What's new

Books Scientology Doesn't Want You To Read


I thought it would be great to put all the known books exposing Scientology/Hubbard, etc. Those that have links are free downloads. Spread the word!

• Jon Atack (1990), A Piece of Blue Sky http://usminc.org/books/APOBS.txt

• Paulette Cooper (1971), The Scandal of Scientology. Also see her (1997) diaries. After having been sued eighteen times by the Church, to get a settlement Cooper reportedly “promised she would not republish the [former, Scandal] book and signed a statement saying fifty-two passages in it were ‘misleading’” (Rudin and Rudin, 1980) http://usminc.org/books/Scandalhtnl.zip

• Russell Miller (1987), Bare-Faced Messiah http://usminc.org/books/BFM.txt

• Robert Kaufman (1995), Inside Scientology/Dianetics

• Cyril Vosper (1997), The Mind-Benders

• George Malko (1970), Scientology: The Now Religion. Malko’s book was reportedly later “withdrawn by its publishers who also paid a legal settlement” (Wallis, 1976)

• Monica Pignotti (1989), My Nine Lives in Scientology

• Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (1998), L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?

• Margery Wakefield (1991), Understanding Scientology http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us.html; (1993), The Road to Xenu http://www.american-buddha.com/cult.roadtoxenuwakefield.htm; and her (1996) autobiography, Testimony

• Bob Penny (1993), Social Control in Scientology

I know there have been more recently so please add to this list.

Last edited:


Helen O'Brien, 'Dianetics in Limbo', 1966, http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/dil/Dianetics_in_Limbo.txt

George Malko, 'The Now Religion', 1970. Cover: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pDjNGLfSI...u0GjFiE/S210/Scientology_The_Now_Religion.gif Text: http://www.lermanet.com/malko/malko.htm

Paulette Cooper, 'The Scandal of Scientology', 1971: http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html

Robert Kaufman, 'Inside Scientology', 1972: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/Inside Scientology Kaufman.pdf

William Burroughs, 'Naked Scientology', 1972: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/Naked Scientology.pdf

Letter from Sara Northrup to Paulette Cooper, 1972: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=79110&postcount=23

Bent Corydon, 'Messiah or Madman?', 1987, 1992, 1996, and 2005 Russian language edition. (The only scan available is a 1998 scan of the rush-to-print 1987 edition.) This is the 1992 2nd edition: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0942637577/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-0654802-4263319

Russell Miller, 'Bare-Faced Messiah' 1987. http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm Cover of the paperback edition:http://number80.co.uk/hubbard.gif

Brian Ambry, 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology', 2001. E-book. http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/ambry1.html


Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Great thread idea, thanks!

If anyone is seeking the forbidden facts that Scientology doesn't want you to read, we should probably expand this to include scientology's own forbidden scripture that even most of its own parishioners do not know about. Understandably, this quickly becomes an unwieldy and vast ocean of information covered in ESMB and other great websites. But it could be SIMPLY FORMATTED on a thread like this to make it accessible and digestible in small bites.

For example, if this thread was "Forbidden books & scripture Scientology doesn't want you to read" there could be individual subjects with a brief description and links. Key words like.....

XENU: The holiest and most confidential Hubbard scripture that Scn warns may cause insanity or death to anyone who reads it without church permission.

FAIR GAME: The Scn scripture that authorizes and compels Scientologists to destroy critics by lying, cheating, stealing their property, etc.


What I would suggest is that this great thread be used as a virtual WORKSHOP and clearinghouse (so to speak, lol) to compile and format an index and REFERENCE TOOL that could, perhaps, be memorialized when it's well-seasoned (later) in a sticky thread that gives curious readers a direct guide to Scientology's monstrous secret doctrines and whistleblower's exposes thereof.

It might take months of assembling the contributions of many to bring it up to speed, but in the future such a reference tool could be linked and sent to countless people via email.

I hope I am not making this sound overcomplicated, because at its core it is a SIMPLE TOOL that allows truth-seekers to scan and click a multitude of Scientology's forbidden world, without having to do the months or years-long searching that all of us have already done.

Just an idea.

Humbly tendered and all that, ya know....


Hell Ruin Hoaxard

EDIT NOTE: OOPS, those Xenu links were supposed to be just click-links, not show up the video. Wasn't sure how to do that. Please advise.


Diamond Invictus SP
we should probably expand this to include scientology's own forbidden scripture that even most of its own parishioners do not know about.

Not to mention the forbidden scriptures that many of its parishioners DO know about.
Such as the entire LRH library that was f**ked with by the evil typesetters. For the parishioners who already paid at least once for this library it must have been a bit disturbing when the books they ALREADY paid for became forbidden. :duh:

Of course when DM's successor takes over I'm sure there will be an announcement that DM altered the scriptures and all books and tapes with his revisions will now have to be destroyed. And of course the original unaltered LRH library will now need to be reissued AGAIN. Please see the Reg to pre-order your copies now. :yes:

Hmmmmmm, my post was probably something of a derail. :nervous:
Getting back to the purpose of the thread, here's a couple more books that Scientology doesn't want you to read:

Combatting Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults by Steve Hassan.

Releasing The Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, also by Steve Hassan


Patron Meritorious
I thought it would be great to put all the known books exposing Scientology/Hubbard, etc. Those that have links are free downloads. Spread the word!

• Jon Atack (1990), A Piece of Blue Sky http://usminc.org/books/APOBS.txt

• Paulette Cooper (1971), The Scandal of Scientology. Also see her (1997) diaries. After having been sued eighteen times by the Church, to get a settlement Cooper reportedly “promised she would not republish the [former, Scandal] book and signed a statement saying fifty-two passages in it were ‘misleading’” (Rudin and Rudin, 1980) http://usminc.org/books/Scandalhtnl.zip

• Russell Miller (1987), Bare-Faced Messiah http://usminc.org/books/BFM.txt

• Robert Kaufman (1995), Inside Scientology/Dianetics

• Cyril Vosper (1997), The Mind-Benders

• George Malko (1970), Scientology: The Now Religion. Malko’s book was reportedly later “withdrawn by its publishers who also paid a legal settlement” (Wallis, 1976)

• Monica Pignotti (1989), My Nine Lives in Scientology

• Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (1998), L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?

• Margery Wakefield (1991), Understanding Scientology; (1993), The Road to Xenu; and her (1996) autobiography, Testimony

• Bob Penny (1993), Social Control in Scientology

I know there have been more recently so please add to this list.



Nancy Many (2009), My Billion Year Contract

Janet Reitman (2011), Inside Scientology

Amy Scobee (2010), Abuse at the Top

Jeff Hawkins (2010), Counterfeit Dreams

Mark Headley (2009), Blown For Good


Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy"

Jack Kerouac's "The Dharma Bums"

Rudolf Steiner's "Philosophy of Freedom"

Tom Robbins' "Jitterbug Perfume"

Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five"

Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov"

Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"

Susan Faludi's "Backlash"

. . . c'mon, lets face it. The only books Scientology doesn't want you to read are books that are not published by Bridge.


Gold Meritorious Patron
Jefferson Hawkins is the story of one man's journey into and out of the world of Scientology. Jeff is the man resposible for making Dianetics the Mega Million dollar best seller.

His Autobiography can be viewed at:

"Blown For Good" by Mark Headley is available at a LOT of public libraries.


Patron with Honors
Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy"

Jack Kerouac's "The Dharma Bums"

Rudolf Steiner's "Philosophy of Freedom"

Tom Robbins' "Jitterbug Perfume"

Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five"

Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov"

Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"

Susan Faludi's "Backlash"

. . . c'mon, lets face it. The only books Scientology doesn't want you to read are books that are not published by Bridge.

Jokes aside, has the cult actually banned the above? Link?

Also missing from the list, Orwell's "1984" - http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/1984/1984.htm


Click here for a book list on the CIFS website:


Nice one, Jump! There's a couple there that are "new" as in not mentioned yet.


'Inside Scientology' - By Janet Reitman
"Inside Scientology is an engrossing, groundbreaking work that brings a welcome sense of fair-mindedness to a subject that is, for many journalists and scholars, too hot to touch. Reitman has accomplished the miracle of adding light without heat."- Lawrence Wright

'Counterfeit Dreams' - By Jefferson Hawkins
Scientology presents a glittering public façade... It is an image that Jefferson Hawkins helped to craft in his 35 years as a top marketing executive for the Church of Scientology. Yet behind that façade is a hidden world of physical and mental abuse... Counterfeit Dreams is a must-read for anyone who wants to know the truth about today’s most controversial cult. Read online. New Yorker article.

'Scientology: Abuse at the Top' - By Amy Scobee
Amy Scobee tells the eye-opening account of her 27 years inside the Church from innocence at age 14 to her nightmarish experiences in the highest management body at Scientology's secret International Headquarters.
Hear of the abuses she both witnessed and experienced first hand.

'Hollywood, Satanism, Scientology, & Suicide' - By Jerry Staton
"I expose Scientology in this country, because to expose it is to kill it. Scientology is one of those monsters of darkness to whom the light of truth is death." - Jerry Staton
Jerry Staton is an independent reporter and is also the reporter of the case of adult endangerment mentioned in this article.

'My Billion Year Contract' - By Nancy Many
“Nancy Many’s book is the first full-length study to provide insight into how some of Scientology’s techniques and policies may cause or contribute to severe mental health problems among members.”
- Stephen A. Kent
Professor, Department of Sociology, Adjunct Professor, Department of Religious Studies, University of Alberta

'The Complex' - By John Duignan.
"Writing the book has been a cleansing and often cathartic experience, I can now, with some considerable relief, leave it all behind me and really start to build a new life." We follow his journey through the Church and the painful investigation that leads to his eventual realisation that there is something very wrong at Scientology's core.
Amazon Ireland

'Blown for Good' - By Marc Headley.
"If you want to leave Scientology ... you will not be able to speak to your mother or your children or you family members again… "
"When you have dozens of people speaking out, it's no longer credible to say they are all malcontents and criminals." - Jeff Hawkins
Marc Headley audio

'The Scandal of Scientology' - By Paulette Cooper.
Quote: "Instead of trying to hide what is going on in their house, they may have to clean it up."
"I happened upon the hard-to-find Scandal of Scientology by Paulette Cooper. Now I was fascinated, and started collecting everything I could get my eager hands on - magazine articles, newspaper clippings, government files, anything." - Jon Atack
Amazon | html

'Bare-Faced Messiah' - By Russell Miller.
Quote: "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion".
"... I have reached the conclusion that this application is both mischievous and misconceived and must be dismissed." - Justice Vinelott on legal action prior to publication.

'A Piece of Blue Sky' - By Jon Atack.
Quote: "Hubbard found it easy to create schemes to part his new following from their money. One of the first tasks was to arrange "grades" of membership, offering supposedly greater rewards, at increasingly higher prices. Over thirty years later. an associate wryly remembered Hubbard turning to him and confiding, no doubt with a smile, 'Let's sell these people a piece of blue sky.' ".
Amazon | html

'The Total Freedom Trap' - By Jon Atack.
Quote: "An enormous amount of documented evidence demonstrates that Hubbard was not what he claimed to be, and that his subject does not confer the benefits claimed for it. Using profoundly invasive hypnotic techniques, Scientology has managed to inspire the at times fanatical devotion of tens of thousands of previously normal and intelligent people."
Amazon | html

'L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman' - By Bent Corydon.
Quote: "He used his gift for combining words to exploit something which is truly sacred: Man's hope and quest for values that are greater than the mundane. His 'magical incantations' were words and symbols; combinations of words like 'Total Freedom,' being designed to entice; and 'Church of Scientology'; and 'rehabilitation project force,' designed to deceive."
Last edited:



Good one, TRNU:

SEB.zip Contents:
Bainbridge Stark - To Be Perfectly Clear.pdf
Bent Corydon - L. Ron Hubbard - Messiah Or Madman.pdf
Cheryl S Story.pdf
Cyril Vosper - The Mind Benders.pdf
Jon Atack - A Piece Of Blue Sky.pdf
Jon Atack - Total Freedom Trap.pdf
L. Ron Hubbard Jr - Penthouse Interview.pdf
LA Times - The Scientology Story.pdf
LRH - Brainwashing Manual.pdf
Margery Wakefield - Road To Xenu.pdf
Margery Wakefield - Testimony.pdf
Monica Pignotti - My 9 Lives In Scientology.pdf
New York Times - Scientology Tax-Exempt Status.pdf
Paulette Cooper - Scandal Of Scientology.pdf
Raul Lopez Story.pdf
Russell Miller - Bare Faced Messiah.pdf
Steven Fishman - Lonesome Squirrel.pdf
Theta One - My Story.pdf
Time Magazine - The Cult Of Greed.pdf
Veritas - Scientology's Great Secret.pdf
Veritas - The Anonymous Mailings.pdf
Veritas - The L Ron Hubbard Library.pdf

Download Links:

I just realized that "The Road To Xenu" was not formatted as easy-to-read as the others . . . so I fixed it.

Here is a newly reformatted version:

Enjoy . . . .Best,

The Real No User


I also have this book:


The Road to Total Freedom A sociological analysis of scientology
by Roy Wallis

and you may read it here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wallis/


Looks like people got to this thread before I had a chance to ... awesome work, everyone!

I only saw one mention of Dr. Touretzky's library web site though (maybe there were other mentions and I just didn't see them...)


His site has a number of good critical books on Scientology and/or Hubbard, including The Big Three (The Original Trilogy, so to speak) - Bare Faced Messiah, Messiah or Madman, and A Piece Of Blue Sky (Yes, Paulette Cooper's is on there and was technically "first", but the above three together make for a good, solid background of everything Scn and Hubbard-related.)

Being a sociology guy, I actually found Bob Penny's "Social Control in Scientology" to be an incredibly well-written work, blending personal experience with great explanations of the sociological mechanisms that go along with it. I found it to be much easier to digest/understand than The Road to Total Freedom, another sociological study by Roy Wallis, and not just because it was a fraction of the size. For a good introduction of the social mechanisms, I highly suggest Penny's work: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/scs.html

Keep reading and encouraging others to do the same :)


A New Face of Evil
Essays by Bob Penny

from here:

A New Face of Evil
Essays by Bob Penny

Scientology represents itself publicly as a dedicated group of people trying to do something effective to improve the world. It may seem to be just another self-help or community action group, or perhaps just another bunch of nuts. None of these images is accurate.

Scientology is an unusual and dangerous kind of money-making machine. It represents L. Ron Hubbard's best efforts to find a social niche where his machine's uniquely predatory activities could be hidden from public view. That is why this money-making enterprise was set up as a "religion." Scientology has also tried to elude governmental jurisdictions by operating at sea and more recently on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma. The operation is divided into compartments so that even loyal members will not know the nature of activities carried out elsewhere in the organization. Much that was revealed in the June, 1990 Los Angeles Times, for example, was a shock to many Scientologists who truly knew nothing about the deceptive, coercive and illegal activities which are and always have been an integral part of their "church."

For whatever reasons, many people in our world are desperate to believe in something. Common sense can easily take a back seat to hopeful desire and wishful thinking; there is nothing new about a fool and his money being parted. That is not news.

What is new, is the emergence of large-scale organizations, using modern social science and business management methods, at least partially hidden from public accountability, designed to systematically exploit the weaknesses of troubled people and profit from them financially.

The prevalence of psychics, "channeling," and countless other "New Age" scams suggests that Americans have a large budget for fraud and are quite willing to spend money on unrequited hope. So this is not just a question of money. The problem, rather, is that Scientology is actively harmful to its participants, their families, and to the society at large.

To achieve large-scale recruitment and exploitation, and to enable continuance of such activity, the cult must avoid a public outcry. The victims must be silenced. The new wholesale-exploitation organizations accomplish this by manipulating their victims (with what has been called "mind control") so they acquire complicity in their own exploitation and become supportive of the exploiter.

At first glance this may sound unlikely or outrageous. But recall that battered women are notoriously loyal to their abusers, and often cling desperately to the hope that everything will change and come out for the best. A primary task of battered woman shelters and support groups is to break through this denial and help the woman face the fact that the abuser is in fact doing what he is doing. From there, recovery is possible.

The same psychological mechanisms that create loyalty in a battered woman, deliberately instilled, can make a cult victim loyal to the cult. Psychological manipulation at that level has evolved in recent decades, based on postWar research in social psychology, communist experiments in coercive "re-education," plus America's good old "Elmer Gantry" tradition. Your typical college freshman hasn't got a chance. With the victim thus made into a smiling captive, his exploitation can continue indefinitely.

The result of this transformation is a person psychologically unable to face basic facts of his or her own life. To evade unwanted truth, the person must seek refuge ever more deeply and exclusively in the exploitive group -- the only place where the shared lies and actual degradation will go unquestioned.

To preserve this vampirish relationship, fortunes are squandered, careers destroyed, educations abandoned, families torn apart, medical or psychological help neglected -- and the person deprived of the true rewards of life which are his or her just due.

There is no automatic or foolproof way out of this trap. The diverse life experience which ordinarily leads us from one situation to another is shut off or devalued in the one-dimensional cult environment.

"Psychological kidnapping" is not yet recognized as a crime by our legal system; it is instead the desperate parent who spirits away an adult child who may be judged guilty of a crime. The person imprisoned by "psychological kidnapping" -- like the battered woman -- may remain imprisoned for life.

This is harmful.

