>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? << Consult my want list here!
Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.
“Purpose of propaganda: Its chief function is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.”
(from‘Mein Kampf’; 1925; chapter 6)
A premeditated series of occurrences? - Scientology: The 80's conspiracy? (3)
This is another of these pages that I initially did not plan to include. However after various encounters on a certain anti-Scientology newsgroup some thought dawned upon me that may be we were facing here some topic that was part of a rather carefully planned operation for the sake of anti-Scientology propaganda that were concocted in these 80's. Then it appears also being very obvious that this is the No. 1 book about the persona L. Ron Hubbard and thus the subject of Scientology that since its publication has been and still to this day is being advocated by the majority of the members of the anti-Scientology movement as such. They say “This is a must-read, find out the facts about the scam!”, or something in this order. At that it is then claimed that the documentation provided for in this publication would be so meticulous and accurate. The question here would be to establish if that really would be the case? People, in particular the propaganda motivated one's, will make many statements to further their aim as ordained by their conviction. This however may not necessarily find their origin in established fact at all. This is just the nature of man behaving like this, this is what he commonly does as history reveals. Hence this article being written.
There are some consequences involved here. If it is found that the referencing as supplied by this publication would not be this meticulous and accurate as claimed, and considering this publication being a frequently used tool of argument provided for by the common anti-Scientologist out there, one in essence would not have to bother too much about the other books they have in their listing. For reason that their present claim will have damaged their credibility sufficiently. And then more people may have come to realize that one then should not so easily adopt matters just because they are being presented in a certain way or by means of statement and bold claim.
Russell Miller's ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’ (1987)
L. Ron Hubbard: Devil or Saint? - A matter of choice ...
Russell Miller from dust wrapper
first UK edition, 1987
Just its title is already a claim in itself which reads in full: ‘Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard’. Does the book live up to this promise, or is this may be just an eye-catcher title? It does appear that the book had been written with just one intent, which is to defame the person L. Ron Hubbard in any way possible. Its author Russell Miller just follows one line. This book is notorious amongst the anti-Scientology community, not because it would be well-referenced or present an accurate account (although they will tell you otherwise), it is because they love the way it is written. It confirms all their preconceptions that L. Ron Hubbard is bad, bad, and more bad, and thus the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology can be effectively put down.
It should not be questioned that Russell Miller has the ability to tell tales and captivate his readers attention. He uses an authoritative and ironic style of writing, it all sounds so very convincing. A careful reader however will rapidly find flaws in his presentations. Its referencing is not its strongest point. Bold associations are being forwarded, but how are we going to verify its claims? You will find quite a few statements and associations that are not actually covered by or warranted with a reference indication. Then you will find utterances that are not justified if some given reference can be verified. Further the realization that Russell Miller himself does state that he relied largely on testimonies from people.
After an uncritical reading you will undoubtedly be convinced that L. Ron Hubbard would be an utter lunatic, a pathological liar, a drug abuser of the worst kind, and a callous cheat. With other words, the devil himself. Now, you should ask yourself, why is that? If you hire Judas Iscariot to write a biography on Jesus of Nazareth, then what can you expect to get? You see, with the same one can choose all the nice things that have been said and written about the person L. Ron Hubbard, then obviously you get a different picture of the person. This is something that the Church of Scientology pretty much has done. There is however no guarantee that either of these versions told would provide for an entirely truthful presentation!
I once read the book about one third straight through, then I simply had to put it aside. I got very tired of the willful manipulative presentation in where the person L. Ron Hubbard was made wrong and/or attacked at...every...single...turn. A biography of sorts should be based on solid verified information. That data should be the guiding line for the reader to determine how to interpret the whole of it. It should not be the job of the author to achieve that by means of his personal views or convictions that permeates throughout his presentation of that same data. I myself wish to decide how I take information forwarded, I thus object to someone enforcing a certain interpretation onto me through a particular authoritative and ironic writing style.
Another point is that Russell Miller is lacking basic understanding of the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. He has never practiced or tried the techniques of Dianetics or Scientology. He has to utterly rely on what other people relate to him and/or that data which is forwarded to him. It is very difficult for him to relate with the data and discern the various aspects of it. He will not know what he is missing. It would be preferred to choose a book written by people that have some understanding and knowledge about the subject itself.
On the whole I did get the impression that an attempt is made through this publication to dissuade people to find out anything about the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology through an utter demolition of the repute and credibility of the person L. Ron Hubbard. Be assured, you will learn nothing about these techniques in this publication. How could it be, Russell Miller does not know about these things, in fact he is not even interested. Just imagine that if some subject would be worthwhile, that you could destroy it simply by attacking its creator. This is nothing new, this has been done persistently through the ages! Now, take this one step further. When attempts are being made to ruin a person's repute in the crudest way possible, then could there be a threat found in what that person has created? A creation that some people don't want you to learn more about? Records can be falsified, you can even hide them. People's testimonies, and being selected at that, can damage when there is no demand for verification for the things they tell.
Now, would it be a coincidence that the favourite book of the anti-Scientologist community would be a book that tells you virtually nothing about the actual techniques of Dianetics and Scientology? In fact the persona of L. Ron Hubbard is inseparable from his life work which are the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. For that reason how can one write a biography and leave that out? The same goes for the Church of Scientology and their latest biography of L. Ron Hubbard in 16 volumes (issued 2012), you won't learn anything about his wife Mary Sue or his children.
“The Mystery of the Missing (sic: Inadequate) Referencing” (Includes: A first mention of Chris Owen)
Full list of indicated reference sources found in the publication: (pop-up window)
Well, if Russell Miller can have this chapter 8 in his book with the title “The Mystery of the Missing Research”, then I too can do something like that. The title for this chapter in Russell Miller's book however is strictly taken a misnomer. That chapter doesn't talk about research, missing or not, it talks about all sorts of other things that are not research. It is basically so that an insinuation (although hidden at that) is being made in this chapter as if research had not taken place prior to the writing and final publication of the book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’. Mind here as well that the technique of Dianetics had been released as a self-help procedure. It was a technique which workability had to prove itself through application. It was not some research that would have to do that. Either way, actual research is existing. A whole variety of these have been published since the early 50's by the Dianetic Research Foundation.
Now what about his forwarded referencing that we find in the back of this book? Can we verify it, can we check up on it, do we get full data? Now, in actual fact this would be somewhat hard to do. Probably the grandest problem is that Russell Miller had to rely for the most part on the tales of people that had left the organization for one reason or another. It is people that were not satisfied or felt being wronged. Russell Miller does say in his “Author's Note” that “the Church did its best to dissuade people who knew Hubbard from speaking to me” and that “This book could not have been written without the assistance of the many former Scientologists who were prepared to give freely of their time to talk about their experiences, notwithstanding considerable risks.”.
Following this it then interestingly notes that “Some of them are named in the narrative, but there were many others who provided background information”. We learn 2 things here, (1) that the author admits that he was relying this much on the “assistance” of these “former” (sic: ‘used to be Scientologists’), that the book otherwise “could not have been written”, and (2) that the author also admits that there “were many others” (sic: ‘unnamed persons’) that had been contributing. This does not provide for a solid base for a book of this sort, which is supposed to be an objective biography. In particular the given title of the book turns out be a grim sort of joke. Which full title reads: ‘Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard’, I'm asking, how could it possibly be that with such premises as described by Russell Miller in the book's “Author's Note”?
A first mention of Chris Owen
Nonetheless we find statements from various people about this ‘well-researched’ work. One of these claims is coming from the very person that made a digital version for Russell Miller's book available on the Internet. This digital version is carrying a foreword from this person that listens to the name Chris Owen. A selection from this foreword reads: (underlining is mine)
“There are two wildly conflicting versions of the life story of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology, The first, promoted by the Church, is that he was an unfailingly honest, generous humanitarian whose profound insights have transformed the world. The second, propounded in its fullest form in Bare-Faced Messiah by Russell Miller, is that he was a pathological liar, a fraud consumed by greed and paranoia who sucked literally millions of people into an extraordinary fantasy world.
... But if objective truth is at all important, relying on evidence and reason rather than pure belief, then Bare-Faced Messiah is considerably more convincing. I have provided links between Miller's account of Hubbard's life and that of the Church of Scientology (on their Web site, http://www.lronhubbard.org). Compare and contrast the two biographies, look at the supporting evidence and then decide for yourself. ...
Bare-Faced Messiah is out of print now, but this argument remains no less strong. That is why I have reproduced the book on the Web, with Mr Miller's permission; not because I have any desire to damage the Church of Scientology but because I believe strongly that it is in the public interest to make his well-researched book available to a wider audience.”
One may wonder what criteria this Chris Owen has to offer to make it worthy of this claim that the book would be “well-researched”? It does appear even that his way of expressing his personal appreciation of the book is copied elsewhere on the Internet. I found for example in a review “This wonderfully well-researched book” after that this reviewer had written already at the beginning of his review: “First things first: I will not shy away from admitting that I loathe Scientology.”. (source, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). Ah, well, that is ... hmmm, very interesting ... Anyhow, are you getting the message here? Do you see how this one goes?
