What's new

Science of Survival reviewed (Part 4)


Patron with Honors
Continuing from parts one, two and three of a review of "Science of Survival"
the second Dianetics book from L. Ron Hubbard.


(4) Was the original Dianetics simply an "experiment" gone wrong?

Other unstated occult practices also apparently applied to S.O.S.

A "magickal" tactic is to see projects, possibly one like the Dianetics book
and movement, as experiments. In the practice of "magick," when an experiment
did not succeed, evidence was to be disposed of, so a practicioner
of magic could simply move on. In this view, Dianetics failed within a few
months, as it became insolvent and ultimately went into bankruptcy.

S.O.S. originally included a lengthy foreword, which claimed results of higher
IQ testing after Dianetic processing. Much of the technical content of S.O.S.
itself appeared to be appropriated from Dianetic innovations by Foundation staff,
who were credited with inclusion of their names and contributions.

A comparison with post-1951 volumes reveals significant portions of S.O.S.
were altered or simply deleted, such as mentions of:

CC Street and Elizabeth Byall of New Jersey
(for development of chain scanning and the Theory of Lateral Running)
Al Kitselman of Hawaii
(for Automatic Scan Clearing, and work with Street and Byall).
C. Parker Morgan
(for the Value of Pleasure in Running Cases)
Donald H. Rogers
(for Refinement in the Theory of Valence)
Jack Naylor
(for Induction of Boil-Off and Theory of its value)
David Cary
(for Archenetics)
Mrs. Hulswit
(for FreeWheeling)

Significantly, we also see an absence of mention of Alexis Valorie Hubbard, who was
LRH's newborn daughter, and was publicly said to be the world's first "Dianetics child."
No credit or acknowledgement of these persons appears in later S.O.S. editions.
Even the "tone scale" itself was altered after 1951, without explanation.

Were these names simply "dismissed" for their part in unsuccessful "magickal"
experiment, or was this simply a sloppy attempt at hiding the evidence of the
failure of the original Dianetics' group?

Taking this analogy further, it points to practices described within George Orwell's
novel "1984" or, even more ominously, the "Zweites Buch" (second book) of 1928
which was a long-suppressed "war plan" from an infamous occultist German dictator
(whose own rockets were named "V" for "vengeance").

(5) Are the tests within Scientology simply a reflection of LRH's will?

The broadest applications of S.O.S. have continued after LRH's death.

Additional aspects of writings within S.O.S. do appear to have been adopted
by LRH's Church of Scientology. LRH's statement that "It is simpler to do
psychometry on 150 million people than to bury a culture for which we
and our fathers have striven these past 175 years" (Chapter 21, book I),
appears to be a basis for the "personality tests" that workers for the
Church of Scientology have used to introduce themselves to the general public
for many years.

Other passages advocate using messages not to communicate but to
"test" other persons (Chapter 14, book I) and also discuss intentional
mishandling of auditing cases through "brute force, invalidationsm,
hypnotism, sadism and devil worship" (Chapter 1, book II).

Adopting LRH's "random" approach, we can examine "instances" of apparent
"testing" of others.

S.O.S. addresses pathological lying descriptively in a passage:
"...persons in the 1.2-down bracket deal in reversals of fact.
One can take it as a rule of thumb, which is too often workable to be
ignored that whatever this persons says he is doing, he is actually
doing something else. Whatever this person says is false is actually true"
(Chapter 27, book I).

Of LRH, Judge Paul G. Breckenridge of Los Angeles County Court later stated:
"The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar
when it comes to his history, background and achievements."

So here, does S.O.S. provide an admission of LRH's use of this tactic (as a test?)

Could this extend to another "confessional" statement within S.O.S.?

"The 1.1 may take a 1.1 as a bedfellow and political mate and may make a 1.1
group, but this group has to continue to be faced by a strong and dangerous foe
to remain consolidated. This is the condition of a subversive cell. These people
continue in association with each other only so long as they are in the presence
of and are busy underming a worthy opponent. Because a 1.1 will act in handling
people only as a 1.1, however, the cell, once the pressure is taken off if it,
devours itself" (Chapter 27, book I).

Could this explain the long-standing and fervent campaign of opposition to
psychiatrists and the psychological community by the Church of Scientology
as a subterfuge, under an unstated yet primary intention of perpetuating a
solidarity (to hold the group together)? Did LRH have a secret for success?

If this pattern of "testing" holds, does a close reading of S.O.S. help explain
other controversies, involving the treatment of Scientology's followers?

Perhaps instead of seeking a plan, selected passages can be read more
accurately as "ingredients" of some kind of formula that represents LRH's
intentions or "will." Were these expressions used as origins for later
policies, reading the S.O.S. book would allow observations of the terms
and considerations, thus helping inoculate the reader from "tests" based
on lies, sort of like being able to understand someone else's private joke.

This thread continues at the link below:

Last edited: