What's new

Acceptable Truths

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Well I am glad that you were able to laugh. Me, I was less fortunate. I became quite despondent over the idea that this guy could actually believed that Mary Sue used some copy paper and that got her sent to prison.

I mean if he believed something as bad as that there is no telling what else he could fall for.

Rd00


I think other than that single minor MU (about Mary Sue Hubbard quite innocently taking a few sheets of copy paper) he didn't have any other outpointy thinking. In fact, he was quite knowledgeable about history and knew quite a substantially more than the average uneducated person regarding Psychiatrists using tax audits to murder trillions of aliens on other planets 75 million years ago. One could not help being impressed with his scholarship and certainty about the facts. He knew the history of this planet, you don't.

(CUE THEME MUSIC FROM "MISSION IMPOSSIBLE" MOVIE AND BEGIN CACKLING)
 

Gadfly

Crusader
SCIENTOLOGIST
Outpoint? LOL. It's actually a win that he only had to murder one
wog so he could get on the Bridge and help bring about a world
without insanity, war and criminality!

Well, collateral damage is common in Scientology. And, just as with other powers, there is the view that collateral damage is entirely acceptable.

Collateral damage is damage to things that are incidental to the intended target. It is frequently used as a military term where it can refer to the incidental destruction of civilian property and non-combatant casualties.

In Scientology, the nutty "greatest good for the greatest number of (Scientology's) dynamics" often justifies such collateral damage. Tie that in with Scientology's view that it is AT WAR with all the SPs and degradation of planet Earth.

People often get "wasted" (tossed aside, thrown under the bus, expelled, busted from post) in Scientology - in the imagined best interests of the group.

:scnsucks:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
A battered wife tells an acceptable truth when she tells her friends she slipped in the tub, knowing her husband kicked her but she doesn't want him arrested.

An abused child tells the school social worker an acceptable truth when she says that she fell off her bike, knowing her mother broke her arm but she doesn't want her mom to go to jail for abusing her.

Mike Rinder tells an acceptable truth to John Sweeney in "Scientology and Me" and says that David Miscavige never hit him or anyone else because he doesn't want to wreck his standing in the church, even though he has just come from crawling on his hands and knees for two months in The Hole, causing permanent damage.

What is an 'acceptable truth' other than a lie one tells to protect someone who is harming him or others?

Excellent post!

Your last line reflects a subject which I have run into often in understanding the Scientology mindset.

There is a profound element of MASOCHISM that exists for "parishioners" to bankrupt themselves, disconnect from family/friends and lick bathroom floors, whilst writing "Success Stories".

Any other questions on why a Scientologist talking about their "Wins" is not to be taken seriously? LOL. Unbelievably, there are a few Scientologists who actually keep talking about their "wins" on this forum and don't understand why they keep getting booed and bum-rushed off the stage. (Special note to Xenu's Boyfriend: This ain't the Apollo Flagship, this is Showtime at the Apollo! LOL)
 

Gadfly

Crusader
As with everything else in Scientology the ONLY yardstick of value, or right and wrong, is whether or not it helps Scientology.

In Scientology an "acceptable truth" is any statement, lie, fact, distortion, or misrepresentation that HELPS Scientology. There are no other criteria in Scientology. If it HELPS Scientology, it is "good". If it doesn't, or worse, if it hurts Scientology, then it is viewed as "bad". There really isn't much else to understand about the "ethics" of Scientology.
 

DoneDeal

Patron Meritorious
I would love to see a discussion of "acceptable truth" here, and people could feel free to quote Hubbard extensively or not. Meanwhile, here's some lovely stuff from Joseph Goebbels.

"Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths." - Speech by Joseph Goebbels on 9 January 1928 to an audience of party members at the "Hochschule für Politik", a series of training talks for Nazi party members in Berlin. As quoted in "Erkenntnis und Propaganda," Signale der neuen Zeit. 25 ausgewählte Reden von Dr. Joseph Goebbels (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1934), pp. 28-52. The Pharus Hall was a meeting hall the Nazis often used in Berlin.

Thank you for the quote.

I can't define success yet.

I wonder if them nazi asses died regretting anything. lol...I wonder about the men whom dumped the poison into the room....

I wonder why the western powers didn't execute all of them.

I guess when the V2 guy looked valuable and said he "didn't want to be in the SS and watch people die making my rocket dream come true" that was an acceptable truth.

Maybe success is making one's dreams valuable to the majority.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
A battered wife tells an acceptable truth when she tells her friends she slipped in the tub, knowing her husband kicked her but she doesn't want him arrested.

An abused child tells the school social worker an acceptable truth when she says that she fell off her bike, knowing her mother broke her arm but she doesn't want her mom to go to jail for abusing her.

Mike Rinder tells an acceptable truth to John Sweeney in "Scientology and Me" and says that David Miscavige never hit him or anyone else because he doesn't want to wreck his standing in the church, even though he has just come from crawling on his hands and knees for two months in The Hole, causing permanent damage.

What is an 'acceptable truth' other than a lie one tells to protect someone who is harming him or others?

Excellent posts in this thread, XB, as usual. :)

A 'self-accepted' truth may be a more accurate phrase for what is going on in the above-referenced examples. The battered wife offers her 'self-accepted' truth for the police to believe. Do they? I hope not. If this phrase does not apply to the examples you cited above, it may still have value as an alternative to the word 'belief'.

Side note: A 'self-excepted' truth may be a proper phrase for those who practice the 'do as I say, not as I do' philosophy.

JB.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Here's some Hubbard indoctrination material on "acceptable truth":

Hubbard said:
Handling truth is a touchy business also. You don't have to tell everything you know-that would jam the comm line too. Tell an acceptable truth.

Agreement with one's message is what PR is seeking to achieve. Thus the message must compare to the personal experience of the audience.

So PR becomes the technique of communicating an acceptable truth--and which will attain the desirable result.

If there's no chance of obtaining a desirable result and the truth would injure, then talk about something else.

[...]

The use of R not only involves truth, it involves acceptable truth and that involves the fixed opinions of another or others and their experience. All this is contained in the subject of REALITY.

What is the R of another or others?

This involves SURVEYS.

Then you know what truth he or they will accept.[/size]

Hubbard, L. (1970, 13 August) PR Series 2 The Missing Ingredient. Management Series Volume III (1991 ed., pp. 7-10). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Obviously, be alert to Scientologists doing surveys, and/or using their ARC triangle tech.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Thanks, Caroline, that was part of what I was looking for. My memory of my training was that I should always say something TRUE, even if it wasn't the WHOLE truth. Lies undermine the organization for the long term, as I recall, but only say things that are true.
 

Gib

Crusader
Here's some Hubbard indoctrination material on "acceptable truth":



Obviously, be alert to Scientologists doing surveys, and/or using their ARC triangle tech.

Yes, thanks Caroline.


It's more than be alert to their survery's. It's more like be alert to every promo piece received in the mail by all the front groups IAS, Narconon, ABLE, Wise, Flag, AOLA, all of them. All those weekly promo pieces are all acceptable truths, directed directly to the member scientologist.

Here's the mind manipulation that the scientologist is exposed to and doesn't realize it, or know, in my opinion. It is the acceptable truths, or half truths told in the promo pieces and the scientologist thinks it's all true. Why, because each individual is trained in telling the whole truth by going thru sec checks and even rudiments at the beginning of each session. A person must get off any withholds and/or overts - and that involves the exact time, place, form and event. So, the person assumes all the promo pieces he receives are the exact time, place, form and event told by the entity sending the promo piece to him.

I could never understand when I was in, why I would constantly get promo pieces since I was already in. And I'd get promo pieces with my name mis spelled. It used to drive me crazy, as I thought what a waste of money. But, now I understand. It's a matter of keep putting the organization in front of the person with acceptable truths. The promo pieces just mock up this great expanding organization when in fact it's the opposite.

Bubbard knew what he was doing. :angry:
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Thanks, Caroline, that was part of what I was looking for. My memory of my training was that I should always say something TRUE, even if it wasn't the WHOLE truth. Lies undermine the organization for the long term, as I recall, but only say things that are true.

Is not feeding someone with part of the truth, and withholding the rest of the truth, to get a desired result, or to achieve some "understanding," the epitomy of deception and manipulation?

The banality of the ARC triangle sickens me. But it is so basic to Scientology in all its applications (tech, admin, ethics, PR) that it really deserves to be deconstructed.

I will post the rest of PR Series 2 as it applies to acceptable truths, and the ARC triangle. Possibly contained within that issue is the rest of what you were looking for, uniquemand.

Hubbard said:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 AUGUST 1970
Issue II​

Remimeo
Public Div Hats
Div 2 Hats
Ltr Reg
Checksheet
PES Hats
VA Hat
PR Crs
Checksheet

PR Series 2
THE MISSING INGREDIENT​

The primary corrective discovery about PR has to do with the ARC triangle of Scientology.

This triangle is affinity-reality-communication. If one corner (say A) is raised, the other two will rise. If one corner is lowered, the other two are as well. Thus with high affinity, one also has a high reality and a high communication. With a low affinity one has also a low reality and a low communication.

With a high or low R one has a high or low A and C.

And so it goes. The whole triangle rises and lowers as one piece. One cannot have a low R and a high A and C.

PR is supposed to be a communication technique. It communicates ideas. Suppose one were to try to communicate an out-the-bottom R. In such a case the communication would possibly at first reach, but then it would recoil due to its R. This is of course an advance in the mental technology of Scientology. It was not available to early pioneers of PR. So they talked (and still talk) mainly lies. Older PR practitioners preferred lies. They used circus exaggeration or black propaganda. They sought to startle or intrigue and the easiest way to do it was with exclamation point "facts" which were in fact lies.

"Mental health" PRs dreamed up out of whole cloth the "statistics" of the insane. "Nine out of every fifteen Englishmen will go insane at some period of their lives" is a complete lie. Streams of such false statistics gush from PR lobbyists to get a quick pound from Parliament.

The stock in trade of PRs, whether hired by Stalin, Hitler, the I Will Arise Society, the US president or the International Bank, has been black, bald-faced lies.The US president has given 2 different figures of the percentage of increased government cost per year in 2 months. His PR man was trying to influence Congress.

The "Backfire 8" as the "Car of the Century" and the parachute exhibition "record delayed drop" and the ambassador's press conference on "Middle East Aims" are all PR functions-and salted throughout with lies.

You pick up a newspaper or listen in the street and you see PR- PR- PR all lies.

A battle cruiser makes a "goodwill visit" to a town it is only equipped to crush and you have more lies.

The tremendous power of newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and modern "mass media" communication is guided by the PRs of special interests and they guide with lies.

Thus PR is corrupted to "a technique of lying convincingly."

It makes a cynical world. It has smashed idealism, patriotism and morality. Why?

When an enforced communication channel carries only lies, then the affinity caves in and you get hate. For the R is corrupted.

PR, dedicated to a false reality of lies, then becomes low A, low C and recoils on the user.

So the first lesson we can learn that enables us to use PR safely is to KEEP A HIGH R.

The more lies you use in PR the more likely it is that the PR will recoil.

Thus the law:

NEVER USE LIES IN PR

The trouble with PR then was its lack of reality. A lie of course is a false reality.

The trouble with PR was R!

In getting out a press release on a new can opener that opens cans easily, and you want to say "A child could use it," find out if it's a fact. Give one to a child and have him open a can. So it's true. So use the line and say what child. Don't call it the "Can Opener of the Century." It won't communicate.

Just because radios, TVs and press pour out does not mean they communicate. Communication implies that somebody is reached.

Don't tell a lie to city officials when the truth is just as easy to tell. Why go to all the work of dreaming up a lie? If you do, it will weaken you if it is found out that it is a lie. Now you do have a PR problem with the "official public." Any lie will either blunt the C (communication) or end the C off one day with revulsion.

Handling truth is a touchy business also. You don't have to tell everything you know-that would jam the comm line too. Tell an acceptable truth. Agreement with one's message is what PR is seeking to achieve. Thus the message must compare to the personal experience of the audience. So PR becomes the technique of communicating an acceptable truth-and which will attain the desirable result.

If there's no chance of obtaining a desirable result and the truth would injure, then talk about something else.

PR is employed to obtain a result desired by the PR and his group. Or it is employed to cancel out the undesirable PR of others. Thus there is offensive and defensive PR.

In defending against hostile PR, once more it is the R that counts. Sun Tzu in his book about warfare gives several types of agent. One of these is the "dead agent" because he tells lies to the enemy and when they find out they will kill him. Hostile (or counter) PR is usually the usual fabric of lies.

If one finds out the lies being told and documents just one as being false, he has made counter-PR recoil. His hearer will never believe him again. He's dead. In the war between psychiatric-hostile PR and the truth of Scientology, the "dead agent" caper has a field day. Psychiatric PR has been lying for 20 years.

Documented, the fact that these lies are lies is killing off psychiatry.

You understand, it's not one PR's word against another's. It's one PR's documents against the other PR's lies! That is correct defensive PR.

So you see that using out-R PR can be very dangerous.

If one is trying to PR an abuse into decay (a dangerous activity in itself), he obtains the desirable result by documenting TRUTH. But using the "dead agent" caper is quite enough almost always.

The use of R not only involves truth, it involves acceptable truth and that involves the fixed opinions of another or others and their experience. All this is contained in the subject of REALITY.

What is the R of another or others?

This involves SURVEYS.

Then you know what truth he or they will accept.

Imagination in PR is not limited at all. It takes lots of imagination. But the imagination should be devoted to how the truth is made acceptable to the R of others and how the comm is delivered.

A totally imaginary statement or story is quite useful so long as it is known to be imaginary and not passed off as truth.

In a PR world, truth is the almost unknown commodity. This world is full of the "noise" of many lies, many babbles, many old fixations and hates.

But truth has comm value. All the lies will dead-end someday.

A (affinity) supports the R and C.

Therefore PR which seeks to incite hate will not have the C value of a message that carries actual affinity.

But affinity can also be falsified and in the PR world too often is. A person who is sane has a high ARC value.

So the PR who is sane has a high potential. And those who have corrupted their A, Rand C into a hole, wind up on the bottle or beating their dogs or cynical beyond belief.

Serving mad masters, a PR hasn't much chance.

So there is a technique known as public relations. And it has the high liability of abuse through lies and the degrade of its practitioner.

But if one strictly attends to the values of truth and affinity, he will be able to communicate and can stand up to the strain.

Knowing this, PR becomes a far more useful and mature subject.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. (1970, 13 August) PR Series 2 The Missing Ingredient. Management Series Volume III (1991 ed., pp. 7-10). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Yes, that's exactly what I was looking for.

And yes, using truths to control, manipulate or deceive people is disgusting.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Seven years before Hubbard wrote PR Series 2, "The Missing Ingredient," he told his Saint Hill Special Briefing Course students that an acceptable truth is "the biggest lie of all:"

Hubbard said:
But there's apparently such a thing as acceptable truth. And I don't think that's true at all. I think that's the biggest lie at all, because that gives you a--that gives you a bonus for not telling the truth. So you actually can't compromise with truth at certain levels. About the only thing you can really do is to hold the line.

Hubbard, L. (1963, 5 December) Basic Auditing. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (6312C05; SHSBC 359) Lecture conducted from East Grinstead, Sussex.

In a 1964 SHSBC lecture, Hubbard provided his rationale for withholding truth from lower level cases:

Hubbard said:
But our materials--our materials are very prone to lay a great deal of truth out in front of people. Well, it puts you on a withhold not to do so, so there is no slightest reason under the sun to do so. Lay out the truth, but provide the road.

And that road is provided by having levels of acceptable truths or realities that an individual can attain-attainable realities.

In view of the fact that you can't start running him in the next ten minutes up the side of Mont Blanc like a mountain goat, it requires that you establish and rehabilitate his ability to win in some fashion and then increase it in some fashion to eventually achieve the point where he can have truth. And that way you won't just throw everybody around you into a complete, frothing, ecstatic, worshipping apathy. I can't think of anything worse, myself. You may have-you may have different opinions about it. You-when you get them run out, you let me know.

But that is-that is where any philosophy errs. This has been solved in the past: When anybody got ahold of a piece of truth they then built up a hierarchy of secrecy. They then built up a class secrecy level. Well, that will operate in any event because you can't expect somebody who knows nothing about TR 0 and has never audited a pc to be able to sit in an auditing chair and audit a pc, much less on anything very touchy. So, a certain amount of training and skill-a lot of it-has to exist before that level is attained. This is a self-denying mechanism. This is a mechanism of automatic denial, due to a mere fact that it intervenes some training, you see? And it intervenes some understanding. It takes a while to assimilate the materials involved and so forth.

Hubbard, L. (1964, 17 March) Lower Levels of Auditing. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (640C317; SHSBC 373) Lecture conducted from East Grinstead, Sussex.

Notice how Hubbard projects what Scientologists do regarding their secret levels onto "any philosophy." I think Volney Mathison would agree that the above is a good example of Hubbard "denouncing the power he is using." (Related ESMB thread.)

Imagine all the manipulation and diddling Scientologists have to do with a person's mind between the Comm Course and OT 3 to get them to accept the Xenu story. Why don't Scientologists tell their "raw meat" about Xenu? "THEY CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH." :eyeroll:

Oh, and that's a straw mountain goat on a straw Mt. Blanc. And they're straw everybodies who get thrown into straw complete, frothing, ecstatic, worshipping apathies.
 

mischief

Patron with Honors
Reading things like this makes me wonder if the guy was schizophrenic....says so much one way then we find out he said/did/encouraged so much the complete opposite.
Its hard to wrap your head around.

I had always understood that an acceptable truth was putting things in a way that the person you were talking to could more easily understand what you were saying...hmm
I guess I must be a nice person after all.It never occurred to me that you could/would use something like this to manipulate others.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Reading things like this makes me wonder if the guy was schizophrenic....says so much one way then we find out he said/did/encouraged so much the complete opposite.
Its hard to wrap your head around.

I had always understood that an acceptable truth was putting things in a way that the person you were talking to could more easily understand what you were saying...hmm
I guess I must be a nice person after all.It never occurred to me that you could/would use something like this to manipulate others.

I recently became acutely aware that dealing with $cientology is exactly like dealing with a paranoid schizophrenic. That lesson was as stressful to deal with as RTC vs Lerma, but it is over..

Truth is how you determine if someone is friend or foe.

A friend will never lie to you.

An enemy always does.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Reading things like this makes me wonder if the guy was schizophrenic....says so much one way then we find out he said/did/encouraged so much the complete opposite.
Its hard to wrap your head around.

Judge Breckenridge was probably thinking along the same lines in his decision in Scientology v. Armstrong:

Judge Breckenridge said:
The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile. At the same time it appears that he is charismatic and highly capable of motivating, organizing, controlling, manipulating, and inspiring his adherents. He has been referred to during the trial as a “genius,” a “revered person,” a man who was “viewed by his followers in awe.” Obviously, he is and has been a very complex person, and that complexity is further reflected in his alter ego, the Church of Scientology. Notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, this court is satisfied that LRH runs the Church in all ways through the Sea Organization, his role of Commodore, and the Commodore’s Messengers.3 He has, of course, chosen to go into “seclusion,” but he maintains contact and control through the top messengers. Seclusion has its light and dark side too. It adds to his mystique, and yet shields him from accountability and subpoena or service of summons.

The Breckenridge Decision

Con men, and sociopaths in any occupation, also obviously will talk one way and do the opposite. There is such a chasm between Hubbard's claims and the truth, he could sell a whole bridge to get between them.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I think Volney Mathison would agree that the above is a good example of Hubbard "denouncing the power he is using." (Related ESMB thread.)
.

This is a key aspect to understanding the scam that is Scientology. Hubbard constantly denounces some tactic or mechanism, and then USES that tactic or mechanism to control and manipulate his followers.

There are many examples of this, and here are just a few.

1. Hubbard explains, quite well actually, about fixed ideas, what they are, and how they act to block a person from the possibility of any further learning in some subject or area, because the person thinks that he or she knows it all already. Then, unknown to his followers, Hubbard manages to install a great many new fixed ideas into their minds! :duh:

One reads about fixed ideas, and is led to believe that Hubbard is denouncing such things, and also helping to prevent you from falling victim to such things. The Scientology follower imagines that Hubbard never would do such a thing, because he is helping you become aware of such things.

2. Hubbard talks in the PR series about how various totalitarian regimes used the redefinition of words to their benefit. Hubbard states:

"A long term propaganda technique used by socialists (Communist and Nazi alike) is of interest to PT practitioners. I know of no place it is mentioned in PR literature. But the data had verbal circulation in intelligence circles and is in constant current use.

The trick Is - WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE PF THE PROPAGANDIST.

Many instances of this exist. They are not "natural" changes in language. They are propaganda changes, carefully planned and campaigned in order to obtain a public opinion advantage for the group doing the propaganda.
"

When you hear some Scientology spin doctor (PR person) using terms like "haters", "anti-religious zealots", "apostates" and "religious vilification", they are ding so with this sort of thing in mind.

When MOST people read this HCOPL, PR Series12, PROPAGANDA BY REDEFINITION OF WORDS, most assume that Hubbard is warning them away from such tactics and to watch out for such shenanigans. Most assume that he is denouncing such things. But he is doing no such thing. He only appears to be denouncing such a thing, while then USING the technique on his own followers and others - to get whatever it is that he wants and desires. The subject of Scientology is in itself an exercise in a redefinition of words!

Look around. There are many other similar examples in Scientology.
 
This is a key aspect to understanding the scam that is Scientology. Hubbard constantly denounces some tactic or mechanism, and then USES that tactic or mechanism to control and manipulate his followers. ...

What you say is true enough as far as it goes. I think what he was doing was more general than that. I see it as his mechanism for appropriating the tech or ideas of others as his own idea or creation.

His public denouncement of an agent serves to denigrate the validity of an alternative "source". He is then free to claim the idea proposed by the other as his own, thus establishing ownership. Sometimes he would offer some pointless "refinement" of the basic idea to show the seeming fault in the original, or just as often simply re-express the same idea in his own manner and claiming it to constitute yet another breakthrough.

He did this routinely both with external sources of ideas embodied in scientology tech as well as those of his collaborators who developed public notoriety for their own accomplishments. It was a useful technique for reinforcing his claims as "creator of the tech" and source.

First: establish ownership. Second: establish control. Third: obtain obedience.

Each stage followed on as a successor to its prior.


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

Hubbard constantly denounces some tactic or mechanism, and then USES that tactic or mechanism to control and manipulate his followers.

-snip-

That's correct.

And watching Mark A. Baker blow smoke - obfuscate under the guise of "criticism" - on that simple, but very important point, is disturbing.
 
Top