GO FILES #5: Scientology's secret war against psychiatry
Chris Owen
Wrong; for it turns out that L. Ron Hubbard secretly abandoned this goal
in 1969, in a secret minute which he sent to his wife Mary Sue,
Controller of the Guardian's Office (GO). The document in question was
one of the tens of thousands released by the US Government following the
criminal conviction of Mary Sue Hubbard and her GO colleagues in 1979.
We've all seen examples of how obsessively paranoid Hubbard was about
psychiatry, a trait very much institutionalised by Scientology. In
Ron's Journal '67 (RJ67), a tape which is still required listening for
Scientologists, he declares:
Our enemies are less than twelve men. They are members of the Bank of
England and other higher financial circles. They own and control
newspaper chains and they, oddly enough, [run?] all the mental health
groups in the world that had sprung up ...
Their apparent programme was to use mental health, which is to say
psychiatric electric shock and pre-frontal lobotomy, to remove from
their path any political dissenters ... These fellows have gotten
nearly every government in the world to owe them considerable
quantities of money through various chicaneries and they control, of
course, income tax, government finance - [Harold] Wilson, for
instance, the current Premier of England, is totally involved with
these fellows and talks about nothing else actually. They organise
these mental health groups which sprung up simultaneously all over the
world and anything that has mental health in it - in its name - or
mental hygiene or other things of that character - such names as that
- are part of the organisation which stems from these from these less
than a dozen greedy men.
He had already tried to play an active part in bringing down psychiatry.
In 1966 he issued a confidential directive, "Project Psychiatry" (SECED
61 WW of 22 February 1966), which is almost certainly still in force -
as well as being a study item for GO recruits, it is listed as one of
the items on the President CSI Full Hat Checksheet completed by
Scientology President Heber Jentszch in 1988. Hubbard declares, without
any noticeable sense of irony or, for that matter, any awareness of
grammar:
There is a conspiracy here we has [sic] gotten across the path of.
Any person in the world can be pronounced "insane", killed or
assaulted and made incompetent at the whim of any psychiatrist.
Further they pretend they can suspend civil rights! This is a
violation of human rights. And far too much power for one group
composed of men who at best act insanely when faced with any
challenge.
(Replace "psychiatrist" with "Scientologist" here and this passage takes
on an interesting new meaning! It is also ironic, not to say
hypocritical, that in "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", Hubbard
should write: "As the society runs, prospers and lives solely through
the efforts of social personalities, one must know them as they, not the
anti-social, are the worthwhile people. These are the people who must
have rights and freedom." Anyone who criticises Scientology is, by
definition, an "antisocial personality" and therefore logically should
not have rights and freedom.)
Hubbard demanded in "Project Psychiatry" that Scientologists and
Scientology-hired private investigators should find
Psychiatric bloodsports. Psychiatric Auschwitz all proven by
individual cases ...
We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a
murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one.
This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them.
Unfortunately for Hubbard, the private investigator he hired leaked his
minute to The People newspaper, which duly denounced him ("One Man
Britain Can Do Without", The People, 20 Mar 1966). This deterred him
not a jot. By the end of the 1960s he was criss-crossing the
Mediterranean in a motley fleet of ships, getting into trouble with
governments across the region. His paranoia deepened dangerously. He
became convinced that the problems encountered by Scientology were the
product of a sinister international conspiracy, which he detailed in a
minute to Mary Sue Hubbard, "Concerning Intelligence" (10 March 1970):
... The exact type of attack pattern ... repeats itself in every
country and it led me to a conclusion that it was directed from some
place high up and that it had a central operational headquarters ...
Now, on studying this thing further, I find amazingly enough, that
there are definite connections with regard to the National Association
of Mental Health and the World Federation of Mental Health ...
Everything the enemy is doing would be embraced in what is modernly
considered to be a public relations company or activity ... [The]
"Tenyaka Memorial", that plan of campaign against Scientology, all
files, all correspondence, all training and everything else is
resident in a PR firm which has international connections ... this
is what is their control of international news media such as we have
discovered.
