the above, and it was noteven my goal to comprehensively cover my selective topic. It seemed to me that there was



little written on the ideas of Dianetics and Scientology and their evolution. This is what Iattempted to uncover. My hope is that this will be useful for those who have left the church so

they can better understand the illusion that caught them, for those who are investigating thechurch with thoughts of joining, and for those with a curiosity about one of the most

dangerous organizations on earth today. I also hope that this may be useful by suggesting an

approach to the study of other cults and movements in the religious marketplace today.



FOR FURTHER READING

Russell Miller, BARE FACED MESSIAH (New York; Henry Holt and Co., 1987)

Stewart Lamont, RELIGION, INC. (London: Harrap, Ltd., 1986) Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., L. RON HUBBARD, MESSIAH OR

MADMAN? (Secaucus, NJ; Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1987)

Jon Atack, A PIECE OF BLUE SKY (Carol Publishing Group, NYNY, 1990)

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm

http://xenu.net/archive/books/

http://www.xenu.org/factnet/GEN/FILES/BOOKS/CORYDON.TXT


http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/apobs/

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/apobs/



http://xenu.net/archive/books/

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm

The Hubbard is Bare (Jacobsen)

Documents

Transcript of The Hubbard is Bare (Jacobsen)