Not a familiar situation to most Americans -- like AIDS or child abuse, it is not pleasant to look at. We would rather not see such things or admit that our peaceful world contains them. But today, Scientology is running ads (for Dianetics) on nationwide TV and full-page public relations ads in USA Today. Derivative front groups such as Sterling Management are recruiting for Scientology with a nationwide "management training" come-on. Another Scientology front, called "Narconon," nearly got state accreditation to operate a "drug rehabilitation" facility in Oklahoma -- until exposed by the Cult Awareness Network, the National Commission Against Health Fraud, the Newkirk Herald Journal, and others.

Drug rehab is big business. If the Narconon facility had slipped through and received government funding, it might have become a major source of money for the cult and a nucleus for further growth based on the "legitimacy" of state accreditation. The fate of its victims would remain concealed behind cult-induced self-deception, as already occurs in Scientology "processing."

In drug rehab, an actual result is expected, not just public relations hype and "success stories." Despite Scientology's desperate efforts to evade scrutiny -- including personal harassment of Newkirk citizens and state officials -- the Oklahoma Board of Mental Health spent a year evaluating the actual results of the $21,000-per-patient (for the initial three-month program) "LRH Tech" at Narconon Chilocco and reached this conclusion: "The Board determines that the Narconon Program is not effective in the treatment of chemical dependency.... The Board concludes that the program offered by Narconon-Chilocco is not medically safe.... Certification is denied."

On the other hand, there is nothing so threatening to Scientology as an obviously successful psychiatric procedure. The cult's self-serving war against the psychiatric profession led, in 1991, to a public smear campaign against the anti-depressant medication, Prozac. From the April 19, 1991 Wall Street Journal:

"The public's fear of Prozac as a result of this campaign has itself become a potentially serious public health problem as people stay away from treatment," says Jerold Rosenbaum, a Harvard psychiatry professor.

Prozac was determined to be safe and effective by the FDA.

In management training or self-improvement, the "tech" is still the same bag of tricks -- but there is no FDA or Oklahoma Board of Mental Health.

We rely on caveat emptor ("street smarts") and the courts to police fraud. But it is hard to prove fraud when nothing concrete was promised in the first place, when the only substance was hard sell and elusive social pressures. And it is virtually impossible to recover damages from a wealthy and litigious "religion" whose modus operandi is to sue at the drop of a hat, intimidate dissent, and "trick, sue, lie to and destroy" anyone who antagonizes them.

Individual Scientologists rarely intend harm. But harm occurs because the fate of victims, and their actual needs, literally have no meaning within the shell of group-think. The "raw meat" is getting "LRH Tech" and that is good and sufficient -- by definition, without question or thought.

The problem is not bad people, but a powerful and insane group environment which uses deceptive and manipulative methods to induce people to do and believe things which they otherwise would not do or believe.

There are groups specialized to prey upon your hope, courage, loyalty, and desire for betterment. They get your attention any way they can. They create a social milieu which gradually and covertly seduces good people into agreeing among themselves on self-deceptions, so they come to believe themselves an elite in unique possession of all the right answers. The real result is dependence on the group and vulnerability to its control and exploitation.

That is what we mean by "cult." Further information is available from numerous books and from groups such as the Cult Awareness Network. This subject, which was a mystery to many in the early 1970s, is no mystery today. Information is widely and publicly available.

Margery Wakefield's book provides a basic description of Scientology. I will add here some explicitly personal opinions and interpretations, based on my thirteen years in that cult.

What Scientology Is: Clue #1

Many persons reading this book will trying to make sense of strange and unfamiliar behavior by friends or family members. They may feel -- since they have been told so -- that they "don't understand" and that they are doing something wrong.

So let me begin with a reassurance. If you know someone who has become associated with Scientology, it is not your imagination if you think you are seeing incredibly unthinking, uncaring, uninformed, belligerent, arrogant behavior from people you have good reason to believe know better.

A convenient symbol for this problem, one that you may have seen, is bumperstickers with slogans such as "DON'T LET THEM DRUG YOUR CHILDREN" and "PSYCHIATRY KILLS." Psychiatry certainly is not beyond reproach, but this is uninformed follow-the-leader behavior, attacking a large and heterogeneous group of people (as if they were all the same) merely because many of them are in a position to knowledgeably expose the cult's false and inflated claims. The point of such obviously mindless display is to force group members to isolate themselves from ordinary discourse and commit to a highly visible and belligerent stand with the group. Its audience is the group member more than the public.

This is one example of how Scientologists come to accept and act out the thought process exemplified by L. Ron Hubbard in his instructions on how to handle persons or groups, particularly the media, who disagree with or do not buy Scientology's hype -- who, characteristically, are labelled "enemies" in Scientology's private language.

Hubbard's instructions include:

... find or manufacture enough threat against them to sue for peace.... Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and discredit them.... Be very alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage.... The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.... Don't ever defend. Always attack.... [Enemies] may be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed.... If possible, destroy them utterly....

The books, articles and court cases on Scientology are replete with examples of how this advice has been followed. That is not our subject here. But Scientology's response to critical examination always has been to distract attention away from the issues and instead to smear and discredit opponents.

In other words, the arrogance, belligerence, and disregard for evidence that you observe are part of what Scientology is. They are part of how the individual is isolated from his past and made captive to the group. Those are not accidental failings or errors of lone individuals.

What Scientology Is: Clue #2

Now, let's connect the dots. What kind thought process do you suppose is required of the followers of Tom Metzger and his White Aryan Resistance (WAR) group, for them to be able to believe the myths of white supremacy -- which are no more ridiculous than Hubbard's statement that:

Psychs ... have been on the track a long time and are the sole cause of decline in this universe....

-- HCOB 12 August 1982

As neo-Nazis stir up hate against jews and blacks, Scientology advertises:

Get the standard Tech on how you can help obliterate Psychiatry.

-- from an ad for a CCHR conference on board a Scientology-owned ship, March 5-11, 1992

In both cases we see group-think producing an arrogant and unthinking disregard for evidence and facts, a diminution of individual judgment and responsibility -- which makes the group's propensity for belligerent attack all the more dangerous.

In 1950, in Dianetics, Hubbard wrote:

Perhaps at some distant date only the unaberrated person [i.e., Scientologist] will be granted civil rights before law.

Since early 1974, Scientology has had "concentration camps" for its internal dissidents -- euphemistically called the "Rehabilitation Project Force" or "RPF." Thus far, fortunately, the cult has lacked sufficient political power to enforce its "ethics" on a larger scale.

The pathetic irrelevance of this cult does not adequately indicate the danger it represents; it is not sufficient just to mutter something about "a fool and his money," and then go our own way. Scientology is one manifestation of a much larger wave of irrationality and influenced judgment.

German society, in the immediate pre-Nazi period, was obsessed with the occult. A prominent general promoted the worship of Odin. Heinrich Himmler, founder of the SS, thought of that group as an elite "religious brotherhood" of racial Aryans, intent on regaining the occult powers (OT abilities) of their ancestors. Today we have psychics, "channeling," Scientology (and other derivatives of satanism), the White Aryan Resistance, etc. -- a wide spectrum of abdicated reason, a reservoir of adrift irrationality ready to be mobilized by the next Fuhrer.

Remember that the Nazis too thought they were being loyal to their friends and family, and were building a better world. They too built their philosophy on a pseudoscience which could not be questioned and which justified atrocities. They did not "fear to hurt another in a just cause."

Persons adrift, anchored only to the group and its irrationality, are the actual product of Scientology.

What Scientology Is: Clue #3

In growing to be an adult, one learns not to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. One acquires "street smarts" and at least a street version of the legal concept of "due diligence." "Due diligence" is a basic level of adult responsibility; it means not being a sucker -- i.e., that you have exercised at least the most basic means of finding out if what you intend to do will have a satisfactory outcome. Checking a babysitter's references is an example of "due diligence." Failing to do so, for example by leaving your kid with a stranger at the airport, could be considered "negligence."

Subjective perception is notoriously unreliable. We all know that witnesses to an automobile accident often have different stories. We have heard the phrase "mob psychology." Many of us are at least passingly familiar with studies of perception and the effects of group influence.

Because subjective perception is susceptible to a such a variety of influences, "due diligence" is especially important when one's life, fortune and sacred honor will be critically affected by decisions based on subjective perception.

But how many people have sold or mortgaged their homes to give money to Scientology? How many have "disconnected" or withdrawn from friends or family because the other person was not sufficiently dedicated to the group? How many children have been short-changed because "clearing the planet" was a higher priority?

What level of adult responsibility, what "due diligence," stood behind those critical life decisions?

If a "Clear" had total recall and other abilities claimed by the Dianetics book, that fact would not be hard to prove to any skeptical observer. Every Scientologist in the world has had to learn to ignore the vast discrepancy between results claimed and what we actually can observe. The group-think offers the rationalization that Scientology is beneficial, even if not as claimed. But the obvious discrepancies and the facile group-think rationalizations are prima facie evidence that the substance of Scientology consists largely of mere group influence rather than effective procedures. Those things are suspicious and all the more cause for extraordinary "due diligence."

Do we observe such diligence among Scientologists? Quite the reverse -- and the fanaticism with which Scientology discourages due diligence should raise further suspicion, in the conscientious person, of a fraudulent and predatory nature of that group.

In Scientology, as in other cults, group pressures overwhelm the individual's desire and ability to exercise due diligence. Not only will cult members not explore the group's references and bona fides, but they will shut out and refuse to listen to information that is prepared and presented to them. Very few Scientologists know any of the books or other materials about Scientology that have appeared over the past two decades.

Scientology brands dissenting material with the generic label "entheta" which means, in reality, "something you will have to confess that you read" (on a security check in auditing). That can lead to lengthy and expensive corrective actions and loss of status in the group. To avoid such discomforts, one learns habits of self-censorship -- and that is the end of "due diligence."

When "entheta" is encountered, in newspapers, magazines, or in conversation, the group member learns mechanisms for shutting it out by myriad tricks of looking elsewhere or blanking the mind -- for example, by discrediting the source of information because "they don't have the tech," i.e., they don't know the fairy-tale "secrets of the universe" that are taught on OT III.

My personal favorite definition of a Scientologist is "someone who can no longer tell the difference," i.e., a person comfortably habituated to the lies, whose personal defenses against non-group ideas are in order, who can sell the cult line with a straight face.

Let me say this differently: a Scientologist is one who has learned to be negligent (an acquired ignorance) in his or her application of due diligence as regards the group affiliation.

The result is families, fortunes and lives squandered "negligently" by people who should know better.

What Scientology Is: Clue #4

I remember a time not long before I graduated from high school, in the days when I was reading The Organization Man, Theory of the Leisure Class, The True Believers and such books. I remember writing myself a note, sort of a "time capsule," to check at intervals throughout my life. The intention was that I identify and compare the changing social influences in my life, and assess how their influence had changed since the last "checkpoint." The idea was to stay aware of my position vis-a-vis such influences, and not unconsciously drift away from my own values and purposes.

Of course that paper has long since vanished. I remember it, though, as an early and valid expression of a central value in my life: to see clearly. My attitude was and is that our challenge is to gain the greatest possible understanding of life's situation in the time available and that delusion does not further this goal.

In other words, I am not temperamentally suited to be a cult member. It took an extraordinary situation in my life to get me attached to Scientology in the first place, and there was no way I could survive as myself for very long in that sea of hype and false promises. Within the cult, there is no way to see clearly. It is not possible. The noise level (suggestions, evaluations, flattery, hard sell, etc.) deliberately make it impossible because one who sees clearly would not remain captive to the group.

I am trying to describe a kind of religious experience or desire. I have never described this before and I am not good at it. Words such as "centered" hint at it. It requires quiet. The best description I know comes from a quite different context.

In the 1930s, James Agee, a New York intellectual, and photographer Walker Evans, were sent to do a magazine story on sharecroppers in the south. Agee went to Alabama and was totally out of place. He seemed not to know where he was or why. The resulting book, called Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, became a somewhat self-conscious and tedious examination of his process of observing where he was and why.

But Agee was a writer, and the book contains this remarkable description of something that occurred along the way. He was staying in a sharecropper's dirt-floor shack, it was late at night and he couldn't sleep. He got up and sat at the bare-board table.

The light in this room is of a lamp. Its flame in the glass is of the dry, silent and famished delicateness of the latest lateness of the night, and of such ultimate, such holiness of silence and peace that all on earth and within extremest remembrance seems suspended upon it in perfection as upon reflective water: and I feel that if I can by utter quietness succeed in not disturbing this silence, in not so much as touching this plain of water, I can tell you anything within realm of God, whatsoever it my be, that I wish to tell you, and that what so ever it may be, you will not be able to help but understand it.
-- Houghton Mifflin paperback edition, 1980, p. 51

That is what Scientology prevents.

Whatever spiritual growth may mean, Scientology distracts from it and misdirects the person's aspirations into unknowing complicity with its own predatory and satanic purposes -- which perhaps are best described in Hubbard's own "affirmations": "Men are your slaves," and "You can be merciless whenever your will is crossed and you have the right to be merciless."

Scientologists were to be Hubbard's golem. A term more often used today is "Rondroid."

The product of Scientology is disruption of quiet and replacement of the person's "center" with group pressure and a babble of hype designed to go in endless circles that lead only back into the group. There is no "tech." There are only acceptable and salable concepts, such as looking up words in a dictionary, which are given a false source and made to be part of the trap. Life is captured and sold back to the person as an expensive group-sponsored imitation of life. For example, the reality of shared emotion is misdirected by cult definition to give an illusion of substance to a group-owned imitation of spiritual growth. The real thing is thereby displaced and prevented. (The subject of "imitation" is also discussed by Robert Kaufman elsewhere in this volume.)

Loss of one's "center," of one's life, of real personal growth, is the most intimate personal cost of cult servitude, more so even than the trashed families and other costs which are easier to identify and describe.

Former Scientologist Roxanne Friend, though diagnosed with a terminal cancer which went untreated while in Scientology, said on the Sally Jessy Raphael show:

I can honestly tell you my life is happier now. I feel more joy. I have a life now, and I did not have a life for thirteen years.

What Scientology Is: Clue #5

One of the most painful moments in my life was watching a person I knew well, and cared for, dissected and manipulated by a team of Scientology registrars (salesmen trained in "hard sell").

It was a pretty easy sell, no particular challenge for the registrars. My friend was not in a very stable position, unresolved personal issues having been evaded for several years by flight into Scientology with its promised "way out" and convenient excuses for avoiding actual confrontation of mental health issues.

My own position was untenable, no angel myself, with personal and family connections binding me to the hope that Scientology would provide common ground for communication. I was still willing to try and therefore not positioned to make an clean break. I was easy to neutralize.

The encounter began with routine discussion of various topics during which the registrars assessed the situation and reached the conclusions I just described. (I say they reached those conclusions because they acted on them.) Clearly, my friend was the target, not me. I just had to be kept out of the way.

They used the most obvious tricks: gross flattery, "love bombing," unsubstantiated assertions and asserted agreements -- which my friend could not question without upsetting the flattery-relation. It was like watching an automobile accident in slow motion, each detail so clear and seemingly so inevitable. She offered no resistance; in retrospect the event suggests a battered woman's loyalty to the perpetrator of violence or a kidnap victim's desperate identification with the power figure. This was the first time I had witnessed such blatant contempt for another person's integrity; the registrars flaunted their control of my friend, with little sneers to indicate they understood my helplessness.

I do not understand how one human being can take such crass and blatant advantage of another, but then I've led a sheltered life. The performance was without shame except my own. I was ashamed that anyone would see my friend in such a degraded condition, much more exposed and helpless than if she were naked. I was ashamed to have witnessed it myself. I was ashamed to be in any way associated with people who would do such a thing. I was witnessing a rape, with my friend as captive, smiling, robotic "participant," helpfully insisting that everything was her own free decision. I do not know what depth of past pain made this seem an acceptable alternative in her life. I could do or say nothing; she was responding to each ploy predictably and obediently as though programmed in advance. I had watched the programming.

And that was only the beginning.

I was not yet sufficiently neutralized. There remained a possibility that I might later disrupt this corruption of a human person which the registrars had accomplished. They would not stay to defend their handiwork so she would have to do it for them.

The solution was simply to get my friend so closely identified with the evening's events that I could not challenge those events without seeming to attack my friend -- a typical Scientology misdirection, seemingly second nature to the registrars, who showed no hesitation. Also, there were Scientology "reinforcements" available locally to attack me directly if I stepped out of line.

Here's how it was done. My friend had wanted to do something for me, so the registrars told her what "I needed." Without questioning their assertions, she heroically rose to the challenge of accomplishing what "I needed." That commitment bound her to the event. The registrars told her over and over how heroic and noble she was for doing this wonderful thing "for me."

The situation was designed to shut me up. I could do nothing but agree without inviting retribution and casting myself in the role of ungrateful cad. That would have accomplished nothing. There was no way she could have listened.

Now in fact, my friend had known me for years. The lack of benefit from any previous Scientology actions, and my increasing discomfort, were there for anyone to see. No one who knew me well could be unaware that Scientology and I were a marriage made in Hell. What I desperately needed was help getting out of the cult and back in touch with my own life. At a much later time this same friend observed, but without understanding the cause, that I was "dead." And she was right. My inability to face the truth and act effectively, on that occasion, was a personal failure of major proportion which left a deep guilt that I carried for years. I was near to being able to face the truth, but not quite; I did not understand the tricks of mind control.

For my friend to believe that what was being done was "for me" required eliminating any perception or understanding of who I was. That was understood quite well by the registrars, and accomplished with an authoritative, straight-in-the-eyes hypnotic command to my friend that the "real" me wanted what they said, and that whatever I said was not really me but just my "case." Once that shift of perception was implanted by Hard Sell, I became effectively invisible to my friend. In one sense, that was a murder, it made me into a non-person.