The scale of this supposed conspiracy eventually prompted Hubbard to
make a momentous decision: he would change entirely the stated goal of
Scientology and Dianetics since their establishment 20 years previously.
At the end of "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", he
urged: "For God's sake, get on and build a better bridge!". Since then,
the promotion and distribution of "The Bridge to Total Freedom" was his
top priority. But no longer.
Only a small number of Scientologists - probably not more than a few
score members of the Guardian's Office - saw Hubbard's minute of 2 Dec
1969 to Mary Sue, "Intelligence Actions - Covert Intelligence - Data
Collection". It was and presumably remains highly classified; for my
money, it is perhaps the most important single document to have been
released following the trial of the GO felons. The last page of the
document is headlined "The War". Underneath Hubbard declares:
Our war has been forced to become "To take over absolutely the field
of mental healing on this planet in all forms."
That was not the original purpose. The original purpose was to clear
Earth. The battles suffered developed the data that we had an enemy
who would have to be gotten out of the way and this meant that we
were at war ...
By showing him to be brutal, venal and plotting we get him discarded.
Our direct assault will come when they start to arrest his principals
and troops for crimes (already begun).
Our total victory will come when we run his organisations, perform
his functions and obtain his financing and appropriations.
Hubbard is here saying that Scientology's core goal is no longer the
spread of his "tech" but the complete destruction of all other mental
health practices. This was not idle talk, as the GO made strenuous
efforts to attack psychiatrists - an effort which is still going on, in
the shape of Scientology's continued denunciations of psychiatrists and
psychiatric drugs such as Prozac. There is certainly little doubt that
Scientology's current leaders share Hubbard's objective of the
eradication (extermination?) of psychiatry. David Miscavige has been
reported to have pledged that psychiatry will have been eliminated by
the year 2000. No doubt this promise will quietly be dropped when the
millenium comes around and psychiatry continues in rude good health.
This statement by Hubbard is, of course, not one which has ever been
publicised. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the many thousands
of people who joined Scientology while this policy was in force - it may
still be - were, in a sense, parting with their money under false
pretences. Scientology makes much of the need to "get tech in" and
"clear the planet", objectives which (in non-Scientology-speak) most
other religions share. One wonders what the reaction of ordinary
Scientologists would have been if they had learned that their leader had
secretly committed them to an entirely different goal.
This secret policy change also has a major impact on an argument ongoing
elsewhere on a.r.s. Roland Rashleigh-Barry suggested last week that
Scientology might at some point opt for a mass suicide. In the light of
its war against psychiatry, this seems distinctly unlikely. It is made
all the more so by the fact that Hubbard's anti-psychiatry complex
worsened still further in the years before his death. In the 1950s and
1960s, he frequently claimed that psychiatry was a perverted Russo-
German doctrine, which he contrasted with Scientology as "the only
Anglo-Saxon science of the mind" (there was a strong nationalistic tinge
to it in the early days).
By the mid-1970s he had become firmly convinced that psychiatry was more
than just an Earthly problem. He had already alluded to the role of
psychiatrists in Xenu's genocide in 1968's OT 3 and his 1977 script
"Revolt in the Stars" (based on OT 3). While in hiding in Washington,
D.C. around 1975, he began secretly to research what he believed was the
underlying secret of the universe: a cosmic war between the "Soldiers of
Light" and the "Soldiers of Darkness". He characterised people as being
either "players", "pieces" or "broken pieces". Only a small number are
the players, these being the Soldiers of Light and Darkness,
manipulating the rest to achieve their ends.
The Soldiers of Darkness have appeared in various forms through the
"trillenia", generally as priests or psychiatrists. According to
Hubbard, they return life after life to sabotage the work of the
Soldiers of Light and torment the degraded beings, the PTSes and the
"robots" (ordinary people, whom he regarded as being incapable of
decision). Most of the bulletins in which Hubbard outlines these
theories are reportedly highly classified and have never received broad
distribution, but I recall having seen one - HCO Bulletin of 26 August
1982, "Pain and Sex" - in one of the red Tech Volumes. It is
extraordinary even by Hubbard's standards - he claims that both pain and
sex were invented long ago by cosmic psychiatrists to torment people.
