<< ARI Watch

Barney’s  Big Lie

The cover-up is worse than the crime.
— saying 

  The Lie:  I joined the Church of Scientology when it was a benevolent enterprise and left when it got loony.

  The truth:
The Church of Scientology was loony from the start.

When did Carl Barney’s career in Scientology begin?  That is a part of Barney’s biography that he and his defenders try to keep in the dark. We ferreted out the time and other landmarks in previous articles. Barney began studying Scientology in the early 1960s while visiting Australia. In 1967 he was a student at Saint Hill (Sussex, England), in those days the headquarters of the Church of Scientology. In 1969 he became “Clear” and began being groomed for management. By sometime in 1970 or possibly 1969 he had reached the rank of Class VIII Auditor and Operating Thetan, and is running Church of Scientology franchises in Los Angeles and San Diego. This meant paying L. Ron Hubbard 10% of his revenue in return for use of the names “Dianetics” and “Church of Scientology,” and for use of Hubbard’s recorded lectures, books, and other instructional material. [1]

Barney could have started his own “self help” school. Instead he cashed in on the name “Church of Scientology” and L. Ron Hubbard’s personality.  He chose the con man’s path and stuck to it.

Sometime in 1979 Hubbard revoked his franchise licenses and Barney’s Co$ career was over.

So the years of Barney’s heavy involvement in the Church ran from the late 1960s through the 1970s, the heyday of Scientology and, to hear him tell it, Scientology’s Golden Age.

It is very easy to prove – the evidence is overwhelming – that Co$ was loony all through those years. But before we present the evidence let’s examine more closely the reason Barney gives for leaving Co$, in his own words and through his friends at The Objective Standard / Objective Standard Institute.

From “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” by Craig Biddle (TOS), Part One of its three parts:

“I asked him about his involvement with Scientology, and here’s what I learned.

“... He got involved because he thought Scientology was a system of ideas for good living. ...

“Over time, the leaders of the movement began steering Scientology less in the direction of ideas and tools for good living and more in the direction of mysticism and collectivism. Carl rejected this development ...”

The mealy-mouthed wording obscures what he is saying, that Co$ was partly loony when Barney started. “More” means something increased that was already there. When Barney got involved in Co$ he says it was going partly “in the direction of mysticism”and later became even worse. (As we shall see, the “partly” and the “worse” aren’t true: Co$ was always through and through loony.)

In Part Two, after Mr. Biddle tells us that  “Carl is a profoundly good man” (ordinarily good, even very good or amazingly good, isn’t enough to describe Barney, he is profoundly good):

“... Carl refused to conform to the religious and authoritarian aspects of Scientology.

“Carl never wanted anything to do with those aspects, and he never participated in them.”

We’ll see in a moment that though the spirit may have been unwilling the flesh was gung ho.

“In the early days, it [Co$] was a set of ideas, courses, and introspective techniques intended to improve one’s communication skills, personal efficiency, and personal relationships so as to maximize one’s success in life ... .

“Over time, however, Hubbard chose to make Scientology a religion. ... he folded in, among other additions, bizarre science-fiction-like fantasies of how people came to populate Earth and notions of an afterlife, in which the soul continues to exist after it leaves the body. This is the kind of stuff of which religions are made.”

Later we’ll look at Scientology training in the late 1960s, when Barney was studying at Saint Hill, and show that “over time” is disingenuous.

Part Three of Mr. Biddle’s article quotes Barney himself:

“... initially it [Scientology] helped a lot of people to improve their lives. [This objective man claims! — AW] In time, however, to qualify Scientology as a religion, Hubbard added the weird science fiction stuff, and things went south.

“... it was not until the ’70s that he [Hubbard] mounted a massive campaign to provide the organization with the trappings of religion.”

Whoops !  Barney let a bit too much out of the bag, a trickle of truth that gives the lie to his Big Lie.  Until the 1970s ?  That was when he began Scientology work in earnest, the years during which he ran several Co$ franchises. If in 1970 or thereabouts the Church of Scientology donned the trappings of a religion – more so than calling itself a church – then Barney went right along with it.

“... He [Hubbard] developed a series of ceremonies for weddings, funerals, etc. and called the officiants “Ministers” or “Reverends.” He even had people dress up in clerical garb. These changes were implemented primarily to gain tax-exempt status with the IRS. But they also indicated a shift in the direction of the organization that I and others opposed and that eventually became intolerable. While Scientology started out benign and thousands got benefit from it, in time it became wacky and weird, and ultimately became corrupt and vicious. As this happened, good people left in droves.”

Including, we are to believe, Carl Barney.  It isn’t true.  He didn’t leave, he stayed.  It is a matter of record that at least by 1975 Barney – not just “people” – was calling himself Reverend Barney.  From then to 1979 when Hubbard threw him out is a rather long “eventually.”  And though I’m no friend of the IRS, if the religion was a fraud – as Barney seems to be saying – why would he go along with the deception ?  Other businesses pay taxes, how was his and L. Ron Hubbard’s an exception ?

Andrew Bernstein, contributing editor of The Objective Standard, continues the defense in his article, “A Tribute to Carl Barney.”  Like Mr. Biddle he bases it on talks with the man himself.  Regarding why Barney left the “movement” (a disguise word for  Church of Scientology) Mr. Bernstein says:

“As the movement went into religion and bizarre beliefs and practices, Carl got out.”

Yet Mr. Biddle, in his article, has Barney being kicked out (which happens to be true, though the reason Mr. Biddle gives for it is not).  Misters Bernstein and Biddle need to get on the same page of the story.

So much for Barney’s fantasy world.  Now for reality.


It’s hard to imagine that Barney and Mr. Biddle think they can get away with presenting the Church of Scientology as once an honest business.  A flood of leaked Co$ documents, exposé books, biographies, autobiographies, and documentaries are available describing both the years when Barney was in training and when he was part of running the show. There is no way he can get away with lying about it now.

It is true that one can find people who think Scientology helped them. One can find people who think electro-shock treatment helped them. One can find happy Moonies. The question is, did it help them objectively? The psychology of quackery is well-known. Are they really better off and what was the actual cause? Was the method worth the price compared to other methods? Were any people harmed? To answer those questions regarding Co$ we will examine the alleged help being given and the training of the people giving the help.

In previous articles we unearthed some telling Co$ documents about Barney when he was active in Co$. [2]  Here we broaden our inquiry to include material not specifically about Barney but still from when he was a student at Saint Hill and later when he was running his Church missions.


Quoting the narrator of the 1967 British documentary  “Scientology: A Faith For Sale”:

“Everything at Saint Hill is touched by Ron Hubbard’s personality.  All tapes contain his voice, all but a few of the textbooks are his, and all Scientologists regard him with awe.”

We will comment on the documentary in detail later; for now, what about those tapes? It turns out Wikileaks has a recording (originally a tape) of a lecture L. Ron Hubbard gave on 3 October 1968. It is the tenth in a series of 19 lectures on various aspects of “Standard Tech” and the level “Class VIII,” the level which Barney himself attained by 1970. Maybe the tape was in the Saint Hill syllabus, who knows? In any case it will give us an idea of what the syllabus was like and the sort of ideas Barney found valuable:
Class VIII lecture 10: “Assists”
Listen to at least some of the recording and imagine yourself a student at Saint Hill back in the day, trying to become – or as Scientologists say, go – Clear.  Body Thetans make their appearance starting 17:57.

Also leaked is a folder containing transcripts of all the lectures except the 17th.  From the  info  file in the folder:

“Given on the Flagship Apollo. This course and lectures are only available for study at advanced orgs. These confidential lectures instill the uncompromising, unvarying standard of technical application taught on the class VIII course. Ron details the dramatic history of this sector of the galaxy, what happened to it and its planetary populations and how scientology contains the only solution to this fourth dynamic engram. These lectures hammer home the necessity of perfect rendition of every auditing basic, thereby establishing 100 percent standard tech and the guarantee of full and complete results on any case.”

Wikileaks makes the folder available in a ZIP file [3]  which we have unzipped below.  Note that sometimes Hubbard, instead of saying the year is 1968, says it is “18 AD.”  He explains at the beginning of the second lecture, “What Standard Tech Does”:

“Thank you. Thank you.  And here we are.  What’s the date?  It’s the 25th of September AD 18.

“In the parlance of former religions, 1968.”

Hubbard wrote Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in 1950. He measures time from that date;  AD, instead of “Anno Domini,” stands for “After Dianetics.”

An Introduction to Standard Tech
Class VIII Tape Transcripts

 1  SEP 24, 1968  Welcome to the Class VIII Course

 2  SEP 25, 1968  What Standard Tech Does

 3  SEP 26, 1968  The Laws of Case Supervision

 4  SEP 27, 1968  Standard Tech Defined

 5  SEP 28, 1968  The Standard Green Form and Rudiments

 6  SEP 29, 1968  Mechanics of Techniques and Subject Matter

 7  SEP 30, 1968  Case Supervisor Do s and Dont s

 8  OCT  1, 1968  Certainty of Standard Tech

 9  OCT  2, 1968  The Laws of Listing and Nulling

10  OCT  3, 1968  Assists

11  OCT  7, 1968  Assessment and Listing Basics

12  OCT  8, 1968  More On Basics

13  OCT  9, 1968  Ethics and Case Supervision

14  OCT 10, 1968  Auditor Attitude and the Bank

15  OCT 11, 1968  Auditors Additives, Lists, Case Supervision

16  OCT 12, 1968  Standard Tech

17  OCT 13, 1968  The Basics and Simplicity of Standard Tech

18  OCT 14, 1968  The New Auditors Code

19  OCT 15, 1968  An Evaluation of Examination Answers


The takeaway is that Hubbard was expounding on malignant body Thetans etc. from the beginning of Barney’s involvement in Scientology. Barney did not leave Co$ when it got wacky and weird, to use his words, it was wacky and weird when he started.

And he must know this.


Now about that film. In 1967 the British television production company Granada Productions made a documentary, one in its World in Action investigative reporting series, about Saint Hill called  “Scientology: A Faith For Sale.”  It begins with a scene of gregariously happy Scientologists. The narrator tells us that Scientology is “a mixture of science fiction and psychotherapy,” which, we note, contradicts Barney’s claim that the science fiction element of Co$ was ten years in the future.  Later in the film a Saint Hill representative makes an analogy that illustrates how highly they regarded L. Ron Hubbard:

“... we’ve had other great leaders in the past, [inaudible, something like “take”] Jesus Christ. He wrote nothing, and there weren’t tape recorders in that time, so consequently the Gospels are written by somebody else, many years afterwards. And we want to avoid that in Scientology, that we do get the words of the founder and discoverer of these truths.”

The documentary features interviews with several satisfied Scientologists and two disgusted former ones. Of the latter the French woman is especially articulate. She first talks about people who get roped into Scientology. Note that 100 pounds sterling in 1967 would be worth about 2,650 dollars today, and that she uses the phrase “last straw” to mean something like “last resort.”)

“They’ve been to doctors, they’ve been to psychiatrists, ... and so on. They hear about it [Scientology]. And they think this is the last straw, and consequently it is the last straw for them – and their money. ... They come along and do a psychological test on a piece of paper and then they’re eventually sold a course for many hundreds of pounds and they take it. And of course if the person doesn’t progress, the evilness of this is so— if they do not progress, it’s their fault. They must have more auditing, the case is deeper and thicker than they first thought.”
“... its [Co$’s] latest phase of development has been families break up, such as Michael Panetta; his family has been split up. He was ordered to disconnect from his wife.”
“... to use a hackneyed word, they’re brainwashed to think it’s so right, they can’t think anything else.” [4]
Interviewer:  “Why did you finally leave?”

“Well I finally saw the light of day, thank goodness. I finally realized that this is an organization which is endeavoring to make me and other people feel guilty and work for nothing and virtually supposedly adore Hubbard, and I’m afraid it’s not within me to adore anyone, least of all Hubbard, least of all Hubbard.”

About that last:  auditing consists of relentless criticism-self-criticism, continuous confession to a higher level Scientologist monitoring a “lie detector” of dubious worth – a combination of Freudianism, the Catholic confessional, and an electronic gimmick. [5]

The parts of the 1967 documentary featuring this interview are collected here (click picture):

The full 1967 documentary:
Scientology: A Faith For Sale


In 1968 Granada Productions made a second documentary about Scientology:  “The Shrinking World of L. Ron Hubbard.”  It features the only known filmed interview of Hubbard that he did not himself control. [6]  We quote a few highlights.  The narrator is speaking:

“Even after three hours of talking we never got an explanation [of Scientology] from him that we could understand. In fact, Scientology is a faith, a religion. Because faiths are now out of fashion, it calls itself a science.”