Now, who is actually this Chris Owen? I may admit that I have had some previous encounters with him. This was back into time when I was, for a while, writing on Wikipedia. At the time it became very clear to me that he was regarded as some sort of ‘big shot’ administrator on Wikipedia. Basically the articles that he wrote or edited (at least regarding the subjects of Dianetics, Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, etc..), they were simply left as they were. Even members of this anti-Scientology community let them be. When he gave his views, people submitted. This was rather interesting I thought. My general impression however of this person is not a very positive one. My experience is that he is rather authoritative and thinks that he knows matters, even if not being an expert in the subject. Also his mind about the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology is already made up, regarding this subject though he is rather mislead. I recall that at one time he rather suddenly rewrote the whole article ‘Fair Game (Scientology)’. Various pertinent data got lost there, but ... everyone let it be. Because it was Chris Owen who did that, apparently. It is admitted that he can write, but so can Russell Miller, but ... that is not enough!
The matter of “The Missing Interviews”
This is another aspect of it. We are simply missing interviews. What we see are people that prior to the book being written had some sort of hassle with the organization one way or the other. It should be more than obvious that you hardly can put together a reliable biography of sorts if you put the whole focus on what the complainers have to say! And unfortunately, complainers you will always have whatever the subject may be! Russell Miller himself relates about the matter in his “Author's Note” in where he writes that “the Church did its best to dissuade people who knew Hubbard from speaking to me”. If this be true it will provide for a welcome excuse for Russell Miller to focus on the complainers as obviously those that wish to remain in good standing with the Church will have to decline contributing to the book to be written. Can we rely on this claim of Russell Miller? I am not convinced that we actually can. On the other hand the Church does have a reputation to interfere and with exaggeration in terms of control. Either way the result of it all will be that a coloured version of events will be produced.
A large part of the book had thus been compiled based on data that was gotten through interviews. Various transcripts of these interviews have since reached the Internet, but not the sound recordings of these. The persons that were interviewed were, you can say, selected. If it's all people that had reason to complain then what you get can not be other than an one-sided tale.
Interesting is as well that we for example see interviews listed with all the 3 persons lastly to have been with L. Ron Hubbard prior to him boarding a plane on 4 December 1972 (these being: Ken Urquhart, Jim Dincalci and Kima Douglas). It is suspected that the person that returned a whole 9½ months later was not L. Ron Hubbard but an imposter. And really, this is not so far-fetched as it may sound at first. Various about this can be consulted at below link:
Various passages worthy of particular mention found in this publication ...
These were first spoken of when some not very clearly identified papers became part of court proceedings during May-June 1984. I write about these happenings here (separate window). The court nor the lawyer representing the Church of Scientology ever demanded authentication of these, and neither does Russell Miller when he quotes from these affirmations that were read during the court proceedings. He takes it all for granted and addresses them in passing in chapter 8 entitled “The Mystery of the Missing Research”.
Regarding Dr. Nordenholz
In chapter 12: “Phoenix Rising” we find an interesting conclusion regarding Dr. Nordenholz:
“The word Scientology was derived from the Latin scio (knowing in the fullest sense) and the Greek logos (study). Hubbard erroneously believed it to be his own invention: but curiously and coincidentally, almost twenty years earlier in 1934, a German scholar by the name of Dr A. Nordenholz had written an obscure work of philosophical speculation titled Scientologie, Wissenschaft und der Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens (Scientology, the Science of the Structure and Validity of Knowledge). It was unlikely, however, that Hubbard was plagiarizing Dr Nordenholz - the book had not been translated into English and Hubbard's knowledge of German was rudimentary.”
This is of particular interest because this opposes the general take of the Free Zone (those that practice Scientology outside of the control of the Church of Scientology), that considers that L. Ron Hubbard had taken this from Dr. Nordenholz. Indeed it would be rather unlikely that this would be the case. I address this book from Dr. Nordenholz here (separate window).
‘Freedom of Information Act’ versus Copyright infringement
Russell Miller notes in his “Author's Note” that “This book could not have been written without the existence of the Freedom of Information Act in the United States, which may give pause for thought to those who care about the truth yet are opposing the introduction of similar legislation in Britain.”.
Things however may not be all that evident here.
“Justices Permit Strict Curbs On Use of Unpublished Writing
The Supreme Court yesterday refused to review a controversial copyright ruling that severely restricts the ability of writers to quote from diaries, letters and other unpublished material.
The justices let stand without comment the decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that quotations from letters, diaries, and other documents in a critical biography of Church of Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard constituted copyright infringement. The appeals court refused to issue an order prohibiting distribution of the book, ‘Bare-Faced Messiah,’ but only because the church's publishing arm waited too long to file suit.
The appeals court ruling has created alarm among publishers, historians and non-fiction writers because it suggests that such unpublished primary source materials ‘normally enjoy complete protection’ from being quoted and that courts should generally enjoin publication of books or articles that copy ‘more than minimal amounts’ of such material. ...
Lawyers for henry holt and Co., publisher of the Hubbard biography, had urged the justices to review the appeals court decision, contending that it ‘has left no breathing room at all for scholars’ to uncover and use new material.