(Presumably this was written during one of Hubbard's periods of
impotence).
I think you can guess who the Soldiers of Light are supposed to be!
It's highly likely that Hubbard has left his successors a number of
documents detailing the cosmic psychiatric conspiracy which has caused,
as he put it, "the ruin of this sector of the universe". I can't see
any chance of Scientology deciding to physically eliminate itself before
it manages to take out psychiatry - which, at the current rate, is going
to take a very long time indeed. Psychiatry, remember, is no longer
just an Earthly but a universal problem; there is no escape to a psych-
free place. In fact, as Scientology is (according to Hubbard) the first
and only technology of its kind anywhere in the universe, Earth is the
first and currently the only place where psychiatry *can* be beaten.
Until it is, there could be no mass suicide or departure for a better
place. There *is* no better place.
In short, Hubbard's own manic paranoia has trapped Scientology into
trying to achieve a fundamentally impossible goal: I would willingly bet
that there will be psychiatrists for far longer than there will be
Scientologists, and who knows? I might even collect my bet before I die
of old age...
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| WORLD'S BIGGEST SINCLAIR WEB ARCHIVE: |
| http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair |
| OFFLINE VERSION: http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/plansinc.zip |
Podkayne
<chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Only a small number of Scientologists - probably not more than a few
> score members of the Guardian's Office - saw Hubbard's minute of 2 Dec
> 1969 to Mary Sue, "Intelligence Actions - Covert Intelligence - Data
> Collection". It was and presumably remains highly classified; for my
> money, it is perhaps the most important single document to have been
> released following the trial of the GO felons. The last page of the
> document is headlined "The War". Underneath Hubbard declares:
>
> Our war has been forced to become "To take over absolutely the field
> of mental healing on this planet in all forms."
Resonates strongly with their creed, which the AOLScns quote repeatedly.
(My database is down :-( )
Spiritual Research Workgroup
>(Replace "psychiatrist" with "Scientologist" here and this passage takes
>on an interesting new meaning! It is also ironic, not to say
>hypocritical, that in "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", Hubbard
>should write: "As the society runs, prospers and lives solely through
>the efforts of social personalities, one must know them as they, not the
>anti-social, are the worthwhile people. These are the people who must
>have rights and freedom." Anyone who criticises Scientology is, by
>definition, an "antisocial personality" and therefore logically should
>not have rights and freedom.)
I have said this before, but it's a while ago, so maybe I should
repeat it:
With "Anyone who criticizes Scientology" only people are meant who
object to the peaceful and constructive activities that originally
were meant to go on in an org's course- and auditing rooms.
Hubbard's policies are full with instructions how to spot and
correct non-optimum scenes in the own (SCN) system. This self-
correcting side of SCN has failed completely. He couldn't and
didn't predict this.
What now happens has been described by Hubbard under the heading
"Protest PR" (pickets, press articles, of course also TV productions
which were not so very common at the time of his writing).
He said that whenever a population saw a need to use "Protest PR"
against their government, NEGLECT had occurred prior to that in
this government. This is exactly the situation in today's CoS.
Of course Hubbard thought that scientologists would use this open and
truthful way of protesting against other entities. He couldn't foresee
that it now needs to be used against his own organization, because
their self-correcting features don't work like originally intended.
"Protest PR" is NOT the same as the anti-social criticism against
spiritual enhancement or self-improvement. This is a character trait
of the very few (2 1/2 % per Hubbard) people who hate it to see
when another is strong and successful, because - being cowards themselves -
they feel threatened by any strong presence.
I believe that Hubbard's statement about people who are antagonistic
against anybody's spiritual improvement are true, but that it is
applied in a totally wrong way by the church. Of the people I have
encountered on a.r.s., only two or three are really against spiritual
work. All others protest against the church's abuses, but are liberal
and friendly towards peaceful independent auditors and their works.