Such interrupted human contact is central to Scientology's mind control. Just as jews were "subhuman" to the Nazis, their human concerns invisible and irrelevant, so "case" served the same purpose here. The group's asserted reality replaced the actual human reality. The person to whom this was done (my friend) thereby became in fact unable to face the actual person (me) and -- the other side of the same coin -- unable to face what she actually had done. She then had nowhere to go but deeper into the group. She became all the more captive, forced to defend the mutual self-deceptions which maintained the cult relationship, as if her very identity depended on it -- which, of course, it did.

Although I did not know it then, that misdirection was effectively to end our friendship. Real human contact was impossible thereafter, in either direction.

This is the level on which Scientology's manipulation operates. It is not the sort of thing we like to talk about, and probably not very pleasant to read. The unspeakably personal pain of such events shields the cult from public exposure of its real nature and activity. No one wants to admit they've seen such things, much less talk about them.

But the shell of silence is crumbling. As with survivors of sexual abuse, a fast-growing number of people are becoming willing to speak out about Scientology, to tell what they have seen, making it more possible for these things to be known and understood. I am standing on the shoulders of many such people.

What To Do About It

It is hard to imagine how Germans could have remained unaware of what was happening in their country in the 1930s, but familiarity with cult phenomena makes it more believable that they were, in fact, literally unaware. The necessary information was available -- but unseen. The cult model -- human reality made invisible, subordinate to the endless greed of an insane group -- shows clearly how the same sort of thing could happen again. But we can defend ourselves and those we love.

Attacking the neo-Nazis, Scientology, and other cults is not the answer -- though this can be greatly beneficial as an educational endeavor. An irrationality suppressed just goes underground and spreads. And our own freedoms require that the cults be unfettered, because we can not abridge their freedoms of speech and association without endangering our own.

What we can do is exercise our own freedom of speech. We can fight Scientology's attempts to use intimidation and harassment to silence us. We can expose their crimes and deceptions -- in the courts, in the media and in our communities.

But that is only the start of an answer, because Scientology is only a symptom of the problem. Why do people who would not buy the Brooklyn Bridge buy Scientology? Or any other cult? Or any of the white supremacist-neo-Nazi groups? Or the suicidal loyalties of street gangs? What is missing from our basic "street smarts?"

What is missing, is a basic understanding of the social world in which we live, its basic geography and survival skills. Cult recruitment should be as transparent to any streetwise high school kid as any other con game that seeks to manipulate his loyalty, to exploit his person, labor, or money.

We study "American Government" in high school, but we neglect social psychology, the role of groups in our lives, and their effects. We study "General Science," but how many of us acquired a good understanding of what science is, the scientific method, how to lie with statistics, or how to recognize nonsense? Perhaps the most important thing we can do is encourage and promote such education.

We can educate ourselves. What are cults? How do they operate? What else (such as the White Aryan Resistance) operates in a similar manner? How can "cognitive dissonance" affect our perceptions? What is wrong with anecdotal evidence, or "scientific discoveries" that can be known or applied only within the confines of a single group?

We can speak. Loudly. We can work with our schools and churches to strengthen our "street smarts" and bring about an awareness of these vital matters -- and to find better, more real, answers to the genuine human needs which cults exploit.

A moment ago I used a polemical phrase, "an insane group." That phrase does mean something; we have numerous examples. Some studies of management have made a start, but we really do not have yet, in the social sciences, a proper definition or theory to encompass this portion of the social reality that we experience. That work is yet to be done.

Most immediately, we must recognize the reality of "undue influence" or whatever you want to call it, and work within the legal system to find fair and humane ways to offer alternatives to those who are "stuck in a sticky group." It will not do just to blame the victim, saying that it was his fault or weakness or decision. People do not ask to be raped or choose to join destructive cults.

Let's not just let the rape go on, and later say that in ignorance we did not know what was happening.

Bob Penny was in Scientology for 13 years. He wrote Social Control in Scientology: A look at the methods of entrapment, which was published in the same volume with Margery Wakefield's The Road to Xenu.


Scientology Auditing and Its Offshoots
by Robert Kaufman

from here:

Scientology Auditing and Its Offshoots
by Robert Kaufman

L. Ron Hubbard raised Scientology from Dianetics' ashes with the aid of a device that tracks electrical resistance on skin surfaces of the "auditee's" hands during sessions. Hubbard claimed that E-meter "reads" confirmed his notions about events, images and words making up a destructive mind he called the "bank." In the auditing procedure, the readings are supposed to signify the presence and dispersal of "charge" present in the events and other "bank" material. The meter not only keeps the processing on course but also verifies the results.

Hubbard framed his theories and method in terms that thwart comparison with the rest of the world. However, we find ready comparison between the E-meter -- a biofeedback device, the tangible element in a wash of intangibility -- and the assortment of biofeedback devices used outside Scientology to monitor physiologic functions such as brainwave frequency, pulse rate and finger temperature. The readings of the non-Scientology instruments are interpreted only to the extent that their signals (dial needle, flashing light or humming tone) are deemed to indicate moment-to-moment change in a favorable or unfavorable direction.

No doubt the auditee gets "passing" and "non-passing" readings. These reflect the rise and fall of tension, and the underlying composite of mental, physical and emotional forces. A person hypothetically "wearing" biofeedback equipment through the day would get a similar variety of readings, including the equivalents of "baseline," "rising needles," "blowdowns," and "free," "floating" and "clean needles." The readings would reflect, in part, his reaction to being on the device, i.e., to situation.

Incentive, a sense of positive purpose, tends to generate the positive type of emotion that produces favorable physiologic change and improved readings. This is precisely the working principle of biofeedback training, where the trainee's object might be to slow brainwave frequency to alpha, or raise finger temperature, for health or meditation purposes. His incentive directs him to the desired result.

Incentive, of course, is also the major part of learning to pass a lie-detector test. The lie-detector is an array of biofeedback devices that supply simultaneous readings. Clearly, the very principle that makes biofeedback training possible, and useful, makes lie-detector test results inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings: One may beat the machine.

No special magic makes Scientology biofeedback different from "wog" (non-Scientology) biofeedback. Human emotion doesn't take a holiday during an auditing session. The auditee brings his hopes and dreams to the session. His prime incentive, to succeed at auditing, is channeled through the inculcation of "stable data," "R-factor," and his own auditing experience. The regimen instills how auditing is supposed to go, what should happen, and what is expected of him. He is deluged with suggestion, and may even glean the nature of his forthcoming insights from descriptions in Hubbard's writings and the "Bridge" chart, or simply from the name of the process.

The auditee begins to associate his success with the indoctrination; following the program becomes his prime incentive. When he does as Hubbard tells him he feels positive. Compliance is then reward in itself.

The auditee's motivation to get favorable readings is tremendous. With each floating needle he is closer to his shining goal. He is probably unaware that he can control the meter. In any case he wouldn't want to, for that would defeat the assumed purpose of auditing. Here emerges one of Scientology's strange contradictions: The auditee, following his natural instincts once he's on the machine, controls it anyway -- and neither he nor the auditor knows he's doing it.

To begin with, the auditee has access to the running supply of machine-generated information that constitutes biofeedback -- directly, if he is self-auditing, otherwise in the form of cues given him by his auditor. His intellect may not register this information, but his body does. He soon learns to identify a certain special feeling with end of "cycle" or process. His inner sense learns what produces a floating needle. Also what doesn't -- as when the auditor merely acknowledges and repeats the question or instruction. At some point he experiences a subtle sense of prediction about floating needles. Again, this is not his wish to influence or control the needle, but out of a feeling of accomplishment (Certainty On The Data) wedded to compliance, as well as what body-mind physiology has learned about biofeedback.

Meeting Hubbard more than halfway and complying with the program creates another conflict, strange, too, in that it contradicts Hubbard's avowed focal intention: bring to awareness and confront. The auditing situation induces non-confrontation. Avoiding more than cursory probing of his real-life trouble spots is the auditee's most efficient tactic to get him through the process to success. Repression (what Hubbard may have meant by "non-confront," "overwhelm," "unawareness," "lack of responsibility") is, of course, an unconscious mechanism. When a loaded area looms threateningly near, the auditee's inner antennae start to twitch (in psychotherapy called "defenses" or "resistance"). He may easily evade confrontation by a diversionary maneuver such as "going to an earlier incident," preferably a "past life" -- which he probably knows he is expected to deal with at some point, if not actually directed to. The auditee thus favors Hubbard, while giving short shrift to his own material, his true access to valuable discovery.

He is rewarded for this evasion. At the very least he will be acknowledged. If he has an insight, it is not discussed or questioned, but assumed automatically true and beneficial (and, again, he may have "selected" the insight from foreknowledge). If he "cleans the needle," a substantial reward is imminent, end of process and a new grade. This is likely. His defenses proved successful; his relief at manipulating the situation, and the auditor, conduces to a "clean." The machine is still God, and God is on his side. Wog emotion blows off a ton of charge with Good Indicators In.

Constant small rewards that "free up" the needle include, besides acknowledgment, non-judgmental attention and strong eye contact -- especially from an attractive auditor. Earthly incentives -- status in the group, and less cash outlay for auditing time, for example -- make quick progress through the process additionally compelling, and nudge the needle in the right direction. The auditee also has added incentive to "clean" when he is tired, bored, feels he has done enough or covered the material before, or runs out of responses. "Certainty" and a predictable floating needle get him on to the next episode -- rewardingly.

The stylized auditing communication ensures that the auditee avoids confrontation, cuts corners and hastens through the process. The communication is new and different. The "comm cycle" exchange is worlds apart from conversation or discussion; his responses are "computations," little more than meter readings, unquestioned, unchallenged and unanalyzed. The auditee operates in a vacuum. Essentially he talks to himself.

He is only doing what he is supposed to do: tense up a bit on new material, then relax ("restim/destim"). The auditor has no way of testing the auditee's decision to "clean"; he cannot read minds with his machine, and must not "evaluate" or "invalidate" by asking, for instance, "Could that floating needle merely indicate your eagerness to pass the grade?"

Nothing, then, prevents the auditee from responding to questions, and "reading" and "cleaning," as his inner sense mandates -- as long as he "meets Hubbard" and gets through the process. He has the information, the opportunity and the inducement to rapidly ascend the various stages, methodically skirting pertinent inner data, while receiving plaudits for unearned abilities and achievements. This transaction revolves not around the "bank" but around the auditee's feelings about his situation, a situation that happens to include a presumed "bank." The "charge" is not bank, but about bank.

Hubbard said: "The E-meter is never wrong. It sees all, knows all." In the real world, auditor and auditee sit to either side of the machine -- arbiter, overseer, dispenser of judgments and gifts -- neither aware that the session phenomena and effects demonstrate not Scientology but human psychology, that Hubbard's truth is not necessarily the auditee's truth, and that they are playing a game of let's pretend -- in Hubbard's language, a "mockup."

Dianetics -- whence it all began -- was Hubbard's distortion of abreaction ("reliving") therapy, which had helped war casualties, and whose proponents made no universal claims. Disbelievers in Dianetics found numerous flaws. Hubbard's mind model adheres to the ancient morality play, Good versus Evil (Hubbard focused on "bad mind," and said next to nothing about "good mind"). The book Dianetics is a flamboyant assertion of truth on word of authority (in later years, self-proclaimed "Source"), written in a self-enclosing language, for example, "clear" used as a noun and meaningful only in Hubbard's context of other self-enclosing terms. The Dianetics theory makes no allowance for vast realms of mental-emotional phenomena. The method had no lasting success, and proved dangerous for certain individuals.

Dianetics auditing produced no "clears" worthy of the name, and its inventor had financial and organizational troubles with the Dianetics movement. The unstoppable Hubbard solved the problem by creating Scientology, an exclusive enterprise he styled a religion, through which he maintained absolute control over funds, facilities, personnel and procedures; claimed church tax deductions; distracted from the failed Dianetics with metaphysics, the paranormal, and a method that now dealt with past lifetimes, damaging word patterns, and space dramas of "entities" and "implants"; declared "reliving" unnecessary with the advent of a device that refereed the struggle with "bad mind."

In short, Scientology was Hubbard's way to capitalize on Dianetics. The E-meter was instrumental (pun intended) in the transition, since it could be "scientifically" linked with concept, method, and the spirit, or "thetan."

The E-meter was, and is, an innocent victim. Hubbard's basic confusion was his identification of a machine with his already-shaky Dianetics mind-model. Meter readings are equated with solid and persisting "bank." Subjective thought content -- meaning, significance, connection, value -- is reduced to "quantities" of objective mental content -- electricity, or "charge" -- which in turn is equated with a bounded, finite quantity of "bank" content. In other words,
Content (1) = Content (2) = Content (3),

where each "content" is in fact something quite different in nature from the other "contents" -- a case of equating apples, oranges and pears. Premised on these faulty relationships, favorable E-meter readings are then identified with truth, existence, reality, abilities and achievements, and spiritual revelation.

Ironically, Alfred Korzybski, whom Hubbard cited as one of his intellectual mentors, devoted his lifework in General Semantics to uprooting spurious identifications. If Korzybski had known Hubbard's particular equation, and had had reason to believe (as I think he would have) that its elements, most notably the "bank," were wishfully imagined as well as falsely linked, he might have coined his own word for Hubbard's kind of reasoning.

Scientology, like much other dogma, seeks to fit everything into its system, relying upon its followers' perceiving the world within a contrived context. Common properties are interpreted as Scientologic phenomena.

The auditee is programmed to identify his experience with Hubbard's drama, and arm-twisted ("What gains?") into attributing his positive states to auditing and to nothing else -- when in fact he never lacked native ability to achieve his goals without auditing. Hubbard's glittering promises -- communication, awareness, higher states of being -- are the auditee's rightful possession, and always were. During processing, the glittering promises manifest as imitations of a constructive life process. Imitations, suggestions, rewards and hidden incentives deceive the auditee into thinking that Scientology reveals to him his own truth.

The repeated questions and acknowledgments provoke the auditee's borderline-of-consciousness thoughts, and movement and flow in his responses. Awareness of thoughts as "things" enhances movement of thought. In this respect, auditing is a listing, or itemizing, of the auditee's thoughts. Objectification of thought is, in itself, a constructive pattern; awareness of thought movement allows detachment from "items" in the mental stream.

The problem is auditing's straight-jacketing format. The objectification is not really "objective," since thought is erroneously reduced to the common denominator of "charge." Moreover, movement of thought is valuable when it is freely expressed, not stopped by floating needles or other rewards, and when it is augmented by the very elements that Scientology rejects for a "quantitative" approach: the individual's meanings, emotions, connections, comparisons, observations of his own "process" and formulation of his own principles.

Insight also becomes an imitation: "cognition." In the English language, cognition is the act, process or faculty of knowing or perceiving. In "Scientologese," it is not "cognition" but "a cognition," again a quantity or thing. Insight is not an end in itself, but an increment in a creative thought-stream, while "a cognition" is a reward, a stopping point. The auditee begins to view his insights as a Scientology property, and express them in Hubbard's terminology.

Cognition stoppage is well illustrated by the service facsimile. The auditee attains his "release" with a sentence or two, and leaves session believing that in the space of a few hours he has unearthed and left far behind a deep-seated mechanism. If the service facsimile is a truly "serviceable" idea, the arrived-at statement is an invitation to self-discovery -- an invitation, however, that the rewarded and "stopped" auditee never receives.

A cognition may be delusory. The auditee feels gratified that he has resolved a problem and gained an ability -- but this was merely suggestion confirmed by the meter. The problem resolved may never have existed for him, and the ability gained he may always have possessed.

Ex-members have observed, accurately, that auditing gives the auditee biofeedback training. In legitimate training, prompting favorable readings is regarded as a knack, not a science. The knack has been described as "letting go of thought and effort." This is exactly what the auditee does -- for whatever reason -- but he is not aware of his skill, let alone of its plausible consequences.

A confluence of forces signals the moment that everything comes together for the auditee. Something gives him a pleasurable reading. His linkage of physical and mental effect compounds the pleasure, and he gets a "high" that he attributes to Hubbard's "tech." This "confirmation" intensifies the feeling. He may experience such moments in session or afterwards. They are really the auditee's worst moments, for he then relinquishes his reality to others, and may remain convinced that he owes his beautiful moments to Scientology and will only recapture them through further auditing.

The cognitive scramble embodying "the moment" is the gateway to a topsy-turvy world where reward is self-knowledge, stoppage is flow, automaticity is communication, judgement is non-evaluation, passivity is responsibility, and slavery is freedom.

The guru dreams up something insidious, then promises to make it vanish -- usually at cost. Hubbard revealed his contempt for his followers most explicitly in his Brave New World bulletins and money-grubbing advertisements. He also gave it away in "jokes": "thetan," which sounds like "satan" with a swish; the planet "Arcelysus," in a confidential bulletin, pronounced "arse lickers." Sinister clues appear in the advanced stages. The big cognition on Power Processing is "I am (a) source." But Hubbard is "Source." Subsuming others in one's own personality is a black magic goal, and Hubbard's twist may have been inspired by the whimsical English black magician Alistair Crowley, a Hubbard role-model in the 1940s. The theme develops on the Clearing Course, where "the preclear spots the thetan." To the conditioned follower, steeped in "as-ising something away," spotting the thetan is self-erasure.

Hubbard created Dianetics/Scientology only for his own advancement. His method for eradicating the world's ills is a conditioning system that herds members through a never-ending, increasingly-expensive series of tension/relaxation rituals, with results signifying only the auditee's belief in Scientology, and of little meaning in the outside world. Hubbard's script is foreordaining and self-confirming. The auditee is prodded to rather effortlessly win a succession of prizes, the greatest one always somewhere in the offing. The system is rigged to hook him and keep him on "maintenance," waiting for his next "fix."

Scientology auditing has also been likened to hypnotism. The auditor's eyelock and repetitious pronouncements are hypnotic. "Start," "End of process," and "That's it" forcibly separate the auditee from his other life, and demark his impressionable, or altered, state. On the Clearing Course, "spotting the light" is trance-inducing, like the hypnotist's candle.

Contradictions such as I've described above, and an abusive organization, explain Scientology's high attrition rate. The defector must have wondered at some point, What does this have to do with my life? Seemingly minor discrepancies did not go unnoticed by the then-member, and may have been his first glimmer of light. Former members have mentioned their bemusement at "false," or "session," reads. It was one thing to stretch, shuffle feet or get sweaty palms, but if all one had to do to "read" or "clean" was let one's mind wander, the fabric began to show its patches. Scientologists would not agree that anomalies or defects in the meters may influence the session. Yet members have heard of, or themselves experienced, mock horror stories of an undercharged machine holding the auditee in limbo for hours.

Older material comes back with reads; "bypassed charge" must be eliminated; there is much concern about "Keeping In Gains" -- for gains may be lost. Reason: No "quantity" of charge was ever dispersed. The gains were illusory. The ex-member again faces the unwanted emotions that Scientology claimed to free him of. Only in the group was he able to have "gains" -- by submerging his problems (it is a truism that the follower may replace all his old problems with one enormous new one). When odd reads occurred, he needed a Good Auditor.

The Good Auditor is warm, sympathetic and "validating," with a flair beyond the regimented auditing communication -- hardly the impartial recorder of computations; rather, a Certainty-bolstering personality especially desired for review sessions. The Good Auditor is yet another contributor to floating needles, and another contradiction of Hubbard's auditing method.

Will Rogers said: "It ain't what don't know but what we know that ain't so that gives us trouble." To which eminent therapist Milton Erickson added: "The things that we know but don't know we know give us even more trouble."

The auditee makes a pact with himself, and with his auditor, not to ask too many questions. He blunts his reasoning faculties so he will not know what he might know if he ever looked. When things stop going well, he squelches his doubts about Hubbard, Scientology and auditing. This holds severe penalties, for he must continue to seek solution in Scientology, where his identification with "case" smacks of hypochondria. His fate hinges on "finding the right item" in review sessions or further processing.

Perception of the world in Scientology terms may stay with the member after he leaves the group. He is tied to the experience by invisible threads (in Arthur Lokos' words), and harbors lingering seeds of concept and terminology, say, of "bank," "keying in," "blowing charge." He is not aware of how this may be affecting his life.

Many ex-members blame the organization for everything wrong with Scientology, and continue to extol "Tech." They have yet to deal conclusively with the cognitive scramble. Deeper understanding will enable them to break cleanly at last.

Understanding will also help towards an assessment of the various offshoots of Hubbard's procedure.

Splinter group and "squirrel" practices have been a tradition almost from the moment Hubbard entered the mental-spiritual marketplace. The practitioners have vested emotional and financial interest in auditing -- or by whatever name. Some of them would still be in Scientology if they hadn't suffered a "purge" several years ago.

"Squirrels" simply repeat the auditing exercise away from the stifling organization. Splinter practitioners, similarly, regard Hubbard as a great benefactor who at some point took the wrong turning. They entertain theories as to where the breech occurred, and alter "Tech" in aid of finding the right path.

Splinterers may de-emphasize the "bank" or Hubbard's science fiction incidents of duress. Or they may adopt a sophisticated approach: Hubbard's creations are not taken literally, but represent disparate aspects of the psyche. The value of the procedure would be in enhancing the auditee's ability to "move mental masses," whether real or imaginary, mocking them up and releasing them -- in line with New Age as well as Hubbardian doctrine: "Things are as you consider them to be. You create your own universe."

The splinterer may refer to past lives as "karma," a bow to Eastern philosophy. Or he may pinpoint the client's "belief system," using the E-meter as a divining rod.

Whatever ties the splinter practice to Scientology -- and by definition there is something that does -- perpetuates error. Hubbard's old habits are contagious. The splinterer's thrust remains Hubbard's thrust: Get the client to have blowdowns and completed process. The danger lies in disjointed cause-and-effect. If the client feels good about something and has a blowdown, it's because of the method. To question this connection risks undermining the practice.

Splinterers who employ the meter are hard put to avoid the situations mentioned earlier. Meter performance dominated their Scientology experience, and will dominate their clients' experience to the extent that the readings are interpreted. But how can they not be interpreted in a Hubbard-derived system -- for example, through division of the procedure into a "curriculum" of stages or levels that impose a structure of interpretation on the client? (Scientologists, when apprised of the resemblance between the lie-detector and the E-meter as used in "sec checking," have called the meter a "truth-detector." However, the "truth-detecting," whether in or out of Scientology, is not, after all, done by the device but by those who "interpret" it.)

The most pervasive element, the core of "Tech," is the process itself, a set of specific steps towards a specific end result. No doubt what attracts people to Scientology -- and, likely, to splinter practices also -- is the notion that by sitting at a table, gripping a tin can in each hand and responding to prepared lists of questions, they will gain great, or transcendent, benefit.

Hubbard's Technology of Mind and Spirit is a travesty on spiritual endeavor. Putting it more charitably to those who would improve on Hubbard, it is far from the best we are capable of.

The splinter group may specialize in speeding the recovery of ex-Scientologists. A noble motive. However, the client might recover more fully through an understanding of processing and the E-meter than through further exposure.

Martin Gardner wrote in 1952, in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science: "Of all the defenses which can be made of Dianetics, the defense that `it works' is the most irrelevant ... because in the curing of neurotic symptoms anything in which a patient has faith will work. Such cures are a dime a dozen. The case histories of Dianetics are not one whit more impressive than the hundreds of testimonials to be found in Young Perkins' book on the curative power of his father's metallic tractors. They prove that Dianetics can operate on some patients as a form of faith healing. They prove nothing more."

Hubbard talked little about "faith" and "belief." He used the words "Knowingness" and "Certainty." They all mean the same.

It scarcely matters whether Hubbard's ideas were totally wrong or touched upon truth. He used them as snares. His was the common game of wealth, power, manipulation -- "for the good of humanity."

Hubbard undeniably had great talent; some would call it genius. He led an extremely active life, and met his goals except for one, emotional comfort -- for which his wealth and power could only substitute. Dianetics/Scientology was to be his cure, but it didn't work. He fell victim to the delusions he fostered in others, and it is known that, right up to his demise or shortly before, he audited himself, or was audited, on his pack of "creatures." Perhaps he, and "they," should be put to rest.

Robert Kaufman wrote the first published disclosure of Scientology's "secret processes," Inside Scientology (Olympia Press, 1972).



From "The Aberee", Dec 1961

I'M GOING to try to tell something of "Excalibur" - as much as I remember, without having the manuscript by me. If its author, L. Ron Hubbard, told me the truth, I am the first person to read "Excalibur". If it is true that the first half dozen who read it went crazy, then I've been crazy for a long time and I just haven't gotten caught at it. There is some question as to whether there was such a manuscript, but I assure you there was, and probably still is, somewhere. It was a source of considerable disappointment to Ron Hubbard that he didn't get it published.

I think the time was about mid-1938 - maybe a little earlier, May or June. I had known Ron off and on for six or seven years. We 'd gone thru part of the depression together; he came to New York from his home near Seattle, Wash. I had met his first wife, Polly, and both his parents.

I 'd read a lot of material by Ron, and didn't especially like it - and he'd read a lot of material by me and didn't particularly like it. I wouldn't say we were very close friends, but I knew him, I guess, as well as anybody. For instance, I knew Ron was a night owl - he'd sleep all day and work all night - and didn't pay any attention to your working hours at all He was apt to call you at 4 o'clock in the morning and hold you in conversation for an hour or more until you felt like you could break his neck. Then he'd pull down all the curtains and sleep all day.

Ron called me one day - the strange thing about this was that he called during the day - and said, "I want to see you right away. I have written THE book." I never saw anybody so worked up - and he was disturbed over a lot of angles. Apparently, he started to write the book, and had written it without sleeping, eating, or anything else - and had himself literally worked to a frazzle.

He was so sure he had something "away out and beyond" anything else that he had sent telegrams to several book publishers, telling them that he had written "THE book" and that they were to meet him at Penn Station, and he would discuss it with them and go with whomever gave him the best offer.

Whether he actually did this or not, I don't know, but it is right in line with something he would do. For example, Ron would send stories to various magazines without a return address (and if you know anything about the publishing business you could know how this would irritate people), and then call up and ask for a report on it.

