This is a draft of a presentation about Hubbard's PR technology I gave in
Moscow last week. Afterwards there was a question-and-answer session. Some
people have the idea that the CIA supports Scientology. How else could
Scientology have gotten its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 1993 without
help from above, so the reasoning goes. Along those lines, when I answered
"I don't know anything about that" to the question, "Who is really behind
Scientology?", the audience responded with laughter and applause. The
questions were passed up to the front on little slips of paper. One such
message said something like "Greetings from Hubbard." The audience again
responded with appreciative laughter.

[image] "Poklon ot Hubbard" ("greetings from Hubbard")

10th Annual Christmas Education Conference Series
of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow
January 27 - February 1, 2002

Use of psycho-narcotics as an information method by
the cult of Scientology

Joseph Cisar
January 30, 2002

Hello, my name is Joe Cisar, and since this is my first time in your great
country, I'll tell you a little bit about why I am here. Sorry, as I am not
fluent in Russian, someone is reading a translation for me, but I am still

I live in the USA, not in a big city, but in a small country community in
Pennsylvania. Over 20 years ago, I gave Scientology a chance to prove
that it worked. A couple of years and a couple of thousand dollars later,
I had satisfied myself that the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, as taught in
Scientology, do not work. I found out for myself that it is not possible
for a person to leave his body and travel to outer space, as Hubbard
had said. Neither is it possible for a person, using Hubbard's teachings,
to instantly and accurately remember every single moment of his life.
Neither does "Dianetics" cure any sickness or physical ailment, as
Hubbard promised it would in his book on "Dianetics." To sum up, as a
result of going through this costly ordeal, I found out that Scientology
promises truth and enlightenment, but instead delivers difficulty and
failure. Once this realization came over me, I left Scientology and had
nothing more to do with Hubbard or his teachings for decades.

In the course of my experience with Scientology, I found out more than
just the fact that the organization did not deliver what it promised.
Hubbard's organization was a personality cult, not a benign cult, where
everything merely revolved around praising Hubbard. The practice and
policy of Scientology revolved around enforcing public acceptance of
Hubbard. By enforcing public acceptance, I mean using other than
rational, acceptable means to get people to accept Hubbard.

It was with this background that I read the Scientologists' political
denunciation of Germany more than 15 years later. I could not believe
the newspaper would publish anything like that. There are supposed to
be limits on free speech. The classic example of a violation of free
speech, to illustrate, is someone who stands up in a crowded theater
and yells "Fire!". That would interrupt the performance, and it is
potentially dangerous in the event that people believe there is really a
fire. The Scientologists' false accusations against Germany also created
a great potential for misunderstanding and harm.

That was five years ago. Since then I have been studying the techniques
that the Scientology organization uses in its attempts to get society to
accept Hubbard's ideology. Recently I received a Master of Science
degree from Shippensburg University for a thesis on the subject. It was
a case study on the "Press and Public Relations Policy of L. Ron
Hubbard." A result of this is that now not only do I have the personal
experience necessary to speak about Scientology, but also the
necessary formal training. I hope this combination will prove satisfactory
in this presentation.

Essentially, Scientology is a system that transfers Hubbard's thought
process into the minds of the organization's adherents. This is done via
Scientology's private media. Reading the teachings of Scientology is the
equivalent of injecting oneself with a small portion of Hubbard's own
personality. Therefore, the safest way for somebody not familiar with
destructive cults to learn about Scientology is to first study the character
of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. There is less danger that way of making
the same mistake so many others already have. This also helps to build
up some resistance to the potentially harmful effects that can result from
Hubbard's peculiar mentality.

While L. Ron Hubbard was a complex individual, with regards to
Scientology, he can be thought of in a certain way. Picture a
megalomaniac who believes that all the power in the universe is already
in existence. This particular megalomaniac had one obsession that
overshadowed all others in his search for power. Hubbard was
obsesses with being right. While perhaps everyone has a need for
power or to be right, the megalomaniac is unbalanced. The human need
has become an obsession in the megalomaniac. Each one of Hubbard's
statements is considered by doctrine to be absolutely right, even though
he frequently contradicted himself.

Now, think of power as an object, as if it were gold. We can safely
presume that all the gold in the world already exists. Therefore if a
person wants gold, he has to get it from somebody else. One person's
gain, by necessity, will be someone else's loss. This is the same way
Hubbard thought about power and about being right. Hubbard's power
or rightness consistently come only as a result of anothers' loss.

A quick reality test will prove this is true. For every thousand dollars
Scientology gains, somebody has to lose a thousand dollars first. The
transaction goes beyond the point of exchange of money for goods or
services, though. Scientologists lose money thinking that they will
actually gain something in return. I've already mentioned some of the
promises offered in exchange for money, such as relief from physical
ailments or improved memory. The second most important
characteristic in dealing with Hubbard and Scientology, besides an
obsession with being right, is compulsive lying. These two compulsions,
when combined, form a mentality that is not compatible with a peaceful

I'll give a few examples of Hubbard's lies to begin with.

Hubbard claimed that he was a big hero in World War II. The main
problem with this is that his military records do not support his claims to
herocism. Hubbard's typical response was that his heroic exploits could
never be made public, because they occurred while he was on secret
missions. In reality, members of the military who have been on secret
missions have that fact recorded in their service records. Although the
mission itself is secret, the fact that a person took part is still kept in the
personnel record. No notations of this sort are present in Hubbard's
military records.

Contrary to his boastful war stories, Hubbard's military record
adequately demonstrates that he was incapable of functioning reliably in
any one position. In 1942 Hubbard's chief wrote that Hubbard was
unsatisfactory for any assignment. Moreover, he requested that
Hubbard be transferred someplace else. His request was granted. Nine
months later, a different superior officer again "urgently" requested that
Hubbard be removed. He wrote that Hubbard was "not
temperamentally fitted" for his assigned duty. Perhaps as a favor to
Hubbard and to avoid embarassment, no specific reasons were given
for Hubbard's removal from post in either of these two cases. Then, in
July 1943, Hubbard was again booted off his ship. This time it was
official and he was given a formal letter of admonition from the admiral.
That incident involved Hubbard's decision to violate the international
3-mile-limit in Mexican waters and to conduct artillery target practice in
the general direction of Mexican islands. The islanders complained, and
Hubbard's unheroic action was the subject of a 70-page, 4-day

Subsequent to each of these episodes, Hubbard apparently explained
his actions to his superiors by stating that he was only trying to do the
right thing. He claimed that he had only the best intentions, and in each
of the three cases, he was also believed by his superior officers, or at
least that is what they wrote in Hubbard's record. When the three
episodes are looked at together, however, a contradiction in Hubbard's
stated good intentions becomes evident. If he had been as
well-intentioned as he said he was, he would not, in all likelihood, have
been removed from three different duty stations over the course of two
years due to his own misconduct. In none of the three cases did he
admit responsibility when confronted with his own wrong-doing by
three different commanders.

Another major falsehood that is spread about Hubbard was that he
used his own supposedly miraculous powers to cure himself of wartime
injuries at the end of World War II. Supposedly he was blind and
crippled as a result of his wartime experiences. Again, his official
military record tells a different story.

Shortly after Hubbard was officially reprimanded by the admiral, as
previously stated, he was admitted to the Naval hospital. There he was
treated for an ulcer. In those days, the treatment for an ulcer consisted
of a bland diet, of belladonna and phenobarbital. As a result, he was a
regular drug user, and it can be assumed that he suffered the adverse
side effects of drug use. In addition, Hubbard had conjunctivitis, which
means his eyes watered because his eyelids were occasionally inflamed.
This is a far cry from being blind and crippled. It is a useful lie, though,
because it supports yet another lie, which is the one that Hubbard cured
himself from these alleged wartime injuries!

At this point, an observation about lying is appropriate. Lying is similar
to stealing in that it is dishonest and thus it involves overcoming a
victim's defenses. Almost everyone has lied or stolen at some point in
their lives, even if to a very small degree. There is a major difference,
however, between telling an occasional lie and lying for a living. It is
similar to the difference between a person who sometimes steals and a
professional thief. Generally speaking, the professional thief is not the
one who gets caught, it is the amateur. But when the professional is
caught red-handed, one of his best defenses is to pretend like he was an
amateur. This will often work. If the thief is caught with a set of
professional tools, however, such as a lockpick, then he may have a
very difficult time trying to convince a judge that he was just an amateur.

Catching a professional liar can be even more difficult than catching a
professional thief. Because when a professional liar is caught, he will try
to talk his way out of it, and this is what a liar is best at doing. Due to
the fact that Hubbard wrote down much of what he said, there is no
doubt that he was a professional liar. In other words, he did not just tell
the occasional lie to escape wrongdoing; he lied habitually, and he lied
in writing. The following paragraph is called "On control and lying." It is
written by L. Ron Hubbard.


Hubbard wrote.

You can write that down in your book in great big letters.
The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.
When you find an individual is lying to you, you know that
the individual is trying to control you. One way or another
this individual is trying to control you. That is the
mechanism of control. This individual is lying to you
because he is trying to control you - because if they give
you enough misinformation they will pull you down the
tone scale so that they can control you. Conversely, if you
see an impulse on the part of a human being to control
you, you know very well that that human being is lying to
you. Not "is going to", but "is" lying to you. [1]

That is only the first half of the article by Scientology founder Hubbard.
The second half is much along the same line, except Hubbard brought
up the subject of religion, a relatively rare topic of discussion for him.
As usual, he did not write about religion in respectful terms. He wrote
about religion in terms of himself. He wrote that since he controlled
people by lying to them, and since religion controlled people, religion
must be telling lies.

A judge wrote about Hubbard in an American court case: "The
evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when
it comes to his history, background and achievements. The writings and
documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice,
lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons
perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile." [2]

Throughout his life, Hubbard took control of his situation by hiding his
true intentions and lying. His mentality was not that of a person who was
trying to be honest who sometimes went astray. It was that of a
professional thief. In this light, Hubbard devoted a great deal of his
effort in life to two things in particular. His first objective was to
overcome human resistance. In doing this, Hubbard knew he was going
to get caught, so he also devoted a great deal of his time and effort into
planning on how to escape detection, recognition and action. The
culmination of his efforts was Scientology.

Operating in Hubbard's shadow, the Scientology organization reflects its
founder's habitual aversion for truth. To this day, Scientology literature
states that Hubbard made his debut into the world of popular
psychology with his 1950 book, "Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental
Health." This is not true. By the time Hubbard broke into the world of
media with his ideology, he had already started a small personality cult.
One of his enthusiasts was a publisher of a science fiction magazine,
called "Astounding Science Fiction." This was a periodical in which the
American public could read about space aliens and fictitious life on
other planets. It was in the May 1950 issue of this magazine that
Hubbard's work was first made public. Shortly afterwards, his book
appeared. Presumably, because Hubbard wanted to get the idea across
that his book was a serious scientific work, he never mentioned the
name of the magazine by which he gained his present-day notoriety.
Following in his footsteps, neither does the Scientology organization
ever make mention of this fact.

Even something as basic as the founding of the first Church of
Scientology was misrepresented by Hubbard and the Scientology
organization. On December 1, 1983, within the first few minutes of an
audiotape called "Ron's Journal 38," L. Ron Hubbard stated that he did
not found the "Church" of Scientology. He said he only created the
technology used by the "church." [3]

As of December 2001, an official Scientology web page called
"authentic Scientology," states the following in a section entitled "The
Church Is Born":

"After a very careful examination of a poll," declared
Scientologists in a 1954 Journal of Scientology, "one
would say very bluntly: Scientology fills the need for a
religion." Consequently, and independently of Mr.
Hubbard, the first Church of Scientology was founded by
parishioners in Los Angeles. [4]

According to Scientology and its founder, then, there is no doubt but
that somebody other than Hubbard founded the "Church" of
Scientology in Los Angeles in 1954. But documents Hubbard filed with
the state of New Jersey tell a different story.

According to legal incorporation papers, it was L. Ron Hubbard himself
who founded the first Church of Scientology, not his adherents. Also,
Hubbard's organization was not founded in the booming metropolis of
Los Angeles, but in Camden, New Jersey. Finally, the first Church of
Scientology was not founded in 1954, but on December 19, 1953.

It is also clear from the corporate documents that Scientology's
incorporation was designed as part of a network to divide up and thus
potentially mask corporate operations. The network consisted of "The
Church of Scientology" and "The Church of Spiritual Engineering," both
of which were subordinate to a "mother church," called "The Church of
American Science." These "churches" all had the same address, 527
Cooper Street, Camden, New Jersey, and the Board of Trustees for all
three "churches" included Ron Hubbard and his wife Mary, among

These items represented only a very small sample of the ways in which
Hubbard and Scientology misrepresent themselves. They are a matter
of public record, and are in stark contrast to the statements by Ron
Hubbard and his Scientology adherents. No reason has been given for
L. Ron Hubbard and his adherents to lie about their own "church." Such
explainations are against Hubbard's policy. Even when his statements
contrast with each other, each one is considered, according to
Scientology doctrine, to be true to the maximum extent possible.
Therefore, the main point to keep in mind when dealing with followers
of Hubbard policies is that an initial assumption of good faith is not
supported by the histories of either Scientology or of its founder.
Scientologists are well aware of this, and, when pressed, will often not
agree that Hubbard is perfect or that he was the best of all people.
Instead, as if this were any different, it is stated that he was just better
than anybody else in his field.

In any case, because of the widely distributed statements that the
"Church" of Scientology was founded in Los Angeles in 1954, the fact
that Scientology is actually a hierarchical network of corporations most
often goes unmentioned in the press. While the lie would be considered
dysfunctional from a mainstream point of view, it nonetheless serves an
underlying purpose. This sets the stage for what a person can come to
expect from Hubbard and his organization. Thus the main point being
made here is not that lying is both practice and policy in Scientology,
but that it is a basic element of the Scientology system, and that it is
used as a tool of influence and control.

In this sense, lying was to Hubbard what the surgeon's knife is to a
surgeon. Continuing the analogy, in a manner similar to that of a surgeon
who uses various drugs to prepare his patient for surgery, Hubbard also
used various hypnotic processes and techniques that have a similarly
numbing effect on the "patients" upon whom he "operated." Scientology
prescribes processes to people in the same manner a doctor prescribes
drugs for a patient, but the effects of Scientology are not based on any
accepted science. Nevertheless, Scientology techniques used upon a
patient can have just as strong an effect as drugs.

Although the techniques prescribed by Scientology do not consist, for
the most part, of physical chemicals, they do act as psychic narcotics.
Therefore, I will call them "psychonarcotics." They are administered via
either the mass media or Scientology's private media. Scientists have
long been aware that these techniques exist, but they have not been
utilized or studied on a large scale, due to their acknowledged
detrimental effect upon the human mind.

In order to describe what a psychonarcotic is, it is first necessary to
describe the opposite. The opposite of psychonarcotics, is the scientific
method. The scientific method is used to improve the decision-making
process. Using this method, scientists process data into useful
information. Information is then evaluated so that it becomes
knowledge. Knowledge is then used to form rational decisions. The
purpose of all this is to increase the ability to perceive reality. As a
matter of fact, it is a prerequisite for these techniques that they be used
for further enlightenment and for the discovery of truth. Therefore, use
of the scientific method for deliberate stupefication and failure is not
valid. Neither is it ethical. Generally speaking, the studies done in this
regard test for increased ability, not for decreased ability.

To continue, there are various concepts that are used to expedite
discovery of truth, according to scientific principles. According to some
of these principles, attention is directed to the relevance and validity of
data, its consistency, how representative the data is of reality, the
amount of bias with which the data is presented, and whether the
researcher had formed a judgment in advance. From the beginning to
the end of the long process of decision-making, all these concepts help
the mind to make a better decision. It stands to reason, then, that doing
just the opposite would stupefy the mind, leading to the likelihood of a
worse decision. Scientific methods applied in reverse, therefore, can be
thought of as psychonarcotics. It can be predicted that the effect of
psychonarcotics upon human judgment is of similar degree as the effects
of other vices, such as drugs, prostitution or gambling.

Although the Scientology organization describes its offerings simply as
"processes," it may be more accurate to think of them as
"psychonarcotics," as described above. In the same way that a drug is
intended to have a certain effect upon the body, a Scientology process
is intended to have a certain effect upon the mind, via the media. For
instance, someone who wants relief for a headache might take an aspirin
for it. But through Scientology's private media, Scientologists are
influenced with regard to the decision as to whether they have a
headache or not, and what the possible causes of a headache in humans
could be.

Scientologists do not habitually take aspirin for headaches. They even
discourage the use of aspirin, which they consider to be a drug in the
same class as a narcotic. In relieving physical pain or discomfort, the
first thing recommended among Scientologists is the use of various
Scientology processes. These processes are learned solely from
Hubbard's writings.

For publicity purposes, of course, the official story distributed to the
public by the Scientology organization is that Scientologists go to a
doctor first. This is supposedly to make sure there is no physical
problem that is causing their perceived ailment. This concept is
misleading, though. While Scientologists do have doctors, they are
Scientology doctors. They conduct their practice in accordance with the
teaching of L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard had no medical training. He
dropped out of college, even after his parents had sent him to a special
college preparatory school. In effect, Scientology doctors merely lend
their credentials to Hubbard's unproven techniques.

In practice, as long as a qualified Scientology doctor does not see any
direct, physical evidence that a Scientologist is seriously ill, and there
are exceptions even to this, the Scientologist will engage in whatever
"process" has been prescribed by the organization in accordance with
Hubbard's teachings. Thus Scientology's various procedures are
administered as psychonarcotics without fear of medical malpractice

The Scientology organization is currently using these methods in an
attempt to appear both religious and to appear as though it is an
authority in the field of mental health. The new campaign is called the
"volunteer minister" program. Its purpose is to gain public
acknowledgment in preparation for the intended acceptance of
Hubbard's system. To do this, "volunteer ministers" are being sent out to
catastrophe sites to give what they call "spiritual counseling."
Scientology recruits are trained to administer a mild psychonarcotic in a
personal contact session. This is an attempt to penetrate the field of
mental health. The phrase "spiritual counseling" is a thinly disguised
effort to subvert the valid practice of psychiatric counseling into a
recruitment effort for Scientology.

In response to criticism of its efforts, a Scientology representative has
stated that it was ridiculous to say that his organization was giving
psychiatric counseling, because Scientology vigorously opposes
psychiatry. While Scientology does publicly protest against psychiatry
and against drugs, these are merely diversionary tactics. Scientology is
not so much against psychiatry and medicine as it is making an attempt
to discredit the competition. Hubbard repeatedly stated that his intent
was to completely take over the field of mental health. Thus the concept
of psychonarcotics is consistent with the teachings of the founder of

To illustrate the application and elusiveness of a psychonarcotic, I'll
explain what a "designer drug" is for an analogy. Here is the story of
"designer drugs." [5] Some time ago, it became illegal in the USA to
possess certain drugs, such as amphetamines. People who made money
by selling these drugs on the street found a way to evade the law. To
physically avoid detection of the substance, the drug was chemically
altered just enough so that it no longer technically tested positive. The
altered substance had the same effect as the illegal drug, but it was not
technically against the law to possess. One of these "designer drugs"
was called "Ecstasy," (XTC) for example. [I don't know if you have that
in Russia.] It took a while, but the law finally caught up with this.

Now, to make the comparison of how a process can be changed to
make it legal, in a manner similar to the way drugs could be altered to
make them legal, I'll use the example of the process of fraud. Fraud, of
course, is illegal. But Hubbard changed the process of fraud just enough
so that it was no longer illegal, similar to the way the composition of
illegal drugs have been changed to evade the law. First, it must be
understood that fraud is deceit that is used to gain a dishonest
advantage. Fraud is a favorite crime of liars. It is different from theft. In
theft, the thief physically takes the valuables away from the victim. In
fraud, however, the liar talks the victim into giving his valuables to the

Fraud is much more difficult to prove than theft. In theft, the evidence
might be a lock that was broken. Anyone can look at the lock and see
that it was broken. In fraud, however, the victim himself opened the
lock, took the valuables out, and handed them to the liar. This is not
nearly as simple to prove.

One of the most important factors in proving fraud is to clearly
demonstrate that the liar had the intent to cheat the victim. If a liar can
counter with a statement that he had nothing but good intentions, it
becomes much more difficult to prove fraud. Therefore, to commit fraud
with the least likelihood of getting caught, a person would merely have
to alter the stated intent of his transaction. This type of verbal
manipulation is consistent with the action of a person who is obsessed
with being right.

No matter how often the intent in the Scientology system is stated to be
religious in nature, its results are consistent with fraud, according to a
substantial number of former members. In this sense it can be argued
that Scientology works as a type of fraud whose components have been
altered to the point where it can no longer be prosecuted in court.
France is one of the first countries to take assertive action against this
type of designer fraud. Its law uses the words "mental manipulation."
Hopefully, the concept of psychonarcotics will be of some use if that
law is ever put to the test.

There is another remarkable similarity between the providers of
Scientology and the providers of street drugs . Back in the days before
drug-testing was accepted, drug use was more rampant than it is now.
Drug gangs also had an interesting method of eradicating particularly
effective drug enforcement agents.

Whenever a member of a drug gang got arrested, it was standard
procedure for the member to falsely accuse a law enforcement
employee of using illegal drugs. According to the law, two false
accusations of this sort against an innocent person who did not have an
alibi could result in conviction. That is why the drug gangs did it. For
every two arrests, the gang could theoretically eradicate one law
enforcement official. So this was not just about drug-smuggling. It was
the equivalent of war.

The above procedure was not systematically used by people who kept
a small quantity of marijuana on hand for personal consumption. Those
people usually didn't want to incur any more wrath upon themselves
from law enforcement agents than was absolutely necessary. It was
standard procedure for crooks at war with the law, though, and
sometimes innocent people were convicted as a result. That was and
still is one of the risks run by drug enforcement agents and they are very
aware of this. The fact that there is such a thing as a crooked cop does
not simplify things.

Destructive cults in general, and Scientology in particular, act in a similar
manner. Scientology uses its own insider information to accuse its most
effective critics of acting like members of destructive cults. This is the
very subject that Scientology practitioners are most knowledgeable
about. It is also similar to the practice of the old-time drug gangs.

The cultists who are most interested in publicly denouncing critics as
brainwashers or hate-filled extremists are the professionals who make a
career from selling psychonarcotics, and they are willing to wage war to
defend their livelihood. Who better than professional extremists are able
to present the images needed to falsely portray others as brainwashers
and extremists? The extremists are effective up to the point where the
public recognizes that the extremists are using extreme methods to paint
others as extremists.

The analogy can be continued in that today there are some people
(freezoners) who practice Scientology a little to experience the
psychological effect it has upon their minds. Some of those people may
even combine the effects of drugs and Scientology practice, the same
way Ron Hubbard described it in the book "Dianetics: The Modern
Science of Mental Health." Those people may be annoyed by the critics
of Hubbard's cult, but the critics are really doing nothing to interfere
with the personal use of Scientology's mind-altering technology.

We may be at a similar stage in our development today as the drug
enforcement agents were back in the days before drug testing. Right
now, we may have an idea that we are fighting something that some
people call "brainwashing." But there is no test universally accepted by
researchers that recognizes this sort of mental manipulation. We are still
in the experimental stages.

There are several complications in recognition of brainwashing. One is
that brainwashing is not an absolute thing. There are various stages of
control, each one difficult to prove outside of a controlled environment,
and each more serious than the last. The matter is also complicated by
the fact, as illustrated above, that mind control cults accuse their
opposition of mind control in an active effort to impede recognition. This
confuses the matter immensely, but it may be beneficial in the long run in
that once a reliable test for the stages of brainwashing has been
developed, it will have been verified under the most difficult of

In the past, the cult coalition has also had some degree of success in
conducting their counter-attack upon sectologists. At least one false
so-called "deprogramming" manual has been distributed in university
libraries as a disinformation maneuver. [6] The false manual was
apparently intended to show scholars that deprogrammers back in the
1970s used inhuman and illegal methods. As a result of this
disinformation and a few real abuses, some people now think that
deprogramming cult members is illegal.

Although illegalities have been associated with deprogramming, as they
can be with almost anything, the act itself consists mainly of talking. As
far as I know, talking to a member of a cult is still not illegal. The word
"deprogramming" is still frequently used by cults in an attempt to make
dissenting voices guilty by association of illegal and violent acts.

It is not enough to say that cult members have been brainwashed, that
they have separated from their family and friends, that they have given
all their money and time to a controlling group, or that they cannot hold
a rational conversation. Those are symptoms, not causes.

If there could be said to be one cause of people joining irrational,
extremist cults, that would be the inability to make a rational decision. It
follows that a person who is the most capable of making a rational
decision would be less likely to be tricked into joining an irrational cult.
Naturally, there are other factors involved in a person's decision to enter
a cult. The most predominant factor is a lack of information, as that is a
major cause of irrational decision. Another factor is whether the person
has suffered a recent loss, as with family, friends or a job, and is
therefore more subject to outside suggestion. Because a lack of
information and the conditions brought on by personal loss may
outweigh the benefit of intelligence, the degree of an individual's
intelligence is not necessarily a significant factor in joining a cult.

Looking at this from the perspective of a cult that operates on the
principles of unreason, it is in the cult's interest to get people to make
irrational decisions. The easiest and most effective way to get people to
make irrational decisions is to lie to them. Remember, though,
professional liars do not lie for the purpose of getting caught.
Destructive cults lie to affect the decision-making process of their
victim. This can be accomplished on a mass scale by using the mass

The mass media are generally accepted as an industry that works for
the common good. One of the most important functions of the mass
media is that they serve to provide entertainment. While there may be
some argument as to whether the entertainment provided by the mass
media is for the public good, it is undoubtedly entertainment that
produces the most money. But the primary function of the media
addressed here is that of information. The value of information lies in the
act of making a decision. Information is to the decision-making process
what nutritious food is to an organism. It needs to be present, and it
helps to be of various types from various sources.

It is evident in decision-making that information is of the utmost value.
The more important the decision, the more important the information.
Approximately ninety percent of our knowledge comes from
information passed to us through the mass media. This large amount of
second-hand information upon which we rely helps us immensely in
decision-making, but it also makes us susceptible to deceit. We may
use this information, most of which has been passed on from others, to
help us decide what is right and what is wrong for us. Once we look at
the information, select what is relevant and weight the facts, we make a

Control cults use information for a different reason than to help people
make their decisions. Cults use information to control people. Reversing
the principle of the scientific method, cults make a decision first, then
arrange the information afterwards to support the pre-conceived
decision through the media. This is more than just using the media for a
propagandistic mouthpiece. It includes psychonarcotic technique to dull
the psyche. The foremost of these is to represent the mere presence of
democratic discussion as hysterical discrimination against religious
minorities. Yet, the discussion being objected to is an almost certain
outcome of irrational conclusions, regardless of whether these
conclusions were caused by cults or religious minorities.

Another example of this irrational technique is the idea commonly used
by control cults that mankind is steadily and unmistakably moving
towards its own destruction. The reason for projecting this false image
is that without something to save mankind from, cults would need to
manufacture another urgent need. Therefore all the horrible events of the
world are magnified disproportionately. Good events are depicted as
evidence that cult practice is effective.

A person who was in a position and had the resources to make a
rational decision, however, could look over all the years of mankind's
existence before deciding whether mankind is headed for certain
destruction or not. Although it may be true that we have more
destructive potential than we have ever had before in history, mankind
has certainly advanced over its thousands of years of existence. There is
no reason, historically speaking, to think that we are on a path to certain
destruction. This is a piece of information seldom mentioned by
controlling cults in the argument that man is causing his own demise.

Another, more refined method of affecting the decision process is to use
exaggeration. Exaggeration is different from outright lying in that it alters
the truth to such an extent that it becomes a lie. In the scientific method,
this is referred to as choosing a sample that is not representative of a
population. For instance, while it could be true that drinking a glass of
wine may be beneficial under certain circumstances, it does not follow
that drinking a bottle of whiskey would be even more beneficial. To the
degree that exaggeration is consciously used to have an affect upon a
person's ability to make a decision, it is another illustration of a
psychonarcotic. A physical example of this is Hubbard's so-called
"purification" program, which is administered by the Scientologists, and
which is described as follows.

While it is true that sitting in the sauna for a length of time is beneficial
under certain circumstances, in Hubbard's "purification" program, the
Scientologists take it to the extreme. As a cure for all sorts of ailments,
Hubbard prescribed sitting in the sauna for hours at a time, and for days
on end. He combined this physical extreme of heat with both a radical
change of diet and with physical exercise. Some people will recognize
the above as a formula for heat stroke, which can cause various mental
or physical difficulties, sometimes permanently.

Scientology actually sells the "purification" program as a remedy for
drug addiction, depression and radiation poisoning. Due to
governmental complications, however, the organization has had to alter
its advertisements to be legal. The analogy of a "designer drug" applies.
In its advertising, Scientology advertisements do not say Hubbard's
program "heals" anything, because then the organization would be in
violation of medical malpractice laws. It says it "salvages" people in the
spiritual sense, even though the context of the prorgam is that of
physical healing. Also the organization claims it is not "selling" a service.
Instead the money it demands is called a "mandatory donation." These
minor changes have no effect on the overall outcome of Hubbard's
para-fraudulent process.

Another example of extremism administered as a psychonarcotic by
destructive cults is their reaction, for example, to opposition. If a group
of Scientologists were to interrupt this presentation, we would wait until
they stopped, or possibly have them escorted out. Then we would
continue with what we were doing. Imagine what would happen if a
group of people interrupted a Scientology convention. Almost without
doubt it would be reported in the United States as if it were an
international incident.

The annual US State Department report immediately comes to my mind
in this regard. Several years ago, the US Congress passed a law that
was supposed to encourage religious freedom. The irony of this
situation was that the US Constitution states that Congress shall make
no law regarding the exercise of religion. As a result, this lop-sided law
is somehow applied to all countries except the United States.
Scientology has been especially active in making frequent contributions
through US embassies for this report. A couple of years ago, when
some Austrians passed out leaflets at a concert held by a Scientologist,
this was publicly recorded in the State Department's report as
"harassment." In view of all the problems that we are faced with in the
world, the application of the law in that manner is a distortion not only
of reality, but possibly also of justice.

The use of psychonarcotic processes on a large scale, meaning
processes meant to numb the psyche, takes on a new significance with
modern media. In the past centuries, the main drive of civilization has
been to find new ways of doing things better. Our vocabulary is focused
on what we what to achieve, not on what we do not wish to achieve.
Our predecessors obviously realized that there is no possible
constructive use for methods which dull the psyche. There is no
accomplishment in finding out how much of a drug humans can consume
before they become addicted, for instance, other than to help drug
addicts. Neither is there any valid reason to study the effect of
psychonarcotics, other than for the purpose of helping those who have
become dependent upon them.

The types of psychonarcotics discussed above are nothing new in
themselves, just in our modern ability to apply them on a mass scale.
Much has been written about these processes. In laying out the
groundwork for Scientology, though, Hubbard discovered new ways to
alter the old processes so they would not be easily recognized using
traditional means. He customized the concept of prejudgment, for
example, to be a particularly effective decision-inhibitor. This process
works as a drug that causes its consumers to act irrationally towards
other people. He called it the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.

Hubbard's native environment was the media, as he made his living by
writing. He used the media to produce what he envisioned as "mental
circuits" within people's minds. One of these mental circuits, the
"Suppressive Person" doctrine, has a profusely negative influence upon
individual judgment. In order for this doctrine to take effect, the subject
person has to form a prejudice against a person for no other reason
than to follow Scientology's suppressive person policy. The effect of this
programmable prejudice is so intense and so predictable that it may be
thought of as a strong psychonarcotic. It really does stupefy the psyche.
From the viewpoint of the mass media, the psyche is that part of a
human being that processes information.

Here is how it works. According to the "Suppressive Person" doctrine,
all personal failures are somebody else's fault. That means whenever a
Hubbard adherent gets sick, has an accident or makes a mistake, the
underlying cause of these misfortunes is said to be a third party. Not just
any third party, but one who has disagreed with the affected person.
While it is possible that a third party may make a person nervous
enough to make a mistake and have an accident, Hubbard once again
took this matter to the extreme. He stated that unexplained misfortune in
general is caused by a so-called "suppressive person." This fictitious
class of people, he professed, was the cause of human suffering,. To
that he added with the utmost authoritarianism that suppressive persons
would be found, almost without exception, to have criminal

This is another example of making a decision first, and then arranging
information to fit the decision. As a result of the above doctrine, one of
the Scientology organization's main pastimes is the investigation of its
critics for not just criminal deeds, but for any potentially compromising

This is a superb example of applying extremely poor judgment, as it
completely ignores the matters of relevance or validity in jumping to a
fantastic conclusion. Yet it is the underlying basis of the "Suppressive
Person" doctrine, and it is selectively applied by Scientologists
whenever they see a need to rationalize their own failures and failures of
Hubbard's system. For example, whenever the Hubbard technology
fails, the Scientologist, will consistently blames someone besides
Hubbard. And with the number of people who question Scientology's
irrational conclusions, there is no lack of people to blame.

The amount of damage this destructive psychonarcotic can do to human
intellectual capacity is practically without end, because it closes off the
alternative of finding a real solution to one's real problems. Stupefication
is a predictable outcome of its continued use. Application of the
"Suppressive Person" doctrine also makes it nearly impossible for a
Scientologist to exercise self-criticism or to conduct a rational
discussion of Scientology with an outsider.

At this point, a word of caution when dealing with poor judgment is in
order. To the extent that a person believes or supports the practice of
poor judgment, knowingly or not, that person is also engaging in poor
judgment. Therefore, in order to avoid this damaging circumstance, it
must be realized that those who have been declared to be "suppressive"
by Scientology are victims of deliberately inflicted poor judgment. While
there may be cases of petty mutual name-calling and semantic
disagreements between Scientology and others, real injustice may be
found in many disputes involving Scientology if one bothers to look
beyond the superficial facts. Therefore, in any disagreement that comes
to light involving Scientology, it is advisable to do more than just seek a
compromise between the two sides. Go beneath the superficial

Another effect of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine is a transposition of
responsibility. As stated above, according to the "Suppressive Person"
doctrine, all personal failures are attributed to the ill-will of a
"suppressive" third party. In reaction to one who has been targeted as a
"Suppressive Person," however, Scientologists will actively seek to
cause them personal failure. Thus it is policy and has been shown in
practice that Scientology agents will covertly alter circumstances in their
targets' environment that are calculated to change the targets' situation
for the worse. This may make it appear, even to the targets themselves,
as though they are bringing their own failures in life upon themselves,
although there may be considerable effort exerted in this regard on the
part of Scientologists.

In another tactic involving a shift of responsibility, Scientology
organizations also implement the "Suppressive Person" doctrine at the
legal level. That means they use private and public means to investigate
opponents for criminal or legally objectionable conditions. This
information is sometimes provided to police agencies in the hope of
getting the targeted people incarcerated or institutionalized.

In the event that one of Scientology's targets does actually get charged
with a crime, as has happened in the United States, the organization has
turned the circumstances completely around and claimed that the
"Suppressive Person" doctrine was part of the Scientology "religion."
Because it is unconstitutional to discuss religious belief in the courts,
Scientology has then been able to suppress recognition in court of the its
mentally destructive doctrine. It is not always successful in doing so, but
at least one person stated he had to flee the USA because he was
prohibited from presenting the "suppressive person" doctrine in court as

Continuing with the concept of irrational conclusions, in addition to the
"suppressive person" doctrine, there is independently verified evidence
that Scientologists view simple statements of dissent by others as
harassment. But in making statements about others, Hubbard actually
promoted libel. He did this in writing, in a confidential policy of 1966.
Referring to communication from non-Scientologists, he wrote, under
"How to stop attacks" [7]

"The way we will eventually stop all attacks from here on
out is by processing the society as follows: (1) Locate a
source of attack on us. (2) Investigate it. (3) Expose it
with wide lurid publicity."

In doing the above, Hubbard told his adherents that they should not be
afraid of committing libel. He wrote,

"Don't worry about libel if our facts indicate rottenness.
The last thing that target will do is sue as then we would
have a chance to prove it in court, which they are terrified
of our doing."

Of course, Hubbard also wanted to avoid getting caught. Therefore he
also cautioned that libelous statements should not be put in writing. [8]
In practice, that warning often goes unheeded. This does not indicate a
tendency of Scientologists to disregard Hubbard's words, however.
Hubbard often stressed that, if it meant accomplishing the objective,
even his own words should be disregarded.

Another paradox in this regard can be observed in Scientology's written
denunciations. While distributing libelous information directed against
human targets, organization members sometimes proclaim that they are
actually promoting human rights. Clearly people who participate in such
behavior are not interested in the human rights of their targets. This
discrepancy between statement and action can often be observed in
Scientology communications. Unless one connects it with reverse
scientific method, its significance is not likely to be recognized.

In the same, practical light with which Hubbard advocated lying,
Scientologists who follow Hubbard's policy would not want to be
caught lying, either. Not because lying is wrong, but because it would
turn people away from Scientology. Why would Hubbard advocate
lying to the point of libel? The benefit to the organization of widespread
lying is that it clouds the fact that members of the Scientology
organization are not being held publicly, verifiably accountable for the
actions of the organization. Despite its creation of a welfare and legal
burden upon society through its conduct, Scientology still steadfastly
and, sometimes successfully, demands all the privileges granted to
religion, all the respect granted to philosophy and all the confidence
given to science.

In essence, the Scientology organization, while exercising the principle
that the strong dominate the weak, simultaneously demands for itself the
rights of the weak against the suppression of the strong. While it is true
that Scientology has weaknesses -- dishonesty, irresponsibility and poor
judgment -- these are deliberately self-inflicted.. Healthy discrimination
against poor judgment and harmful decisions puts Scientology at an
automatic disadvantage. Scientology uses this calculated reaction in a
manner so as to increase the organization's own wealth and influence.
Hubbard's "purification" program is only one example of Scientology's
profiteering of this sort.

In order to preserve the true spirit of supporting the weak against the
strong, it is more valid to grant the rights of the weak not to Scientology,
but to the people it victimizes, from whose power and financial means
Scientology has profited. While it may be true that Scientology's victims
have had a temporary lapse of judgment and responsibility, their
psychonarcosis resulted from a purposely misguided faith in trusting
Hubbard technology.

150 years ago, Karl Marx wrote that religion is the opium of the
masses. Marx, however, did not distinguish between the good faith of
religion that leads people to relate better to the world around them, and
thus make better decisions, and the bad faith of mind control, which
cuts people off from their environment, and consistently results in poorer
decisions for the individual. Therefore I will update Marx' statement by
saying that the practice of mind control no more relates to religion than
opium relates to food. Putting this relationship into a more constructive
perspective, good food leads to healthier bodies, and good religion
leads to healthier decisions.


[1] L. Ron Hubbard, Technique 88 English version: Russian version:]

[2] p. 370, Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard,
Russell Miller, 1987, Henry Holt and Company, New York

[3] Tom Voltz, Scientology with(out) an end. from



[6] p. 176, Dr. Klaus Karbe: Rehabilitation of former Members of
Youth Sects, American Experiences - 1981 available from:


[8] "And if one makes in writing not one slanderous or libelous
statement, there is no defense by them." HCO POLICY LETTER OF


Joe Cisar, Xenu apologist

What tripped Scientology's trigger?
Media, read what made me Scientology Public Enemy nbr. 46