What IS interesting is that the church itself seems to be opposed
to any other spiritual work than their own! They make less of it
with their incredible "only one" arrogance, and if it happens
within the borders of psychiatry, it is "evil" by default. What
they have done to their own dissidents - the freezone - we all know.
So if we look twice, we might find the church-people themselves
are in the category of people that is antagonistic toward spiritual
enhancement! Not that we wouldn't find a majority of the other
11 anti-social points in them too.
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
© Anti-Cult ®
Spiritual Research Workgroup <in...@sgmt.at>.
From: Lightlink Internet.
Wrote on the subject: Re: GO FILES #5: Scientology's secret war against
psychiatry:
>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 23:59:33 +0100, Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>(Replace "psychiatrist" with "Scientologist" here and this passage takes
>>on an interesting new meaning! It is also ironic, not to say
>>hypocritical, that in "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", Hubbard
>>should write: "As the society runs, prospers and lives solely through
>>the efforts of social personalities, one must know them as they, not the
>>anti-social, are the worthwhile people. These are the people who must
>>have rights and freedom." Anyone who criticises Scientology is, by
>>definition, an "antisocial personality" and therefore logically should
>>not have rights and freedom.)
>
>
>I have said this before, but it's a while ago, so maybe I should
>repeat it:
>
>With "Anyone who criticizes Scientology" only people are meant who
>object to the peaceful and constructive activities that originally
>were meant to go on in an org's course- and auditing rooms.
And you and Hubbard wanted to take away for example my rights to
criticize scientology? I have every right to object to whatever activity
I choose, no matter if that activity is peaceful and constructive in the
eyes of those that engage themselves in it.
No matter how you try to explain away Hubbard's rantings, you'll always
ending up, showing him to be a fascist.
>
>Hubbard's policies are full with instructions how to spot and
>correct non-optimum scenes in the own (SCN) system. This self-
>correcting side of SCN has failed completely. He couldn't and
>didn't predict this.
Wasn't he an OT? Shouldn't OT's be able to be a bit intelligent?
>
>What now happens has been described by Hubbard under the heading
>"Protest PR" (pickets, press articles, of course also TV productions
>which were not so very common at the time of his writing).
>
>He said that whenever a population saw a need to use "Protest PR"
>against their government, NEGLECT had occurred prior to that in
>this government. This is exactly the situation in today's CoS.
>
>Of course Hubbard thought that scientologists would use this open and
>truthful way of protesting against other entities. He couldn't foresee
>that it now needs to be used against his own organization, because
>their self-correcting features don't work like originally intended.
He couldn't foresee.... No, he was insane, so he couldn't foresee much,
could he?
>
>"Protest PR" is NOT the same as the anti-social criticism against
>spiritual enhancement or self-improvement. This is a character trait
>of the very few (2 1/2 % per Hubbard) people who hate it to see
>when another is strong and successful, because - being cowards themselves -
>they feel threatened by any strong presence.
Anti-social criticism is in the eyes of the beholder, and neither
Hubbard, scientology, or you have the right to judge people and take
away their freedoms.
>
>I believe that Hubbard's statement about people who are antagonistic
>against anybody's spiritual improvement are true, but that it is
>applied in a totally wrong way by the church. Of the people I have
>encountered on a.r.s., only two or three are really against spiritual
>work. All others protest against the church's abuses, but are liberal
>and friendly towards peaceful independent auditors and their works.
I know who you mean Heidrun. Listen carefully now: I have and will have
every right to criticize whatever I choose, be that spiritual hocus
pocus, or whatever. Neither you, scientology, or Hubbard is going to
silence me. If you think that Hubbard was right that people that
criticize scientology and spiritual work, should have no freedoms or
rights, then by god, you are a fascist.
Don't pull this shit Heidrun, you're making yourself more ridiculous
that ever by trying to defend Hubbard, and winding up with explanations
that aren't a bit better than anything else.
Nobody, and especially not a sick man like Hubbard, is going to take
away my rights to criticize whatever I want to criticize. Where you see
spiritual work, I see fraud, and that is my god given right.
>
>What IS interesting is that the church itself seems to be opposed
>to any other spiritual work than their own! They make less of it
>with their incredible "only one" arrogance, and if it happens
>within the borders of psychiatry, it is "evil" by default. What
>they have done to their own dissidents - the freezone - we all know.
>
>So if we look twice, we might find the church-people themselves
>are in the category of people that is antagonistic toward spiritual
>enhancement! Not that we wouldn't find a majority of the other
>11 anti-social points in them too.
>
>
>
>
>
>Heidrun Beer
>
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at
Stop it Heidrun, you're digging your own grave deeper and deeper, each
time you try to interpret what you think that Hubbard meant. Even if
Hubbard meant it as you interpret it here, he was wrong and only showed
himself as the true fascist he was. You don't end up in a better
situation, by saying things like you've done in this article.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the
orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
********* I'm so entheta I mock up *your* reactive mind too *********
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
***** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ind...@my-dejanews.com
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What is the overall goal of Scientology? To "clear the planet", right?
> Wrong; for it turns out that L. Ron Hubbard secretly abandoned this goal
> in 1969...
Just a note to add to this. My time at INT was in direct contrast to my time
as a student of Scientology.
Prior to my arrival at INT, the meme/mantra/stated goal of Scientology was,
simply, to "clear the planet," which presumably would bring about a
"civilization without insanity, criminality, or war."
These statements were widely reflected in the daily discourse of
Scientologists, at every Org and Mission I'd visited. Of course, we also
heard the expression that Scientology 'makes the able more able,' but there
was never a sense that Scientology was only for the few, or that we, as
enlightened Scientologists would 'leave anyone behind' once the planet was
cleared. Life, especially the life of the spirit, was held in reverence among
the Scientologists, auditors, and preclears I had the privelege of meeting. I
admired this view, and continue to hold it as one of my dearest precepts.
How one treats the least able is a reflection of the inner character of a
person, a church, a government, or a people.
Once at INT, however, the new big meme was Ron's statement to the effect of
I'm not obligated to 'save the world complete.'
At INT, there was a clear sense that we'd "save" as many as we could, but that
there were many who were "beyond hope."
Interestingly, the rumor at that time was that the Running Program was the
foundation of a program which would finally handle all those poor souls who'd
taken LSD, or had psychiatric treatment.
I remember one of my deepest senses of sadness was felt when I had a few
preclears who'd taken psychiatric drugs or LSD. The feeling was that, well,
*that* person can't be helped much. And I knew some delightful people who, in
this one lifetime, had 'fucked themselves up,' and weren't fixable.
It was at INT I first heard these people referred to as "broken pieces" -- ie,
the worst off in the scheme of there being three kinds of people -- players,
pieces and broken pieces.
Needless to say, my exposure to this culture of callousness was one of several
factors that soured me on the Sea Org, and later, as I had time out of the
organization to get my head out of my ass, on Scientology as a whole.
In Michener's first major literary effort -- and one of his best IMO --
Hawaii, he details the life of a Chinese immigrant woman who was exiled with
her husband to a leper colony. Following her husband's death, and despite
suffering terrible experiences there at the hands of some of her leprous
patients, she continued to care for all of them. None, in her estimation,
were beyond hope. She later, after many years, left the colony and returned
to normal society. Everyday, Michener writes, she continued to treat others
with reverence, as well as inspect her own skin for signs of leprosy.
She, in my estimation, embodied the ideal of "there but for grace go I."
Certainly, the current management of the Church ought to subscribe to this
philosophy of life.
For somewhere between "raw meat" and "upstat Scientologist," compassion
appears to be left by the wayside -- a fact I've observed directly which
leaves me with an abiding sorrow for hundreds of Scientologists I've known
over the years, and particularly INT management.
--
Indigo
ex-COS (1978-1998)
former CMO INT staffer
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Perry Scott
>
>What is the overall goal of Scientology? To "clear the planet", right?
>Wrong; for it turns out that L. Ron Hubbard secretly abandoned this goal
[snip]
>Only a small number of Scientologists - probably not more than a few
>score members of the Guardian's Office - saw Hubbard's minute of 2 Dec
>1969 to Mary Sue, "Intelligence Actions - Covert Intelligence - Data
>Collection". It was and presumably remains highly classified; for my
>money, it is perhaps the most important single document to have been
>released following the trial of the GO felons. The last page of the
>document is headlined "The War". Underneath Hubbard declares:
FYI, "The War [LRH ED 55 INT, 29 Nov 68] is one of the references for
OSA Network Order 7 (http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/OSANWO/07.htm)
I have had to severely redact this Order due to legal theat by the LRH
Library.
> Our war has been forced to become "To take over absolutely the field
> of mental healing on this planet in all forms."
I do not recall this in OSA NWO 7
> That was not the original purpose. The original purpose was to clear
> Earth. The battles suffered developed the data that we had an enemy
> who would have to be gotten out of the way and this meant that we
> were at war ...
There is something similar to this in OSA NWO 7.
> By showing him to be brutal, venal and plotting we get him discarded.
>
> Our direct assault will come when they start to arrest his principals
> and troops for crimes (already begun).
>
> Our total victory will come when we run his organisations, perform
> his functions and obtain his financing and appropriations.
Toward the bottom of OSA NWO 7, Ron talks about his "enemy" moving his
base of operations. He's obviously talking about some EvilPsychDrugLord,
but it the specific WHO and WHERE is missing.
>Hubbard is here saying that Scientology's core goal is no longer the
>spread of his "tech" but the complete destruction of all other mental
>health practices.
It would appear so. Dang! Scientology lied to me again! Let's see, that
makes it:
1) Scientology is NOT clearing the planet.
2) Scientology is NOT compatible with Christianity.
3) Scientology is NOT scientifically-based.
Their record with me is not very good at this point.
>By the mid-1970s he had become firmly convinced that psychiatry was more
>than just an Earthly problem. He had already alluded to the role of
>psychiatrists in Xenu's genocide in 1968's OT 3 and his 1977 script
>"Revolt in the Stars" (based on OT 3).
[snip]
>The Soldiers of Darkness have appeared in various forms through the
>"trillenia", generally as priests or psychiatrists. According to
>Hubbard, they return life after life to sabotage the work of the
>Soldiers of Light and torment the degraded beings, the PTSes and the
>"robots" (ordinary people, whom he regarded as being incapable of
>decision).
Oh, now this is nice. Redefine priests as "Soldiers of Darkness".
Could you dig up a reference for this, Chris? Given Hubbard's dabbling
in the Occult, his glib swapping of Good for Evil is sometimes
breath-taking, but hardly surprising
Yup, Scientology certainly is compatible with Christianity (NOT!).
>Most of the bulletins in which Hubbard outlines these
>theories are reportedly highly classified and have never received broad
>distribution, but I recall having seen one - HCO Bulletin of 26 August
>1982, "Pain and Sex" - in one of the red Tech Volumes.
I'll have to take another look at "Pain and Sex". Thanks for the pointer.
>In short, Hubbard's own manic paranoia has trapped Scientology into
>trying to achieve a fundamentally impossible goal: I would willingly bet
>that there will be psychiatrists for far longer than there will be
>Scientologists, and who knows? I might even collect my bet before I die
>of old age...
>
>--
> | Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
Nice essay, Chris.
Perry Scott [ScienoCensored 4 times]
Co$ Escapee
"Scientology can and does condition its parishioners into a mental state
of utter foolishness in my humble opinion, based on actual experience."
- Jesse Prince, former #2-ranked officer in Scientology
Perry Scott
[snip Chris' original article]
>I have said this before, but it's a while ago, so maybe I should
>repeat it:
>
>With "Anyone who criticizes Scientology" only people are meant who
>object to the peaceful and constructive activities that originally
>were meant to go on in an org's course- and auditing rooms.
When Hubbard's work was subjected to professional peer review, it was
found wanting. Hubbard's engram hypothesis was DISPROVEN. Under
controlled double-blind conditions, Hubbard could not retrieve a test
engram. Can you?
http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~marina/misc/engrams.txt
It was rejection of Dianetics by professional scientists that caused
Hubbard to "spin in" to his Anti-Psych mode of operation. Thus,
criticism of what goes on in the Org's course and auditing rooms is
EXTREMELY relevant, and you cannot dismiss it just because you think
it should be off-limits. This is the 'basic-basic' behind Hubbard's
'button' on Psychiatry.
>What now happens has been described by Hubbard under the heading
>"Protest PR" (pickets, press articles, of course also TV productions
>which were not so very common at the time of his writing).
>
>He said that whenever a population saw a need to use "Protest PR"
>against their government, NEGLECT had occurred prior to that in
>this government. This is exactly the situation in today's CoS.
This is insightful, CB. Thank you for sharing it. I agree that the
"Protest PR" should be used as a sign by OSA.
>"Protest PR" is NOT the same as the anti-social criticism against
>spiritual enhancement or self-improvement.
I may protest because I think CoS' form of 'spiritual enhancement'
and 'self-improvement' are delusory. What pigeonhole would that
put me in? SP? DB? PTS? Sociable, but full of M/Us? Instead of
categorizing the source of the protest, just handle the protest, OK?
>What IS interesting is that the church itself seems to be opposed
>to any other spiritual work than their own!
Yeah, it's amazing how pious CoS can be about their own "spiritual
freedom', yet happily suppress anybody who wants to experiment with
non-standard Scientology. There is a real mental block here that
allows two such diametrically-oppposed concepts to harmoniously
co-exist.
>Heidrun Beer
>
>Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
>http://www.sgmt.at
Perry Scott [ScienoCensored 4 times]
Podkayne
<podk...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <O9SdcKAV...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, Chris Owen
> <chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Only a small number of Scientologists - probably not more than a few
> > score members of the Guardian's Office - saw Hubbard's minute of 2 Dec
> > 1969 to Mary Sue, "Intelligence Actions - Covert Intelligence - Data
> > Collection". It was and presumably remains highly classified; for my
> > money, it is perhaps the most important single document to have been
> > released following the trial of the GO felons. The last page of the
> > document is headlined "The War". Underneath Hubbard declares:
> >
> > Our war has been forced to become "To take over absolutely the field
> > of mental healing on this planet in all forms."
>
> Resonates strongly with their creed, which the AOLScns quote repeatedly.
>
> (My database is down :-( )
My database is back. They dig this out whenever they justify their
opposition to psychiatry.
"That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should
not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields; "
and their comments
It is part of our creed to decry harmful practices in the name of "mental
health". We are into helping a being raise his awareness and learn to help
himself. The technology of Scientology can accomplish
this goal.
For centuries lunatic asylums or mental institutions have truthfully given
public images of horror and dread as to treatment given to patients.
You know, I think that quote really says it here. The applicability of what
is called psychology (a word that can no longer be defined) is little or
nothing. However, if it were only zero in it's effect that might be
forgivable, it's when it becomes destructive to the individual and groups
there really is no excuse for it at all.
I really think those who have little contact with psychology think that it
has it all figured out, the mind, the soul. And that is a mistake. A costly
one to those who are the victims of it.
Scientologists abhor "treatments" which harm people and
particularly dislike it when those responsible refuse to take
responsibility for their acts or to institute reforms in their own
field.
Even when psychiatric treatments do not tear apart living tissue,
psychiatrists routinely tell their patients what they think is "wrong"
with them, thus interjecting the psychiatristsÕ own prejudices,
preferences and falsehoods into the therapy and so denying the patient a
chance of recovery.
At best, psychiatry suppresses lifeÕs problems; at worst it
causes severe damage and irreversible setbacks in a personÕs life and
even death.