How L Ron Hubbard Tricked You: Two Scientologys

Have you ever noticed that there are two Scientologys?

When you study the chronological development of Dianetics and Scientology, and you watch L Ron Hubbard develop his tech and policies, you can really see the change from one Scientology to another as it evolved from the 1950’s into the late 1960’s and 1970’s.

All the basic books you read when you first started making your decisions to get more involved in Scientology, were written and developed in the 1950’s. But most Scientologists don’t realize how different the Scientology of today is from the Scientology of the 1950’s when those books were written.

For instance, there was no Bridge to Total Freedom in the 1950’s. None. It did not arrive in Scientology until 1962. Think of a Scientology with no “Bridge” in it.

There was no such thing as a Suppressive Person, although there was the “aberrative personality” and the “Merchant of Chaos”, etc. The term and concept of “Potential Trouble Source” did not exist until the mid 1960’s. No courses existed on it, no tech or policies, and no “Ethics Officers” existed to “handle” Scientologists to get them thinking the way they need to think as an “in-ethics Scientologist”.

None of those concepts existed in Scientology in the 1950’s. All the materials you studied which introduced the subject to you – “The Basics” – were written in a completely different environment.

Ethics technology such as the conditions, did not exist, nor did any of the “Crimes and High Crimes” that came with them.

While the assumption is that these were all later developments as the technology “advanced”, few Scientologists notice how radically different these ideas and procedures are from the ideas and ideals found in the basic books.

If you can imagine a Scientology without all those things added in the 1960’s, and then imagine a Scientology in which these things get introduced, then you can see what I am saying.

A big change occurred in Scientology. So big that you can say that there are really two Scientologys: One Scientology which existed in the 1950’s, and the other Scientology that was developed from the mid 1960’s on.

A lot of Scientologists in the Church, because they read the basic books, think that, today, they are walking around in the first Scientology. They look at the Bridge to Total Freedom and all the ethics handlings and the policies on “SPs” and “Potential Trouble Sources”, and the disconnections, and they kind of gloss over how it all got that way.

What they’re missing, and what is being withheld from them, is an understanding of what was going on with the Church historically, and the problems that Hubbard was experiencing and how he solved them with tech and policy on a piecemeal basis. When you see certain policies published by Hubbard, and you look at what was happening to Scientology in the society at that time, you begin to see that a lot of the long-standing policies were written by him to handle single, specific “attacks” at that time.

His writings in the early 1960’s declaring Kennedy and Nixon “SPs”, for instance, were all responses to government agencies, such as the IRS and the FDA, investigating “liberties” that Hubbard had taken against various tax and health care laws, and claims he was making that auditing could cure everything from leukemia to arthritis – and charging heavily for that auditing.

Yet Scientologists today consider the designations of “Suppressive” government agencies “advances” that Hubbard made while he “cogged” during his “research” into the origins of the society that we live in. And the reason you believe that is because that is what he told you.

Well, there is another view to these things, usually found in court documents, court testimony and the newspaper articles of the time. They contain data and facts that can fill in missing pieces of a very different puzzle than the one you have been given as a Scientologist.

Sometimes, a person can become too attached to Scientology to really make a critical investigation of its ideas.

You can become so involved in it that you stop seeing its contradictions. Especially when you are told that all contradictions in Scientology come from your own MUs.

A great thing to do is to take the Creed of the Church of Scientology, which was written and adopted in 1954, and compare that to the policies that the Church runs on today. You can see very clearly when you do this that the Church of today does not operate on, or believe in, the Creed of the Church of Scientology at all.

Yet you think that it does. To you, that is your Creed. You were given it to read when you asked the questions “What do Scientologists believe?” when you were first getting involved in Scientology, and those answers in that Creed form the basis for your decision making in becoming a Scientologist. And it just made no sense when you saw it violated in the Church all the time. You say to yourself, “That is not Scientology!” And you may write a Knowledge Report. But nothing is done about it.

Why?

Because YOU are still in the Scientology of the 1950’s. You still think that’s the Scientology you are walking around in. It’s why you became a Scientologist in the first place – all those beautiful ideals and love of freedom and rights, etc.

But if Scientology really believes in the freedom of speech, as the 1950’s Creed says, then why is it now a high crime to go to the press about Scientology?

If Man really has an inalienable right to his own religious practice, his own organizations, etc., why does the Church so heavily attack the Freezone and Psychiatry?

If the Church really believes that all men were created with equal rights, why does Scientology now teach that only “honest” men should have rights?

Keep separating out the writings of the early 1950’s, and contrast them with later writings Hubbard created the Church with. You will see more and more contradictions and outright violations of the basic ideas that appealed to you about Scientology and got you involved in the first place.

In this way you can get a very clear picture of the group that you actually joined, rather than the group you thought you were joining.

Leave a Reply

6 Comments on "How L Ron Hubbard Tricked You: Two Scientologys"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest
Mark Foster
Guest

So there´s the pure shit…and the shit with the undigested corn niblets…Ah, okay.
I do see your point, though 🙂

Mark Foster
Guest

Yes, you are correct, this is a workable line of questioning!

Peter
Guest

Greetings Alanzo,

I hope that things are going well in your life.

It is incredible how the world turns around ; here you have me , a Scientologist of some sort , posting in a “anti-Scn” blog.

But I was always curious about you since I found about you at Rinder’s blog and followed the constant disagreements between you guys. This was a long time ago when Rinder still considered himself a Scientologist. You kept on posting and trying to get your point across in spite of moderations and attacks. I found that intriguing.

Then I started seeing you at other blogs trying to put you point across again , and being moderated all over again. Somehow I always perceived a different “wavelength” from you than the ones I usually perceived from most critics of Scn. I was never able to understand you fully.

As I am an incredible curious man , I would really like to know your views about the workability or lack of , of the many principles of Scn. Is there anything you find workable and capable of bringing about a greater freedom for the individual contained in the Scn scriptures ?

It is a pleasure meeting you. Looking forward to hearing from you,

ARC
PETER

Fred G. Haseney
Guest

Dear Alanzo,

Thank you for leaving the link to your website after you visited and “liked” today’s posting at JennyAtLAX, “Dianetics Turns 65.” Say, thanks for your blog, because I’ve included that link here.

The death of the late Mary Sue Hubbard’s dog popped a tiny hole in the Scientology bubble I had been living in for 37 years. I heard about it on the local news in Los Angeles, and googled “Mary Sue Hubbard” in order to get the address of the house so I could walk by it. Along with that address, I discovered Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker and his coverage of how much Mary Sue valued her fluffy doggie over the welfare of her children (“Mary Sue Hubbard’s Last Will Fulfilled: Her Dog Bereft of Life, It’s Time to Sell Her House!”) Man, I couldn’t think with that! But what’s even more amazing are all the things the Bunker had to say (and frankly, too) about just how nuts Scientology has become. In short order, so much I couldn’t think with all these years in the “church” started making sense. Then I found Mike Rinder’s blog (I’ve seen you there) where Mike posted my ““Declaration of Independence”” from Scientology.

Your article on the two Scientologies is my first at your website; thank you for that.

You wrote, “You can see very clearly… that the Church of [Scientology] today does not operate on, or believe in, the Creed of the Church at all. Yet you think that it does. To you, that is your Creed.”

What an interesting statement. After three decades in Scientology, I believed what I saw and read; what’s real for me is what became real for me. There were no Church meetings or gatherings where “parishoners” could talk freely with each other and compare notes on their individual progress up the “Total Bridge to Freedom.” In Scientology, you’re not allowed to talk about anything to anyone except how great your wins are, and when you’re going to start your next Bridge action. Sure, we had huge events where, in a big group, we’d all agree and clap like trained seals, with each of us living in Scientology #1 or Scientology #2.

I’ve enjoyed Hubbard’s lectures of the early 1950s the most. Contradictions and violations of those basic ideas that occurred in the late 1970s/early 1980s never made sense; I couldn’t think with them and could do very little about them. So I kept to myself in the bubble world that Scientology helped me create.

wpDiscuz

Created by Alanzo

Clicky