<< 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 Church of Scientology was loony from the start.
Just when did Carl Barney’s career in Scientology begin? Dates are among the parts of his biography that he and his defenders try to keep in the dark but we ferreted them out in previous articles. Barney began studying Scientology in the early to mid 1960s while visiting Australia. 1967 finds him a student at Saint Hill (Sussex, England), the headquarters of the Church of Scientology in those days. In 1969 he becomes “Clear” and is being groomed for management. By sometime in 1970 or possibly 1969 he has reached the rank of Class VIII Auditor and Operating Thetan, and is running Church of Scientology franchises in Los Angeles and San Diego, 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 paraphernalia. 
That last should be emphasized. 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 suddenly revokes his franchise licenses and Barney’s Co$ career is over.
So the years of Barney’s heavy involvement in the Church run 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 through all those years. But before we get to that evidence let’s examine more closely the reason Barney gives for leaving Co$, either in his own words or through his friends at The Objective Standard.
From “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” by Craig Biddle (TOS), Part One of its three parts:
“I asked him about his involvement with Scientology, and here’s what I learned.
“... He got involved because he thought Scientology was a system of ideas for good living. ...
“Over time, the leaders of the movement began steering Scientology less in the direction of ideas and tools for good living and more in the direction of mysticism and collectivism. Carl rejected this development ...”
Note the subtle contradiction. Set aside what Barney thought before he got involved, once he actually was involved Co$ was partly being steered “in the direction of mysticism ...” – we would say lunacy – and later Co$ went from less to more in that direction. So even Barney admits (here at any rate) that Co$ was to some unspecified degree bad from the start.
In Part Two, after Mr. Biddle tells us that “Carl is a profoundly good man”:
“... 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 shall see in a moment that the spirit may have been unwilling but the flesh was gung ho.
“In the early days, it [Co$] was a set of ideas, courses, and introspective techniques intended to improve one’s communication skills, personal efficiency, and personal relationships so as to maximize one’s success in life ... .
“Over time, however, Hubbard chose to make Scientology a religion. ... he folded in, among other additions, bizarre science-fiction-like fantasies of how people came to populate Earth and notions of an afterlife, in which the soul continues to exist after it leaves the body. This is the kind of stuff of which religions are made.”
Later we shall discuss the nature of Scientology training in the late 1960s when Barney was studying at Saint Hill and also that disingenuous “over time.”
Part Three of Biddle’s article quotes Carl Barney himself:
“... initially it [Scientology] helped a lot of people to improve their lives. [This objective man claims! — AW] In time, however, to qualify Scientology as a religion, Hubbard added the weird science fiction stuff, and things went south.
“... it was not until the ’70s that he [Hubbard] mounted a massive campaign to provide the organization with the trappings of religion.”
Whoops ! Barney let a bit too much out of the bag, a trickle of truth that gives the lie to his Big Lie. Until the 1970s ? That was when he began Scientology work in earnest, the years during which he ran several Co$ 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 it ? 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 he gives for it is not). Misters Bernstein and Biddle need to get on the same page.
So much for Barney’s fantasy world. Now for reality.
Even were we con men whose standard of behavior is “Can I get away with it?” it is hard to imagine Barney thinking he could get away with presenting the Church of Scientology as once a quality business. In the years during and after his Co$ activity a flood of leaked Co$ documents, exposé books, biographies, autobiographies, and documentaries became available describing both the years when he 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 Co$ documents about Barney when he was in Co$.  Here we examine material by or about Co$ from when Barney was a student at Saint Hill and later when he was running his missions.
From the narration of the 1967 British documentary “Scientology: A Faith For Sale” (we will comment on the film in detail later):
“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.”
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 the subjects of “Standard Tech” and the level “Class VIII,” the level that Barney himself had 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 apparently found valuable:Class VIII lecture 10Listen to at least some of the recording and imagine yourself a student at Saint Hill back in the day, trying to become, or as they say go, Clear.
Also leaked was 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  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 and 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 Don’t 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 Auditor’s 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 soon 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 2,160 dollars today, and that she uses the phrase “last straw” to mean something like “last resort.”)
Interviewer: “Why did you finally leave?”
“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$’s] latest phase of development has been families break up, such as Michael Panetta; his family has been split up. He was ordered to disconnect from his wife.”
“... to use a hackneyed word, they’re brainwashed to think it’s so right, they can’t think anything else.” 
“Well I finally saw the light of day, thank goodness. I finally realized that this is an organization which is endeavoring to make me and other people feel guilty and work for nothing and virtually supposedly adore Hubbard, and I’m afraid it’s not within me to adore anyone, least of all Hubbard, least of all Hubbard.”
About that last: auditing consists of relentless criticism-self-criticism, continuous confession to a higher level Scientologist monitoring a “lie detector” of dubious worth – a combination of Freudianism, the Catholic confessional, and an electronic gimmick. 
The parts of the 1967 documentary featuring this interview are collected here:
The full 1967 documentary:Scientology: A Faith For Sale
Granada Productions made a second documentary about Scientology in 1968: “The Shrinking World of L. Ron Hubbard.” It features the only known filmed interview of Hubbard that he did not control himself.  We quote a few highlights. The narrator is speaking:
“Even after three hours of talking we never got an explanation [of Scientology] from him that we could understand. In fact, Scientology is a faith, a religion. Because faiths are now out of fashion, it calls itself a science.”
— an interesting reversal of what some of Co$’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 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 20.75, which accounts for 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 Hubbard being interviewed 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.
I.e., that he lied. Shades of Barney and his sycophants !
The narrator then introduces a former Scientologist who used to be a crewmember. Clips from an interview of him are interleaved with those of Hubbard:
“Nick Robinson was on that ship until June this year as Director of Public Activities.”
“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 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.” 
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].”
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
oOoIn 1964 The Saturday Evening Post, a very popular magazine at the time, published one of the first exposés of Scientology. Hubbard unwittingly allowed himself to be interviewed for it. The following are links to a PDF photocopy and then an HTML version that might be easier to read:Have you ever been a boo-hoo?
by James Phelan, The Saturday Evening Post, 21 March 1964HTML version
Wikileaks has a collection of Hubbard’s internal confidential memoranda describing Scientology’s Operating Thetan levels. From Wikileaks’ summary: 
“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) – 1976. The operations are summarized in the Wikipedia entry:Operation FreakoutFor more detail see:The Story of Paulette Cooper
Barney must have known about the book and Hubbard’s attack on Ms. Cooper. 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 Co$ right through the character assassination of Paulette Cooper, helping to finance it because you sent 10% of your mission revenue to Hubbard each and every month, and you stayed in Co$ for years afterward. And if Peter Green is correct, after Hubbard kicked you out in 1979 you were “wanting to connect up” with the Church of Scientology 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 – which Barney and friends whitewash – can be found atScientology Books and Media
“Books and Other Media Presenting the True History of the Church of Scientology”
and atScientology 101
“A beginners guide to Dianetics, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard”
by Caroline Letkeman
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 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):
“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. What some of his contemporaneous Scientologists claim is the reason Hubbard kicked him out – financial impropriety – is reported in “Who Is Carl Barney?” [1 again]
Barney says he taught only the good part of Scientology at his missions in the 1970s. At the same time he says Hubbard forced him to teach the bad part. In either case, Hubbard had no patent on personal improvement, why didn’t Barney just start his own school? Why pay a crank in order to advertise as a purveyor of “Dianetics” and be part of his “Church of Scientology?” Why pay a crank for his nutty tapes and books, his silly E-meter? Barney, by running his own school under his own name, would have been completely unbeholden to 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” you will find in Barney’s Co$ career – and chose the path more lucrative.
Doubtless he began, in the early or mid 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 it for him.
No “Orgs versus Missions” story will explain that away. 
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 defends Scientology even today) Yaron Brook. 
People in the orbit of organized Objectivism who have 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: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 Barney includes the word Church in Co$ and calls his Co$ centers “missions” – yet another contradiction with what Barney claims today.
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?” The alternative “How do you know what is real?” 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 Manual (1956), 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.)
SECTION III: THOSE PERSONS COMPLETED ON OT III AND/OR COMPLETED ON ANY LEVEL ABOVE OT III:A. CAN BE GIVEN, BETWEEN ANY OT LEVELS ABOVE OT III: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.
L10, L11, L12.
The handling of postulates, considerations, attitudes, evil purposes or evil intentions.
False Purpose Rundown.
Black PR handling.
Method One Word Clearing.
Then there are these Co$ advertisements from the early 1970s. Note the cross, which according to Barney isn’t there. (The cross goes back to at least 1963, see footnote 2 of Barney Sticks to His Story.)
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.”
The Auditor #77 (1972)
-click to enlarge-
| ||Ad from|
The Auditor #84 (1973)
-click to enlarge-
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 TOS. 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 claims his schools alone are 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 “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.