— an interesting reversal of what some of Co$’s defenders say, that Scientology is a science calling itself a faith. Of course both are wrong; Co$ is a con man’s snare calling itself either a faith or a science depending on which way the wind is blowing.

In what follows, to convert 1968 pounds sterling to present-day dollars, multiply by 27, which accounts for both inflation and the currency difference.

The narrator, after saying that the staff at Saint Hill is friendly and usually helps people who go there (belied by what comes later in the film):

“Scientologists do two basic things. First they sit for hours listening to recordings of Hubbard, and they’re examined to see how well they’ve learnt it.
“What he tells them, when you cut through the jargon, is partly good sense, teaching his disciples how to calm down and deal with the things that worry them. The rest is religious ramblings and stories about his achievements in this life and the ones he’s led before, which are as imaginative as his science fiction.
“The real hooker in Scientology is this instrument [camera focuses on a metal box with an analog meter and knobs]; they call it an E-meter. It’s a very simple electronic device that’s been around for years as a lie detector. ... Hubbard uses it in a process he calls “auditing,” the Scientologist’s confessional. Here the student talks, often for many hundreds of expensive hours, about himself. His inmost secrets are dug into. As they’re questioned, embarrassment, guilt, shame, any emotion, will make the needle waver. ... If you feel ashamed because you believed that in a previous incarnation you hammered the nails into Christ’s feet, the Scientologist thinks that proves that you lived before as a Roman Centurion. Unburdened, the student feels free at last. ...

“The only mystery about the E-meter is its price. In a recent U.S. income tax trial it was stated that it cost about four pounds nine shillings to make, while Hubbard was selling it for between 44 and 51 pounds. ...”

Camera on young woman standing on stage receiving her Clear certificate; the man handing it to her is speaking:

“The Hubbard College of Scientology, Qualifications Division, Department of Certifications and Awards, does hereby certify Janet E. Lundy has attained the state of Clear.”

The narrator again:

“This girl has reached her goal. She has gone Clear. Clears like her have gone through a list of some 60 questions, written in Hubbard’s own handwriting, without showing any emotional reaction on the E-meter to any of them.”

The graduating ceremony at a School for Psychopathy?

“For many, Scientology becomes not only a faith but a way of life. They become dependent upon the organization for their social life and even their livelihood. They work for very long hours and almost no money. A year ago the organization did not deny a profit of half a million pounds. Since then the income has touched 30,000 pounds a week. ...

“About three years ago Hubbard ... laid down a rigid line of conduct. Since then, the Ethics Department has taken over more and more. [Camera on typed sheet of paper.] This is one of Hubbard’s Ethics orders on critics of Scientology, so called Suppressives.”

Camera close up of paper; another narrator reads:

“ENEMY - SF Order.  Fair game.  May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist.  May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

After more in that vein there is a clip from an interview of Hubbard on his yacht – a converted cattle ferry – in the Mediterranean. He speaks in a weary, oracular voice. He is soon caught in a demonstrable lie.  The narrator:

“What Hubbard said happens to be untrue. It’s an unimportant detail, ... What is important is that his followers were there as he lied, but no matter what the evidence they don’t believe it.”

That is, that he lied.  Shades of Barney and his sycophants !

The movie narrator then introduces a former Scientologist who used to be a crewmember on the yacht. Clips from an interview of him are interleaved with clips of the interview with Hubbard:

“Nick Robinson was on that ship until June this year as Director of Public Activities.”

Interviewer in the clip:

“How do Scientologists react when it’s proved to them that Hubbard claims things in his past that just aren’t true?”

Robinson, speaking in a heavy Scotch accent:

“It depends on how high up they are. Obviously you can shake a pretty new Scientologist that way but if they’ve been in Scientology a long time they daren’t think in other terms ... Scientology is their universe, and so they would just refuse to believe it.”

When in the other clip the interviewer asks Hubbard what he is doing in the Mediterranean, he says he is studying ancient civilizations. He sends out scouts to the islands and when they report back anything interesting he investigates it himself.  Robinson comments:

“He [Hubbard] was supposed to have total recall of past lives. The past lives thing goes all through Scientology, you see, so it’s a pretty important thing to establish.”

The connection is that in one of Hubbard’s past lives  “two thousand years ago according to him, he’d been the commander of a fleet of war galleons in the Mediterranean, and he’d had an affair with the priestess of the temple on Sardinia. And he used to make assignations with her by her secret tunnel into the temple.”  Hubbard made a small clay model of the tunnel entrance featuring some sort of stone and gave it to the scouts. They searched and found a stone that resembled the one in the model, and they think this is the entrance. When Hubbard told about this at the party celebrating his return, everyone erupted in cheers.  “I think I was the only one there ... who thought, this is marvelous showmanship but doesn’t prove a damn thing about past lives.” [6]

Robinson describes his growing disillusion with Scientology:

“[For] a long time I was noting discrepancies between what Hubbard was claiming to be the abilities of his Clears and OTs and what I knew were their abilities. I’ve met several hundred of these Clears and several OTs, which are the advanced students, and they just didn’t have the abilities Hubbard said they had. He published some years ago that a Clear would have a genius IQ, would have total recall, have a perfect memory, would have excellent health, high Ethics, and would never have accidents by his own fault. Now I found incidents to refute every single one of those claims.  I never found a Clear who lived up to the entire formula. So I thought if Hubbard could exaggerate here, were there other areas where he also exaggerated? I went down to [inaudible] Valencia to check out these OTs, who were there en masse, and I wasn’t impressed at all.  So I left [Scientology].”

In the other clip there is a long debate between the interviewer and Hubbard about the size of Hubbard’s income and its source. Hubbard insists that he makes no money from Scientology, all his money comes from his earlier career as a fiction writer.  Robinson comments:

“People [Scientologists] don’t talk about how Hubbard gets his money. They all assume that well, the handouts tell them, that he used to be a millionaire himself before Scientology, and it’s not an area which it’s safe really to look into.”

The interviewer:   “Hubbard claims that he is well out of [the management of] Scientology. Was that your impression?”


“He really is in charge, all the way, and he receives telexes every day from his organizations all over the world, especially Saint Hill in England, and he sends telexes to Saint Hill and gives them instructions and so on.  So he really is involved.”

Robinson on Hubbard’s claim of humility:

“... on board the ship he is kind of Jesus Christ cum Buddha all rolled into one, his busts and photographs are everywhere ...”

Those are some highlights of the 1968 documentary.  Watch it in full here:

The Shrinking World of L. Ron Hubbard


In 1964 The Saturday Evening Post,  a popular magazine at the time, published one of the first exposés of Scientology.  Hubbard allowed himself to be interviewed for it, obviously not knowing how the article would turn out.  The following are links to a PDF photocopy and then an HTML version that is easier to read and search:
Have you ever been a boo-hoo?
by James Phelan,  The Saturday Evening Post,  21 March 1964
HTML version


Wikileaks provides a collection of Hubbard’s internal confidential memoranda describing Scientology’s Operating Thetan levels.  From Wikileaks’ summary: [7]

“The collected secret ‘bibles’ of Scientology, a global cult founded by science fiction author and con-man L. Ron Hubbard ... . Most of the document has, ironically, been verified by a Scientology (Religious Technology Center) legal demand to Wikileaks to remove the material ... . A portion of the material is in Hubbard's distinctive handwriting. An analysis of the PDF metadata dates the document collection to 1995. The documents appear to have been smuggled out by a break-away Scientology group collectively known as the ‘Freezone’. In Scientology terminology the materials represent ‘OT’ (‘Operating Thetan’) levels I to VIII and ‘NOTs’.”

Most of the memos are dated from the 1970s when Barney was active in Co$.
The O.T. Levels
Volume XIV  of
“The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology”
by  L. Ron Hubbard


Paulette Cooper, a freelance journalist and author, wrote an article critical of Co$ published in Queen magazine (subsequently Harper’s Bazaar), the December 1969 issue:

“The Tragi-Farce of Scientology”

She expanded the article into a book published in 1971 two years later:
The Scandal of Scientology

In response Hubbard declared her “Fair Game” and unleashed several operations to ruin her life.  There was “Operation Daniel” (slander her),  “Operation Dynamite” (frame her for a bomb plot) – both in 1972 – and “Operation Freakout” (have her committed to a psychiatric hospital) – in 1976.  They are summarized in the Wikipedia entry:

Operation Freakout
For more detail see the website,
The Story of  Paulette Cooper
and the book,
The Unbreakable Miss Lovely:
How the Church of Scientology tried to destroy Paulette Cooper
by Tony Ortega

Barney must have known about this.  Did he protest, did he ever speak out?

To repeat a quote of Barney:

“While Scientology started out benign and thousands got benefit from it, in time it became wacky and weird, and ultimately became corrupt and vicious. As this happened, good people left in droves.”

No, Barney, Scientology started out wacky and corrupt. Your benefit claim is self-serving. You stayed in the Church of Scientology right through its attempt to destroy Paulette Cooper. By sending 10% of your mission revenue to Hubbard each month you helped finance diving her to the brink of suicide. If Peter Green is correct, after Hubbard kicked you out in 1979 you were “wanting to connect up” with it again as late as December 1981 and get your missions back. [1 again]

Barney’s statement is not an honest mistake.  Who is he trying to fool?


Many interesting or disgusting facts about Scientology’s heyday can be found at

Scientology Books and Media
“Books and Other Media Presenting the True History of the Church of Scientology”

and at
Scientology 101
“A beginners guide to Dianetics, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard”

Scientology Research
by Caroline Letkeman

Secrets of Scientology
The Secret Library of Scientology
Narconon / Scientology

Carl Barney owned four Co$ missions in Los Angeles and one in San Diego from 1969 or 1970 to sometime in 1979.  Cheryl Sola began taking courses in Los Angeles starting in November 1977. She describes her experience at the beginning in the first chapter of The Cheryl S Story:

Carl Barney and the SCS Missions

It is easy to discover how bad Scientology was during its alleged Golden Age when Barney peddled its quack psychological nostrums.  An overflowing cornucopia of material gives the lie to Barney’s Big Lie.


Carrie-Ann Biondi, occasional contributor to The Objective Standard, repeated Barney’s Big Lie – perhaps innocently – on TOS’s Facebook page in a comment vetted and approved by TOS (they don’t allow criticism, try it and you will be shadow-banned):

“Thank you, Craig Biddle, for justly pointing out all of the good things that Carl Barney has done, including changing his mind as evidence warrants.”

No, Carrie-Ann, Barney never changed his mind; the evidence was there from the very beginning. He must have left Co$ for some other reason, a reason quite different from what he has led you to believe. I don’t know what the real reason was but it is not that Co$ changed. Some of his contemporaneous Scientologists claim Hubbard kicked him out for financial impropriety, as reported in “Who Is Carl Barney?” [1 again]


Barney says he taught only the good parts of Scientology at his missions in the 1970s.  He also says, not too consistently, that Hubbard forced him to teach the bad parts.  In either case, Hubbard had no patent on personal improvement; why didn’t Barney just start his own school?  Why pay a crank so that he could advertise as a purveyor of “Dianetics” and be part of his “Church?”  Why pay a crank for his nutty tapes and books, his silly E-meter?  If Barney had run his own school under his own name he would have been completely independent of Hubbard.  But he didn’t do that.  He knew a good thing when he saw it – the only meaning of good in Mr. Biddle’s “profoundly good man” apparent in Barney’s long Co$ career – and chose the path more lucrative.

He may have begun, in the early 1960s in Australia, as a victim himself but once he began rubbing shoulders with Co$ management he must have realized what was going on.  Instead of bailing out and warning others as countless ex-Scientologists have done, he chose to join the victimizers.  And he made that decision every day for 9 or 10 years – until Hubbard made another decision for him.

No “Orgs versus Missions” story will explain that away. [8]


Barney’s defenders in the orbit of organized Objectivism include  Craig Biddle,  Andrew Bernstein,  Robert Begley,  Chris Locke,  Richard Salsman,  C. Bradley Thompson,  Michael Hurd,  Carrie-Ann Biondi,  and (to the extent that he defended Scientology when Barney was donating to ARI)  Yaron Brook. [9]

People in the orbit of organized Objectivism who recently attended a dinner or party at Barney’s mansion, complete with butler and chef, include  Biddle, Bernstein, Thompson, Begley, Salsman (five among those above);  and  Leonard Peikoff,  Alex Epstein,  Andrew Lewis,  Lisa VanDamme,  and  James Valliant.

The affairs are held in the shadow of two sculptures by  Richard Minns,  whose “Atlas Award” Barney supports financially (as he has many of the above people at one time or another).  See  Who Is Richard Minns?

1  Source cover showing the year and table of contents.  Page 12 showing a map of Barney’s missions.  More commentary:  Who Is Carl Barney?  and  Andrew Bernstein’s Tribute to Carl Barney.

A glossary of Scientology jargon can be useful.  Here are three:
Dictionary of the secret language of Scientology
The Language of Scientology
Glossary of Scientology & Dianetics Terms
The last is from a Co$ website.

2  For example see  Barney Tells His Story,  with special attention to Source, “the official publication of Scientology Coordinated Services” – Barney’s headquarters. Note that back then in 1970 Barney used the word “Church” and called his Co$ centers “missions.”

3  From:

Audio of the 10th lecture:

Transcripts of all but one of the 19 lectures in a zip file:

4  Unfortunately the documentary uses this clip to introduce an interview of a satisfied Scientologist in which the interviewer asks the nonsensical question: “Have you been brainwashed?”  In other words, “How do you know what is real?” This would take hours even for a professional philosopher to answer.

Another point:  Hubbard probably wrote the book Brainwashing: Communist Manual of Instructions of Psychopolitical Warfare (1955), attributing authorship to Stalin’s secret police, as argued at the defunct website  Scientology Culture. (In commentary on Co$, the book is usually referred to as Psychopolitics Manual or Brainwashing Manual.) This book may just have been a scheme to cash in on current political events.  Brian Ambry in his  Revisiting the Textbook on Psychopolitics argues that Scientology was built on the ideas in the book.  Other articles about this, and the book itself, can be found by searching the website Scientology Research – see the link in the main text above – for either psychopolitics or brainwashing.

Criticism-self-criticism, which Co$ makes heavy use of (as opposed to rational self-criticism), is a well known technique of covert persuasion.

5  The word “confessional” occurs in early Scientology documents which you can find leaked on the Internet, though provenance is hard to trace. One example, from Freezone, is introduced by:  “LRH revises HCOB 23 December 1971 C/S Series 73, The No-Interference Area Clarified and Re-Enforced. In this he says:”  (I leave off my and the leaker’s quote marks.)
1. Auditing:
Any required PTS Handling that does not use Dianetics.
Prepared Lists, as applicable, with special instructions followed for handlings on
Clears and OTs.
Purification Rundown.
Happiness Rundown.
L10, L11, L12.
The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes or evil intentions.
False Purpose Rundown.
Disagreement Checks.
Black PR handling.
Method One Word Clearing.

Then there are these Co$ advertisements from the early 1970s. Note the cross, which according to Barney today isn’t there. (The cross goes back to at least 1963, see footnote 2 of  Barney Sticks to His Story.)
Ad from
The Auditor #77 (1972)

-click to enlarge-
Ad from
The Auditor #84 (1973)

-click to enlarge-
Hubbard was worried about the FDA (and similar agencies in Britain and Europe) charging him with selling medical equipment, and practicing psychotherapy, without a license. But quackery, no license required, is still quackery. To use a favorite epithet of Barney’s defenders, it is still “mysticism.”

6  Ability – “Official Publication of Dianetics and Scientology in the Americas ... Hubbard Communications Office Continental” – issue #143, November 1962, contains an advertisement for Hubbard’s book Have You Lived Before This Life?

7  “Church of Scientology collected Operating Thetan documents”

8  Barney’s defenders make much of the fact that he has given millions of dollars to ARI and an unknown amount to TOS/OSI. They are unworthy enterprises (ARI might as well stand for the Anti Rand Institute) but in any case he did part with the cash. Millions would be a lot to you or me but how much is it to Barney? He once claimed his schools alone were worth somewhat over half a billion dollars. So, for example, 20 million dollars would be a small fraction of his net worth.

But why donate at all?  What does Barney get out of giving money to what we call “organized Objectivism?”  Or setting up the Prometheus Foundation?  We can only conjecture. Perhaps he thinks Objectivism justifies actions in his Co$ past and his CEHE present. More than once Barney has proclaimed that he does not accept un-earned guilt. Very well, but there seems to be a lot of earning in his life that he tries to hide. From his behavior he seems to think Objectivist-selfish means conventional-selfish, despite Rand’s patient explanations to the contrary and his own parroting of Objectivist bromides.

9  See  Yaron Brook On Scientology.