On this page I am evaluating the principles of Scientology “ethics,” especially those related to the subject of suppression that Ron Hubbard formulated through the 1960’s, in terms of the principles that he communicated in Dianetics and Scientology through the 1950’s.

References {CONSIDERATIONS, AGREEMENT AND REALITY}:

BOOK (1951): Science of Survival, Book I [Chapter 15 “COLUMN M Reality (Agreement)]

As has been said in earlier chapters of this book, the quality known as reality exists, so far as we know, mainly because we agree that it exists.

For our purposes, the lowest common denominator of reality could be called, then, agreement. If you and I both agree that we are gazing at an automobile, then that automobile has reality for us. If another person comes forward and says that it is not an automobile but a barrel of olives, then you and are apt to suppose him crazy. Majority opinion rules, where reality is concerned. Those who do not agree with the majority are commonly pronounced insane, or are exiled, and thus we have a sort of continuous natural selection which gives us a social order that has agreed upon certain definite realities. Anyone who seeks to alter those realities in any way is attacked, unless the strength and force of his reason are such that they carry into the minds of men a new reality on which those men can agree.

BOOK (1951): Handbook for Preclears: The Second Act

Reality itself could be considered that on which Man agrees to be real.

[08 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort”
Lecture: Axiom and Effort Processing

There was an Axiom in the First Book. You couldn’t have called it an Axiom, it was an observation. It said a person couldn’t be aberrated unless he agreed to it. You remember that? Well, this self-determinism is his agreement with it; that’s all there is to it.

BOOK (1955): The Creation of Human Ability: A Summary of Scientology

Scientology concludes and demonstrates certain truths. These truths might be considered to be the highest common denominators of existence itself.

The following summary of these truths has the aspect of precision observations rather than philosophic hazardings. When treated as precision observations, many results occur. When regarded as philosophic opinions, only more philosophy results. Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time. By this it is meant that an idea or opinion is, fundamentally, superior to space, energy, and time, or organizations of form, since it is conceived that space, energy, and time are themselves broadly agreed-upon considerations. That so many minds agree brings about Reality in the form of space, energy, and time. These mechanics, then, of space, energy, and time are the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life.

…

The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual’s freedom to alter his considerations of spacer energy, time, and forms of life and his roles in it. If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe, and barriers of his own creation. Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself, or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual.

…

The goal of processing is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and ability of his own considerations (postulates).

A Scientologist is one who understands life. His technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life.

The technical information of the Scientologist includes the following, which are a list of usable or self-evident truths as revised from the earlier Logics and Axioms.

1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

2. THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.

3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

. . .

26. REALITY IS THE AGREED-UPON APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE.

. . .

44. THETA (THE STATIC) HAS NO LOCATION IN MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, OR TIME. IT IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATION.

BOOK (1955): The Creation of Human Ability: SOP 8-C: THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT

There is no question here of whether space, energy or objects are real. Things are as real as one is certain of their reality. Reality is, here on Earth, agreement as to what is. This does not prevent barriers, or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. For one makes, by a process of continuous automatic duplication, all that one perceives. So much for theory — in application this theory obtains results of considerable magnitude in changing beingness.

*SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure.

BOOK (1955): Dianetics 55! [Chapter IV Accent On Ability]

1. COMMUNICATION is the interchange of ideas or particles between two points. More precisely, the definition of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention and Attention and a duplication at Effect of what emanates from Cause.

2. REALITY is the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved between Cause and Effect. That which is real is real simply because it is agreed upon, and for no other reason.

3. AFFINITY is the relative distance and similarity of the two ends of a communication line. Affinity has in it a mass connotation. The word itself implies that the greatest affinity there could be would be the occupation of the same space, and this, by experiment, has become demonstrated. Where things do not occupy the same space their affinity is delineated by the relative distance and the degree of duplication.

BOOK (1951): Handbook for Preclears: The Twelfth Act

AGREEMENT: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO AGREE BUT DIDN’T WANT TO. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED OTHERS TO AGREE. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM AGREEING. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED OTHERS FROM AGREEING. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE GLAD TO AGREE.

COMMUNICATION: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO COMMUNICATE. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM COMMUNICATING. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED OTHERS TO COMMUNICATE. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED OTHERS FROM COMMUNICATING. TIMES WHEN YOU WANTED TO COMMUNICATE.

AFFINITY: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO LIKE SOMEBODY. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM LIKING SOMEBODY. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED ANOTHER TO LIKE YOU. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED ANOTHER FROM LIKING YOU. TIMES WHEN YOU DECIDED YOU LIKED SOMEBODY.

THE BIG QUESTION #1:

Ron Hubbard described the principle of AGREED UPON CONSIDERATIONS resulting in shared [experience of] reality in relationship to the actual physical universe (MEST) – the principle that can obviously be questioned in terms of whether the actual existence of the physical universe in itself is a product of considerations [see page REALITY and ARC] – but can’t this logic be successfully applied to just thoughts, attitudes and perceptions – the mental rather than the physical phenomena?

Why should anyone be FORCED TO AGREE that criticism, disagreement, or alternative assertions should quality as “suppression” that needs to be somehow dealt with by handling (reforming), attacking into submission, or disconnecting from the individual?

How about an idea that it is “just an opinion” that can be considered, argued with, agreed or disagreed with, or just left as is? Why should anyone be forced to agree that simply someone expressing their viewpoint, regardless of what it may be, can qualify as a form of “suppression” – instead of being looked as just someone’s viewpoint that can be considered or simply ignored?

If according to Ron Hubbard’s own assertions in the “science of Scientology,” REALITY is brought forth, or manifested, through AGREED UPON CONSIDERATIONS, then why did he formulate and force a SET OF CONSIDERATIONS on all Scientologists that there is such a thing as “suppression” and “suppressive persons and groups” out there with an intention to undermine Scientology? With such ‘agreed upon considerations’ in place with the use of unchangeable organization policy under “Scientology ethics,” it would guarantee (according to Scientology’s tenets regarding reality) that the phenomenon of “suppression” would manifest and continue to persevere into perpetuity – since all Scientologists are continually forced to subscribe to and reinforce such considerations through the use of “Scientology ethics.”

HAVE SCIENTOLOGISTS BEEN TRYING TO RESOLVE A PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN CREATION? – the problem called “suppression” (or any other problem that Ron Hubbard had mocked up for them like “critical thoughts”). In other words – Scientologists trying to resolve a problem that they themselves continue to postulate into being. [Also, see page: PROBLEMS AND PERCEPTION under “Imagined Problems.”]

And if, according to “Scientology science,” every individual is a THETAN – a complete cause onto oneself with the power of consideration to make things real or unreal within one’s own space of consciousness and experience – then it would seem that, according to this principle of “Scientology science,” all that would be required to “handle suppression” is to simply stop postulating it or stop mocking it up. [undo / release / discharge mockups related to “suppression”] Or in other words, duplicate through it within one’s own “space of consciousness” [which Hubbard called “one’s own universe”].

Why did Ron Hubbard cancel Creative Processing [see Creative Processing Undone] which exercised individual’s ability to produce and handle any consideration at will, to mock (create) or unmock any experience, and instead he formulated and enforced a web of considerations that set up Scientologists as some kind of “victims of oppression” fighting for “freedom” effectively turning Scientologists into some sort of “victim revolutionaries” who would effectively work against the Western ideals and culture?

And yet there is more!

References {SELF-DETERMINISM AND RESPONSIBILITY}:

BOOK (1951): Advanced Procedure and Axioms: An Analysis of Self-Determinism

The goal of the auditor with his pre-clear is not the release of a psychosomatic, not the improvement of appearance, not greater efficiency or better interpersonal relations. These are incidental. The goal of the auditor with the pre-clear is the rehabilitation of the pre-clear’s self-determinism.

In order to understand this goal, let us examine some data and have a thorough understanding of what self-determinism is. Before Dianetics there were vague pushes in that direction but the state itself lacked definition and definitely had no bridge built to it.

Self-determinism is that state of being wherein the individual can or cannot be controlled by his environment according to his own choice. In that state the individual has self-confidence in his control of the material universe and the organisms within it along every dynamic. He is confident about any and all abilities or talents he may possess. He is confident in his interpersonal relationships. He reasons but does not need to react.

BOOK (1951): Advanced Procedure and Axioms: Responsibility

DEFINITION: Responsibility is the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics.

…

There is no compromise with FULL RESPONSIBILITY. It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions on every dynamic and in every sphere as one’s own.

[comment: It seems that Hubbard forgot to include responsibility for “thoughts” in the book, but he discusses Thoughts and Counter-Thoughts in lectures related to this book.]

THE BIG QUESTION #2:

So if TAKING FULL RESPONSIBILITY for something – assuming oneself to be the creator of some observed (or experienced) manifestation in reality – leads one to a state of freedom and ability, then why did, in his later work, Ron Hubbard delineate selected human manifestations as “suppression” and persons manifesting them as “suppressive persons” and then he forced Scientologists NOT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY over these realities?

According to the principles above, wouldn’t such enforced conditioning result in Scientologists actually experiencing (and somehow becoming afflicted or effected by) all the various counter thoughts, emotions and efforts associated with “suppression” and/or associated with some individual or group considered to be “suppressive?”

References:

BOOK: (1952) Scientology 8-8008: Responsibility

The responsibility level of the preclear depends upon his willingness or unwillingness to handle energy. That preclear who is protesting against energy in any direction is abandoning responsibility in greater or lesser degree.

[02 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: Locks, Secondaries, Engrams – How to Handle Them

Now, with the First Book forward, we were trying to bring around and we succeeded in actually bringing a person up to the responsibility for the moments when he was unaware. We ran them out and brought them back into being. And whenever we ran one out and brought it back into being, we made him responsible for that section of his life and it ceased to have a heavy command value on him. Because anything for which a person is not responsible can effect — make an effect of that person. Any time he’s not responsible for something, it can affect him.

…

Well, so you see now what we’re talking about — we’re talking about engrams — it comes around to an engram. An engram is a moment of pain and unconsciousness by old definition. Let’s redefine it.

An engram is a period of no responsibility. An engram is a period where the individual has abandoned control of and ownership of space, energy and objects. An engram is a period where the individual has abandoned space, energy and objects.

Now, if you put that definition down, it becomes much more understandable when we start to define space, energy and objects and find out what they are in terms of experience. But you can see that right now as you connect that up.

Now, to run an engram — running an engram is a method of Standard Operating Procedure 1950 or 1951. It is a method of making the individual reassume control of a period where he has abandoned control of space, energy and objects. You make him reassume control of, by going through it again and running through it again and demonstrating to him that he had a better control of it than he supposed. And so you run it and you run it and you run it.

[02 DECEMBER 1952] The Philadelphia Doctorate Course: A Thetan Creates by Postulates – Q2

Now, that which a person can create cannot have any great effect upon him. Anything that a person can create, change or destroy doesn’t have any large value to him.

[03 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: The Track of the Thetan/GE-Space/Time

Now, a fellow is — we’ll cover responsibility very heavily, but when a fellow won’t take responsibility for an energy, he becomes an effect of it.

[11 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: Chart of Attitudes: Rising Scale Processing

Now, what then is your level that is an attainable level for freedom? It would have to be a level which is so high that every man could reason and be responsible in his own right for his own acts and also for the acts of others.

[13 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: Goal: Rehabilitation of Thetan, Case Step I

One has to be able to command energy in order to perceive. …

Lack of perception equals lack of force – force simply composed of energy and objects. To rehabilitate perception, rehabilitate the preclear’s ability to handle force. …

Energy: inability to handle energy would mean inability to perceive. Inability to perceive would be the inability to handle energy.

HANDLING ENERGY -> BEING ABLE TO PERCEIVE.

NO DUPLICATION – NO AWARENESS – NO CLEAR VIEW OR UNDERSTANDING (OF SOME TARGET MANIFESTATION IN REALITY).

SO, ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTOLOGY SCIENCE, IF SCIENTOLOGISTS DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHATEVER MANIFESTATIONS THEY CONSIDER TO BE “SUPPRESSION,” THEY WOULD ACTUALLY NOT BE ABLE TO CLEARLY PERCEIVE THOSE MANIFESTATIONS AND WOULD BECOME EFFECT OF THEM.

Did Ron Hubbard cancel Creative Processing so that he could then “reformat” Scientology to enforce certain (self-defeating) considerations onto Scientologists? Why would he do that? It’s like he became a subversive influence in his own movement. Why would he try to prevent people from practicing or developing Scientology outside of oppressive control by the management structure that he had setup?

References:

BOOK (1955): The Creation of Human Ability: A Summary of Scientology

11. THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD:

(a) As-is-ness IS THE CONDITION OF IMMEDIATE CREATION WITHOUT PERSISTENCE, AND IS THE CONDITION OF EXISTENCE WHICH EXISTS AT THE MOMENT OF CREATION AND THE MOMENT OF DESTRUCTION, AND IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN SURVIVAL.

(b) Alter-is-ness IS THE CONSIDERATION WHICH INTRODUCES CHANGE, AND THEREFORE TIME AND PERSISTENCE INTO AN As-is-ness TO OBTAIN PERSISTENCY.

(c) Is-ness IS AN APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONTINUOUS ALTERATION OF AN As-is-ness. THIS IS CALLED, WHEN AGREED UPON, REALITY.

(d) Not-is-ness IS THE EFFORT TO HANDLE Is-ness BY REDUCING ITS CONDITION THROUGH THE USE OF FORCE. IT IS AN APPARENCY AND CANNOT ENTIRELY VANQUISH AN Is-ness.

. . .

27. AN ACTUALITY CAN EXIST FOR ONE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT WHEN IT IS AGREED WITH BY OTHERS IT CAN THEN BE SAID TO BE A REALITY.

The anatomy of Reality is contained in Is-ness, which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. Is-ness is an apparency, it is not an Actuality. The Actuality is As-isness altered so as to obtain a persistency. Unreality is the consequence and apparency of the practice of Not-is-ness.

BOOK (1952): Scientology 8-8008 [chapter: Universes]

A universe is defined as a “whole system of created things.” There could be, and are, many universes, and there could be many kinds of universes: we are for our purposes here interested in two particular universes. The first of these is the MEST universe, that agreed upon reality of matter, energy, space and time which we use as anchor points and through which we communicate. The other is our personal universe which is no less a matter of energy and space.

. . .

One’s own universe is amenable to instantaneous creation and destruction, by himself and without argument. He can create space and bring it into a “permanent status.” He can create and combine forms in that space and cause those forms to go into motion and he can make that motion continuously automatic or he can regulate it sporadically or he can regulate it totally, and all by postulate. One’s envisionment of one’s own universe is intensely clear. The reality of one’s own universe is sharper and brighter, if anything, than his reality on the MEST universe. We call one’s attitude towards his own universe “actuality,” and his attitude towards the MEST universe, since it is based upon agreement, “reality.”

BOOK (1952): Scientology 8-8008 [chapter: Behaviour of Universes]

It could be said, then, that the difference between the microcosm (one’s own universe) and the macrocosm (the MEST universe) is the difference between commanding it and agreeing about it. One’s own universe is what he would construct for a universe without the opposition or the confusion of other viewpoints. The MEST universe is that upon which one agrees in order to continue in association with other viewpoints. This may very well be the sole difference between these two universes. . . .

When an individual’s ability to create his own universe is rehabilitated it will be found, strangely enough, that his ability to handle the MEST universe has been rehabilitated.

BOOK (1952): Scientology 8-8008 [chapter: Creative Processing]

In truth, all sensation which he believes to come from these masses of illusory energy known as the MEST universe, are first implanted through agreement upon what he is to perceive and then perceived again by himself, with the step hidden that he has extended his own sensation to be felt and perceived by himself. He is fully convinced that the MEST universe itself has sensation which it can deliver to him, whereas all the MEST universe has is an enforced agreement which though of no substance, yet by a gradient scale came to be an illusion which seems very masterful to a preclear.

SENSATIONS is a form of experience created by the mind in response to CONTACT with something or in response to registering some change or event. It is a basic step in the mechanism of forming awareness and perception of some given existence, occurrence or manifestation.

In other words, it may not be correct to use Ron Hubbard’s assertions in relation to the physical reality which has objective existence – that the experience of the physical reality is somehow completely self-generated – but this general logic can be very successfully applied to PSYCHOSOMATIC CONDITIONS that may be brought into being, or that may seem real due to a conviction on part of the individual experiencing them.

Here is an example application in relation to “suppression”:

PROCESS: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS SUPPRESSIVE?
DECIDE THAT IT IS NO LONGER SUPPRESSIVE.

[23 JULY 1954] The Phoenix Lectures: The Four Conditions of Existence, Part II

An individual couldn’t possibly get into trouble with As-isness, except if you consider losing everything trouble. But it would be things that he was losing which he either didn’t want or had just postulated into existence. In other words, As-isness is an exact duplication or an exact creation. All As-isness is doing is merely accepting the responsibility for having created it and anybody can accept the responsibility for anything. That’s all As-isness is when it operates as a perfect duplicate.
…

Now, what’s this full responsibility? Full responsibility merely says this: “I created it.” When you ask somebody to make a perfect duplicate of it, he’s going through the mechanics of creating it. Therefore, it disappears. He knows, unless he throws some other-determinism in on the thing – in other words, practices some Alter-ism on its creator – that it’s not going to exist at all.

[23 JULY 1954] The Phoenix Lectures: The Four Conditions of Existence, Part III

Now, the funny part of it is that if you made it and you know you made it, you can always say, “It doesn’t exist now.” By saying what? By saying “I made it.” As-isness, see? You accept the responsibility for having created it and you get a “Not-isness.”

So there are really two conditions of “Not-isness”: there’s just vanishment or the other one, which is what we mean, which is an Isness which somebody is trying to postulate out of existence by simply saying “It isn’t.

A Not-isness in our terminology would be this specialized case of an individual trying to banish something without taking responsibility for creating it. Definite, positive and precise definition: trying to vanish something without taking the responsibility for creating it. And the only result of doing this is to make it all unreal, to make it forgotten, to make it back of the black screen, to make it transparent, to make it dull down, to give it over to a machine, to wear glasses-anything that you could possibly do to get a dim-down of an Isness. And that is done by saying-just this, just this precise operation, no other operation: “I didn’t make it. It isn’t.” See? “I didn’t do it, so it doesn’t exist.”

THE BIG QUESTION #3:

Isn’t cutting communication (disconnection) a form of NOT-ISNESS – trying to make something go away by just shutting down one’s awareness and pretending it doesn’t exist? [psychological negation] The same can be said about trying to apply force to suppress something, such as criticism, as opposed to taking responsibility for its creation.

[23 JULY 1954] The Phoenix Lectures: The Four Conditions of Existence, Part IV

However, it works this way: If somebody else, other than yourself, made a mass of energy, all you would have to do would be to come along and fish around for its approximate moment of creation and duplicate it and it would then disappear.

In other words, according to Scientology science, it is PROACTIVELY REPRODUCING some given manifestation within one’s space of consciousness is what makes it “discharge” or disappear – AS-ISNESS, not trying to somehow fight or avoid it which is NOT-ISNESS.

Reference:

[19 MAY 1952] The Route to Infinity Lectures: Outline of Technique 80

How do you not discover – how do you not discover – a secret of existence? Well, the best way not to discover it is to back up from it and sit still. If you are going up toward infinity, for heaven’s sakes, examine infinity. Infinity would consist of everything, wouldn’t it, just at first glance and first analysis. And so that would mean sweeping action, it would mean sweeping decision, it would be “to be.” But in order to be you have to have willingness to be and as you go up the line – all angels have two faces: one white, one black – you have to be willing to destroy as well as willing to create. “To be” is everything and therefore as you go up the line, you have to be willing to risk, to dare.

APPLICATION OF SCIENTOLOGY SCIENCE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF “SUPPRESSION”:

PROCESS: DUPLICATE INTENTION TO DESTROY.

– substitute “destroy” with other items: stop, inhibit, harm, undermine, deceive, abuse, subvert, suppress… etc. Can also say “harmful intention.”

PROCESS: HOW CAN YOU HARM THE CHURCH?

– substitute “harm” with any of the above; can also substitute “the Church” with any other envisioned target of suppression.

Also see: Alternative and Corrective Processes for Scientologists.

Ron Hubbard employing “reverse Scientology” by effectively PROHIBITING CONSIDERATIONS of harm toward Scientology, thus ensuring that Scientologists will always remain victimized in a state below responsibility on the subject of harm.

HCOB 12 SEPTEMBER 1962 SECURITY CHECKS AGAIN

References:

BOOK (1952) Scientology 8-8008: Creation and Destruction

An individual will not be responsible for that on which he will not use force. The definition of responsibility is entirely within this boundary. That person will not be responsible in that sphere where he cannot tolerate force, and if one discovers in an individual where he will not use force, he will find where that individual will also refuse to be responsible.

[13 DECEMBER 1952] PDC: Goal: Rehabilitation of Thetan, Case Step I

Responsibility is the experience manifestation of taking on command of energy. That’s all. Responsibility is force. Willingness to be, use and have. Utilize and own energy and objects sitting in space – that’s responsibility. What is responsibility? It’s the willingness to handle force. If you get a person who is not even vaguely willing to handle force, you’ve also got a person who is not capable of responsibility.

If you get a manager who is afraid to hurt somebody – in other words, use force on somebody – you got a lousy manager. And that’s the end of it. A fighting ship might have an awful lot of men on it who just hated the hell out of its captain – might hate his guts from the word go – and follow him to their deaths. Why? He used force. A person using force isn’t trying to be liked. He goes way upscale to get liked, not way downscale into MEST to be liked. Entirely different thing. Responsibility and force are the same thing. Perception and force are the same thing.

Energy: inability to handle energy would mean inability to perceive. Inability to perceive would be the inability to handle energy.

So by preventing Scientologists from even considering the use of force toward Scientology itself, Ron Hubbard, according to his own principles under Scientology science, guaranteed that Scientologists will end up in a state of “no responsibility” with respect to Scientology itself and will have poor perception and understanding of it.

Combine prohibition against considering “overts” toward Scientology with prohibition over “critical” thoughts and speech – and you will end up with a state of complete oblivion. You will get people that will just follow instructions without any idea of what exactly they are being involved in because, having been deprived of some basic faculties (TO DIRECT FORCE AND HAVE THOUGHTS OF ONE’S CHOOSING), they will literally not be able to see the complete picture of what Scientology is – the good, the bad and the ugly.

Why would Ron Hubbard want to reduce his followers to such a low condition? Or did he somehow forget the principles that he taught, but how could that be?