He used very heavy paper, which made it very expensive to mail stuff, and he'd mail his manuscripts, not in professional envelopes, but say in a light blue one so that it would stand out from the others.

Also, he was a little careless occasionally - and his stuff needed editing, but he didn't want anybody to edit it. He had a lot of odd ideas about writing. For example, he didn't feel he had to write a certain stint, so when he would do a manuscript, he wouldn't number the pages - just pile them up beside his typewriter. Thus he couldn't see how much he had done so might kid himself into doing 13 pages when he only intended to do 10.

He didn't number the pages until he finished, and then he'd number them in pencil.

Going back to "The Book", I don't remember how long it was. It probably was under 70,000, which is considered an average book.

He told me what he wanted to do with it - it was going to revolutionize everything: the world, people's attitudes toward one another. He thought it was somewhat more important, and would have a greater impact upon people, than the Bible.

After I'd read the manuscript, we got to arguing over different titles. I asked him what he wanted to accomplish. He wanted to make changes. He wanted to reach inside people and really work them over, and he had to have a title that would be attractive. I am the one who suggested "Excalibur", because Excalibur was King Arthur's sword. This had a certain mystical meaning that suited Ron, and so "The Book" became "Excalibur".

As I remember "Excalibur", it started - in the introduction only - with a king who got all his wise men together and told them to prepare and bring to him all the wisdom of the world contained in 500 books. In the course of time, they succeeded, and the king was very pleased and said so. Then he told them to go away and cut down these 500 books into 100 books. It took them a bit longer this time, but they did it and came back and insisted all the wisdom of the world was contained in these 100 books. He said, "Now, do it over again, and bring it to me in one book."

This was quite a trick, but they did it, and came back some years later and they had, indeed, reduced all the wisdom of the world into one book.

Then he really gave them an assignment. He said, "Now go away and bring to me all the wisdom of the world in one word."

What was the one word? I don 't know how many times we argued, Ron and I, to discover what this one word was. It may have been the creative fiat, it might have just been the word "Be", it might have been the word "Survive". I don't think we ever settled it. But the book "Excalibur" from there on had to do with survival.

I'll try to remember some of it, chapter by chapter, and to explain why it was so squirmy. For example, he started with the very first life - the very first cells - how they struggled for survival - how they tried to be and be "it" the whole time. I'm order to do it, gradually thru the ages they associated with other cells, one with another, and they reached the place where they could divide so they would become bigger. This is strictly science as far as it's gone.

After awhile, this conglomeration of cells that would reach down a stream of warm water, would bend its way back in order to catch more - it would extend across the stream, or across a little rill or something like that - and all the time it was gaining more sensitivity and ways of the world in which it finds itself. It finds out that by working together, it can accomplish a great deal more: it can find more to eat - it can eat more and grow faster. So the idea is to survive and reproduce - and this is what the early cell does.

He'd begin to picture the ocean and the seas and ponds as having the life cells growing on them like scum. These are ourselves, our beginnings, our own beginnings because in the womb we start in this very way.

Away back then, we began to develop motives for things. Now, it is seldom that what we tell somebody our motive is, is the real one - and this is where you start to squirm. Somebody will say, "Well, I'd like to do a certain thing," "I would like to do this with you," or something or other, and you look at this person and realize, "I wonder why he's doing that." And you look into yourself and think if you were doing that, what would your motive be and whether you would hide it. You think that perhaps he's hiding his real motive and trying to get you to do something because he's giving you to understand that his motive is thus and so because that appeals to your vanity - and of course this makes you look at yourself to see about this business of vanity - and why you 're likely to do that. All the time, looking at this other person, you can see squirmy things in him. You can see squirmy things in him that make him look like an entity peering at you thru gauze, or around a corner. You don 't see all of him. He's like the iceberg that's seven-eighths submerged - you can' t tell anything about him.

As these things are pointed out to you by Ron in the first chapter, or thereabouts, you begin to see that the cells in any body that you're looking at are all endowed with this ability to survive - a determination to survive - and with motives to survive that are sometimes extremely questionable. When you look at a person, the lips may say one thing, the eyes may say something else, or nothing, and the flesh may say something entirely different. Literally, your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing. You shake hands, and this is a friendly gesture, but behind your back you may be holding a knife to plunge into him and he may be holding one for you. You can't tell just by looking at people. One of the things Ron intended to do with "Excalibur" was to make it possible to see and look into this, Other things I remember is Ron's explanation as to why there is no such thing as a crowd - that a group of people actually still consisted of individuals - but a crowd could get out of hand and do things other people wouldn't. He showed how that could happen by explaining the relationship of people to each other in the same way that he explained the relation of cells to each other before they were people away back when life was developing into different shapes. He would take two persons, for example, and put them side by side, and show how the two of them were both less and more than one person, and yet each one was an individual. Each individual could think of himself as being individual, but being somewhat "crutched", as it were, or held up by the other person. These two people were very wary of each other, like a couple of bantam roosters running around waiting to get in a thrust, but they knew that they needed each other, and each one felt that he needed the other more and that he didn't wish to be taken advantage of, and so there was always this pulling and hauling between two people that kept them at razor's edge all the time.

Each one, to some extent, gradually - a little bit at a time - gave away some of his sovereignty to the other. In other words, he let the other fellow lean, provided the other fellow would let him lean, and the two people became somewhat less than they would have been if they had stayed apart. The relationship between the two people became something that would really get you.

Then he moved in with these two people a third person - could be of the same sex - and you still have all the difficulties, all the problems, and all the squirminess - the questioning as to motive and everything, and wondering why, for example, three males would get together, or three women. If you have a person of the other sex come in on two who were together, you begin to see where the problems are. Of course, he went into this business of sexual attraction to a considerable extent in a way that just made you wonder whether or not your attitude toward sex was reasonable or wrong, whether it was a horrible thing or a beautiful thing spiritual or whatever. I think perhaps it would make you think about it to the point where you'd be almost afraid to perpetrate the act of sex, even with someone you loved tremendously.

Probably the part of the book that has stuck with me the most thru this period of time was the story of the lynch mob going to the prison to take out somebody to be lynched. He puts you with the person who is waiting to be lynched. The warden comes and looks at the person and says, "Well, they're coming for you, Bud. I don't know whether I'm going to be able to stop them, but I'll tell you one thing, it's not going to cost me my life to do it. If they come in and get you, they'll get you." The warden just looked and sort of gloated over the person who couldn't get away. He enjoyed the sadistic feeling of seeing a person who was bound and hog-tied and couldn't get away. He goes on with this to the place where you were both the warden and the person in the cell, and you really get to feel pretty terrible for everybody connected with it.

Then you take a look at the stiff-legged march of the lynch mob.

This is something I'll never forget. I don't remember a single word Ron used, but he started back from there with showing how a lynch mob started - somebody got up and said something, and somebody pulled others together - and as soon as they were together, the person who had started it might or might not lead, but the chances were that he would vanish into the mob that he had started in order not to be responsible. Each person knew that very dreadful things were going to be done, but he scarcely would be responsible. He would be there but he wouldn't actually do much taking part in it.

Each one felt he was going along for the ride, so to speak, but he walks just as stiff-legged as the other fellow.

Ron has them marching down the street at night, blazing torches to show the way. And when the mutter, or the growl, of this crowd comes to you, it's something that just simply makes the shivers move up your back from your heels to the top of your head. It really ate into you. Not one of these persons was real if you looked at him from the outside as an observer, yet when he'd take you into the heart of each one, you'd find each person going along because the others were going to do it, and he had to go and see.

If you would go into each person's mind this way, you'd find each had exactly the same idea. Yet they were moved along by something and they went and, I suppose, got the guy out and lynched him. I don't remember whether they did or not - all I remember actually is the march.

I was so impressed with the book I wanted to publish it. I was interested in a small publishing company called Egmont Press. I took it to my associates. I took it to my managing editor, who sat down and started to glance thru it. When he realized he couldn't get any place by thumbing thru it, he went back and read a little of it. I could see a strange look come into his face as he read it. Then he passed it on to a reader, and after awhile, there were several people involved in it, and it was being passed, page by page, to others, and they were having all kinds of results. It was a squirmy thing - and I watched it. I watched, in fact, until that manuscript was scattered all over East 41st Street in New York.

The upshot of it was that they were afraid to publish it. Ron was angry, and threatened: "You will publish this book and I will have a half-interest in the company that publishes it or we'll know the reason why." But it never came to that. Ron did something that he's frequently done: he went sour on the idea and went back to Seattle I don't believe "Excalibur" ever would have sent anybody insane - altho you can't be sure. I have the feeling that, unquestionably, if "Excalibur" were in the hands of every person in the world, the world would be that many times different than it is right now. But whether it would make it worse or better, I have no way of knowing.

Some persons are so intent in looking "over the border", they can't see the boredom.
Last edited: