LRH versus COB

[Veda]

I'm still here Tracking along...

Good to hear that. Keep tracking along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52vEFiOuC74

IMO, the Incredible String Band initially benefited from their participation in Scientology, as Scientology public receiving auditing, with Robin Williamson being audited at St. Hill in England by Bent Corydon. http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0942637577.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg (This was around the time that William Burroughs was briefly involved with Scientology. http://realitystudio.org/images/biography/burroughs_and_emeter.jpg

An interesting time.

I can remember, the late 1960s/early 1970s, when their music starting changing, losing its magic and creativity, with the band breaking up soon thereafter.

This coincided with the ISB reaching the 'confidential' levels of the Grade Chart. Towards the end, the beautiful mystical poetry was gone - avoided as "R6 bank dramatization" and "mixing practices," etc., followed by several years of musical stagnation in the sterile land of Scientology, followed by permanently exiting Scientology.

Still, at their peak, when I saw them at the Fillmore East in New York City, they were amazing.

 

[R2-D45]

I hesitate to voice my disagreements because it's pretty clear that at least the majority of the posters here don't just have a problem the COB or the Church (I mean they do, but that's just part of it) they have a problem with the entire subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. But that hesitation is just a reservation withholding participation, and communication, and I shouldn't do that.

Maybe I just haven't "come around" yet, but Veda, you said in that last post the ISB benefited from Scientology, from being audited (initially). I too have so benefited. So there is something beneficial to be had in Scientology, and my mentality has always been that beneficial things are worth pursuing, which is why I continue pursuing it outside the Church.

Now I didn't get to the upper levels, so I can't speak to what goes on in the mind of someone who does. There's a quote from LRH I throw around a lot:

"And if anything I tell you, or have ever told you, is discovered to differ from the individual observation, then it isn’t true! It doesn’t matter whether I said it was true or not."
- L. Ron Hubbard, Lecture 15 July 1957 - Scientology and Effective Knowledge

I respect LRH, I listen to and consider what he has to say, but I don't revere him, and that's an important distinction. I'm perfectly willing to take something LRH wrote that seems off, or wrong to me (say, as an example, HCOB 10 Sep '83 - PTSness and Disconnection which re-instated the practice of disconnection) and discard it. I do that with every bulletin and policy written after 1980, because I think the likelihood that LRH wrote them is very low. Many of the destructive and "off" policies people complain about are to be found in the 80's. But even if I think LRH did write it, I'm not afraid to not incorporate it into my own practices.

Now, here's my problem, chiefly, with the Church and with COB. It's a system, as any religious organization is really, of enforced belief or enforced acceptance.

"I consider all Auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of Auditors and Scientologists as the free people."
-L. Ron Hubbard, Professional Auditor’s Bulletin 79 - 10 April 1956 - The Open Channel - What Do I Think Of Auditors? (Tech Vol. III, p. 343)

Now I know I'll hear the argument, well LRH didn't really feel that way, or his actions go against what he said there and he really didn't like squirrels. Okay, that might have been true then, but it isn't true today because he's not around anymore. And faced between the one hand where I have something LRH said in writing versus some nattering by someone, I take LRH.

I'm not sure what I was looking for when I started this thread. Reassurance maybe. I feel like LRH encouraged the free practice of Scientology outside the Church (as evidenced by the 1982 crackdown on Missions and Field Auditors) and the Church today fights against that. I feel like LRH would encourage what I am doing, and I think that's the primary difference, for me, between COB and LRH.

 

[Student of Trinity]

If you say you found good stuff in Scientology, then I guess you found it. But how much indication do you think you have that there is still more good stuff to be found, if you keep 'pursuing' it? What has Scientology done for you lately?

I have no personal experience with Scientology at all — and I'm not planning to get any, at the moment, because so far Scientology hasn't passed my initial assessment of whether it's going to be worth my time even to check it out, compared to other things I can do with that time instead. But for what it's worth, the conclusion those assessments have reached is that the good in Scientology is quite limited. I've seen so many accounts where people say they found a few good things in Scientology, and these led them to hope for really awesome things from doing a lot more Scientology; but even after pursuing Scientology for decades, they never got those awesome things. Worse yet, most of the accounts seem to say that even the good things that had first led them in soon petered out, leaving them with a lot of continuing work and expense for almost no continuing benefit in return.

Do you feel you are still getting a lot out of Scientology, or is it more like chasing a dream?

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

I'm not sure what I was looking for when I started this thread. Reassurance maybe. I feel like LRH encouraged the free practice of Scientology outside the Church (as evidenced by the 1982 crackdown on Missions and Field Auditors) and the Church today fights against that. I feel like LRH would encourage what I am doing, and I think that's the primary difference, for me, between COB and LRH.

I see that this isn't a typo on your behalf considering your following assumption, so, I'll say this.
Other than piddling around with Hubbard's Dianetics spewings, in fact, by all accounts past and present, Hubbard and his cronies (one version from his son is a good read, they used to go out and beat the shit out of anyone 'off-policy' or squirreling), and were very forcious in keeping scientology 'tech' under direct control of the cult management. Hubbard was a vicious, greedy, violent man (and thats the good parts man) and many who tried to practice 'outside' suffered unpleasantries at the hands of the GO.
Don't kid yourself on 'a kinder, gentler' past.

 

[R2-D45]

If you say you found good stuff in Scientology, then I guess you found it. But how much indication do you think you have that there is still more good stuff to be found, if you keep 'pursuing' it? What has Scientology done for you lately?

I have no personal experience with Scientology at all — and I'm not planning to get any, at the moment, because so far Scientology hasn't passed my initial assessment of whether it's going to be worth my time even to check it out, compared to other things I can do with that time instead. But for what it's worth, the conclusion those assessments have reached is that the good in Scientology is quite limited. I've seen so many accounts where people say they found a few good things in Scientology, and these led them to hope for really awesome things from doing a lot more Scientology; but even after pursuing Scientology for decades, they never got those awesome things. Worse yet, most of the accounts seem to say that even the good things that had first led them in soon petered out, leaving them with a lot of continuing work and expense for almost no continuing benefit in return.

Do you feel you are still getting a lot out of Scientology, or is it more like chasing a dream?

Quite honestly, I feel that I am getting a lot out of it, far more now outside the Church than within it. Without the constant artificial reinforcement of wins like inside the Church, I actually feel like what I'm getting out of it is much more real to me as well.

 

[Veda]

I hesitate to voice my disagreements because it's pretty clear that at least the majority of the posters here don't just have a problem the COB or the Church (I mean they do, but that's just part of it) they have a problem with the entire subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. But that hesitation is just a reservation withholding participation, and communication, and I shouldn't do that.

Maybe I just haven't "come around" yet, but Veda, you said in that last post the ISB benefited from Scientology, from being audited (initially).

That's my opinion.

IMO, also, a little bit of Scientology can sometimes be a good thing; a lot of Scientology seldom is.

I guess you're going to have to find out for yourself.

As of now, it appears that your experience is very limited. Would you might saying how far you've gone in Scientology (what level), and when you first became involved?

"I consider all Auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of Auditors and Scientologists as the free people."
-L. Ron Hubbard, Professional Auditor’s Bulletin 79 - 10 April 1956 - The Open Channel - What Do I Think Of Auditors? (Tech Vol. III, p. 343)

In March 1955, Hubbard wrote the 'Manual on Dissemination of Material'. He had devised an elaborate system of layering and compartmentalizing Scientology, so as to monitor who says what to whom.

"An outline of the communication lines of Scientology follows:

"1. [What we would like the] General public [to say] to the general public.

"2. Scientologists to general public."

And then eight more categories of ________ to ____________.

From Hubbard's 1955 'Manual on Dissemination of Material' [bracketed material added]:

"...the communication line ['to wogs'] is that Scientologists do not pose any threat, that Scientologists are good citizens, and that they can be trusted with problems of a private and confidential nature... Another frame of mind that we would like to see the public have and register are that people attacking Scientologists have something wrong with them... As a subdivision of this, the actual substance of communication about what Scientology actually is... from the general public to the general public [what the "wogs" should say to each other about Scientology] should be that Scientology says that good health and immortality are attainable. That it is compounded out of all Man knows about Man..."

And,

"No Scientologist should ever consent to take a position on a panel or public stage engaging in debate of Scientology with some other subject. This is an entirely unclear communication line... Any such debate engaged upon demeaned or degraded Scientology by permitting it to be talked about contemptuously before a group - a thing which SHOULD NEVER BE PERMITTED [Capitalization in original]...

"The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE... the only way to defend anything is to ATTACK... NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, MUCH more charging, AND YOU WILL WIN...

"Never defend. Always attack...

"If you discover that some group calling itself 'precept processing' had set up and established a series of meetings in your area, you should do all you can to make things interesting for them.... The least that could be done in such an area is the placement of a suit against them... The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

"The law can be used very easily to harass... If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."


And from the 1959 'HCO Manual of Justice':

"Dianetics and Scientology are self-protecting sciences. If one attacks them one attacks all the know-how of the mind. It caves in the bank. It's gruesome sometimes.

"At this instance there are men hiding in terror on Earth because they found out what they were attacking. There are men dead because they attacked us - for instance Dr. Joe Winter [wrote Introduction to 'DMSMH', and the book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics' with an Introduction by Fritz Perls]. He simply realized what he did and died. There are men bankrupt because they attacked us - [Don] Purcell, Ridgeway, [publisher of 'DMSMH'] Ceppos."


"Find or Manufacture enough threat." L. Ron Hubbard, 'Department of Government Affairs', 1960


"Have you ever had unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?" L. Ron Hubbard, Security Check, 1961


And, almost forgot.

In autumn 1955 the fraudulent "Russian Textbook on Psycho-Politics" ("Brainwashing Manual"), was concocted by Scientology's founder, and presented to Scientologists as a top secret Russian text, one that denounces Dianetics as a danger to Communism, etc. By the early 1960s and, in some instances, as early as 1950s, Hubbard had begun applying its ideas and methods http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg on Scientologists.


And there's much more.

Old issues of 'Aberree' magazine (1954 - 1964) contain much information - and humor - and show that Scientology was always a devious and abusive doctrine - one that used good people, and wrapped itself in some good ideas.


Also, 'To Org Staffs - 1965, from Ron, subject: Amprinistics' [a squirrel group]:

http://suppressiveperson.org/spdl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=290&Itemid=30


Squirreling: "It means altering Scientology and offbeat practices. It's a bad thing." HCOPL, 14 Feb 65


Some more items, in no particular order:

"There was a difference between the ideals inherent in the Dianetic hypothesis and the actions of the Foundation in its ostensible efforts to carry out these ideals. The ideals, as I saw them, included non-authoritarianism and a flexibility of approach. The ideals... continued to be given lip-service, but I could see a definite disparity between ideals and actualities." Dr. J.A. Winter, who wrote the Introduction for 'DMSMH' in 1950, from his book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics', 1951


"No rights of any kind... Dispose of quietly and without sorrow." L. Ron Hubbard, 'Science of Survival', 1951


"Find or Manufacture enough threat." L. Ron Hubbard, 'Department of Government Affairs', 1960


"Have you ever had unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?" L. Ron Hubbard, Security Check, 1961


"Suppressive acts include public disavowal of Scientology... public statements against Scientology...continued membership in a divergent group... continued adherence to a person or group pronounced suppressive..." L. Ron Hubbard, 'Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists', 1965

[Note the name "Fair Game" was publicly "cancelled" with much fanfare, but the treatment of SPs was continued, per Hubbard's instructions, as before.]


"I am not interested in wog morality... I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday School teacher," L. Ron Hubbard, 'Discipline, SPs and Admin', 1969

I'm not sure what I was looking for when I started this thread. Reassurance maybe. I feel like LRH encouraged the free practice of Scientology outside the Church (as evidenced by the 1982 crackdown on Missions and Field Auditors) and the Church today fights against that. I feel like LRH would encourage what I am doing, and I think that's the primary difference, for me, between COB and LRH.

Hubbard authorized the crackdown of 1982. Scientology was not taken over in 1980. Hubbard went into deep hiding out of cowardice and ran Scientology through the CMO (the Commodore Messengers Org).

I've given you a lot of information in this post, and in other posts, and others have also provided much information that you can read.

That's all anyone can do.


Two links:

'Textbook on Psycho-politics', all but a few sentences address applications of this secret text by Hubbard during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?2697-Table-of-Contents-Psychopolitics-revisited


The 1950s, the 'Sane years' thread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?28117-Scientology-in-the-1950s-the-quot-sane-quot-years

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

x9000

Thank you Veda, awesome retrieval, had that in the back of my mind when I wrote my previous post here

Yer frikken ROCK!

 

[Infinite]

Quite honestly, I feel that I am getting a lot out of it, far more now outside the Church than within it. Without the constant artificial reinforcement of wins like inside the Church, I actually feel like what I'm getting out of it is much more real to me as well.

I don't doubt for a moment that you have got something positive out of your Scientology experiences - but what is it, can you quantify it and, if so, how does it compare with other practises?

Nebulous "feel good" WINS are hardly scientific nor are they particularly "workable" other than as a form of recreation. Even in that case, it still remains true today that there is nothing in Scientology that cannot be found elsewhere and which is also cheaper, more effective, longer-lasting, and far, far safer. Don't settle for less when there is much, much more available with just a change of perspective and acceptance of something new, something from this century.

 

[Gib]

I don't doubt for a moment that you have got something positive out of your Scientology experiences - but what is it, can you quantify it and, if so, how does it compare with other practises?

 

[R2-D45]

Okay, some initial answers. Really, Veda gave me a lot to digest (thank you, Veda) with that big post and it's going to take me awhile to sort through it all.

As of now, it appears that your experience is very limited. Would you might saying how far you've gone in Scientology (what level), and when you first became involved?

You are correct. I'll just say I never made it out of the lower grades and other various introductory services/processes. I became involved in mid to late 2007 and was out in 2010. In those years it seemed like emphasis had been taken off the Bridge itself and put far more in to book/lecture courses like the Basics. So I'm not a veteran by any means, I don't wan't to come off like I'm representing myself that way.

I don't doubt for a moment that you have got something positive out of your Scientology experiences - but what is it, can you quantify it and, if so, how does it compare with other practises?

Nebulous "feel good" WINS are hardly scientific nor are they particularly "workable" other than as a form of recreation. Even in that case, it still remains true today that there is nothing in Scientology that cannot be found elsewhere and which is also cheaper, more effective, longer-lasting, and far, far safer. Don't settle for less when there is much, much more available with just a change of perspective and acceptance of something new, something from this century.

Quantification is hard, naturally. I keep a journal of wins, cognitions, things like that, and over time I can see a definite trend that I'm happy with when it comes to just growing and changing as a person.
You're totally correct that nothing in Scientology isn't available elsewhere, and you might be correct that it's cheaper, more effective, longer-lasting and safer, I would say that, for me, Scientology has come out on top as being in a form that I can understand and digest better than any other sources I have yet encountered.

It's not for everybody, I wouldn't argue that it is (yes, I realize that LRH and COB are of the position that it is for everybody). Suum cuique pulchrum est—To each his own is beautiful.

I don't think I'm settling, and I'm always on the search for new things, new ideas.

 

[R2-D45]

A thought occurred to me just a bit ago. Almost everything in Dianetics and Scientology can be found in some primeval form in DMSMH. I've always kind of thought space opera and all of that sprouted from the tiny seed of "dub-in" and how the Auditor should not be evaluating/invalidating PC data.

Anyway, on the whole attack, attack, attack never defend thing, I can see where that comes from. It's interesting (to me) because I never hear this mentioned when people are talking about the attack mentality of the Church.

It comes from the Black Panther Mechanism in DMSMH, Book Two, Chapter Nine: Keying in the Engram. Later on LRH brings it up again:

"We know that there are five methods of handling an engram. Four of them are wrong. To succumb to an engram is apathy, to neglect one is carelessness, but to avoid or flee from one is cowardice. Attack, and only attack, resolves the problem. It is the duty of the auditor to make very sure that the preclear keeps attacking engrams, not the auditor or the exterior world. If the auditor attacks the preclear, that’s bad gunnery and very poor logic." - L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Book Three, Chapter Three: The Auditor's Role

Just a thought as I continue digesting the above material Veda provided.

 

[Gib]

A thought occurred to me just a bit ago. Almost everything in Dianetics and Scientology can be found in some primeval form in DMSMH. I've always kind of thought space opera and all of that sprouted from the tiny seed of "dub-in" and how the Auditor should not be evaluating/invalidating PC data.

Anyway, on the whole attack, attack, attack never defend thing, I can see where that comes from. It's interesting (to me) because I never hear this mentioned when people are talking about the attack mentality of the Church.

It comes from the Black Panther Mechanism in DMSMH, Book Two, Chapter Nine: Keying in the Engram. Later on LRH brings it up again:

"We know that there are five methods of handling an engram. Four of them are wrong. To succumb to an engram is apathy, to neglect one is carelessness, but to avoid or flee from one is cowardice. Attack, and only attack, resolves the problem. It is the duty of the auditor to make very sure that the preclear keeps attacking engrams, not the auditor or the exterior world. If the auditor attacks the preclear, that’s bad gunnery and very poor logic." - L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Book Three, Chapter Three: The Auditor's Role

Just a thought as I continue digesting the above material Veda provided.

PC: I was some dictator.

Auditor:

PC: I killed a baby two thousand years ago and realized I was only trying to help it.

Auditor:

Must not evaluate. Whether real or imagined.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I think the main thing about Hubbard was that he was irresponsible. To the point of narcissism and venality. Those, in turn, caused him to lack empathy and do incredibly unfair and fucked up things.

I can name half a dozen- more, actually- things Hubbard came up with that were so unfair as to be highly abusive, and that's putting it mildly.

But I honestly think DM is quite different. I think DM is worse. Far worse. I don't see him as irresponsible or immature the way I see LRH. I see him as a total sociopath. I don't see LRH that way though, given his actions, he had to be well on his way to it.

It's hard to say this just right but I think the irresponsibility was somewhat human. I mean a very fucked up human, yes. But a human.

I see DM as more like an automaton. I don't see him as human enough to be irresponsible. I think he went beyond that.

But, that being said, if I only had Hubbard's actions to go by, then I probably would be one of the ones saying he and DM were pretty much the same.