The ‘virtual prohibition on the quotation or paraphrase of such materials has now made it impossible for a scholar to practice his craft as it has traditionally been practiced without running a high risk of incurring an injunction and liability for money damages,’ holt said.
(from ‘Washington Post’, 21 Feb 90)
The appeals court decision in Henry Holt Co. v. New Era Publications technically applies only in one circuit, and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case does not mean the justices agree with it. But because the ruling is binding in New york, the center of the publishing industry, it essentially represents the last word on the state of copyright law. ...
The biography by Russell Miller was based in part on unpublished letters, memoranda, applications and diaries by Hubbard, who died in 1986. Many of the documents were obtained from the federal government under the Freedom of Information Act. In all, Miller quoted 132 passages containing 3,200 unpublished words, and the trial court found that 41 passages, containing 1,100 words, constituted copyright infringement.
‘The quotations from these and other works are the factual evidence of the falsehoods, character defects and psychopathologies that Miller ascribes to Hubbard,’ and are therefore essential to the book, the brief said. ...
Lawyers for New Era Publications, a Danish publisher affiliated with the Church of Scientology, which holds the copyright to the hubbard materials, decried the ‘alarmist tone’ of the briefs on the other side and described the dispute as ‘an unexceptional case of copyright infringement through extensive quotation of unpublished works.’
They said in their brief for the high court that nothing in the decision prohibits scholars from reporting on facts they discover, as opposed to quoting precise language, and that therefore ‘there is no dramatic censorship of critical views.’”
U.S. law does direct:
“The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
The simplicity of the matter is that one does not need extensive phrasing from copyrighted and/or unpublished works. One should realize here as well that the book of Russell Miller had been written for the intent of deliberately defaming the person L. Ron Hubbard and therewith the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. This is about they wanted to have their hands completely free accomplishing that. An additional reason is that the book already had been written, and so they wanted to avoid the book being banned because of this copyright infringement.
The argument from these lawyers representing New Era Publications is however rather true: “nothing in the decision prohibits scholars from reporting on facts they discover, as opposed to quoting precise language, and that therefore ‘there is no dramatic censorship of critical views.’”.
It is rather noteworthy that Russell Miller in this radio interview with Luke Muehlhauser on October 24, 2010 does not particularly address any copyright infringement. Nonetheless this was pretty much what the court case was all about. You can hear for yourself all that he says about it:
Sound snippet (1:16)
In this interview, of which various further sound snippets can be listened to in my later chapter “Who is Russell Miller?”, Russell Miller makes various claims about “I have never been so careful with my research”, but he doesn't appear to have been this careful with the matter of possible copyright infringement. This is of particular if not major interest as this was the very reason why further publication of this book was banned in the U.S.
Russell Miller tells a bit later in the interview: “I knew that the Church was going to cause me trouble and I guessed they would probably sue and I wanted to be sure of my facts. Of course when they came to sue me they never ever at any time disputed the legitimacy of the book. What they did was that they claimed that I breached copyright or that I breached confidences.”.
Sound snippet (0:18)
Presenting a claim about a “breached copyright” is in fact an act in where one “disputed the legitimacy of the book”. I would guess here that Russell Miller meant to say something else, but nonetheless ... these are his words! It is interesting though that Russell Miller avoids addressing the legal issue, but instead persistently portrays himself as a victim.
War record and plans for official biography (L. Fletcher Prouty)
The appearance of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (war record of L. Ron Hubbard) (Includes: ‘Ron the “War Hero”’ (1999) by Chris Owen)
L. Fletcher Prouty, a former colonel in the United States Air Force and Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President John F. Kennedy, has been a prime witness for the support that L. Ron Hubbard had been active as a Naval Intelligence Officer during the Second World War. A consequence of this would then be that his true records had been sealed and instead fabricated records would have been placed in the Navy archives. The reasons for this having done should be rather obvious. It is a practice that is referred to as ‘sheepdip’ which is done to simply cover up the actions and the real identity of a person.
A documented research into the war record of L. Ron Hubbard can be consulted here: (external link) (last checked: 30 Jun 2015)
L. Fletcher Prouty at various instances in time had been called to testify in court, had supplied affidavits, but he had also had been sending letters to inform about this actual war record of L. Ron Hubbard that he had knowledge about. The letter most noteworthy to take up here is the one that he had send on 4 Oct ’87 to the publisher of Russell Miller regarding the book about L. Ron Hubbard.
This letter can be consulted in link here below: (pop-up window)
The credibility of Russell Miller in here is very seriously criticized. It is interesting to see here that L. Fletcher Prouty is rather precise in pointing out where Russell Miller goes awry. L. Fletcher Prouty refers to exact passages in Russell Miller's writing itself, directing to quotations from people about matters that Russell Miller should have pursued, but failed to do so. This in essence would mean that Russell Miller can offer no defence. This letter may speak for itself.
In the below letter he folds out even more details about the matter: (pop-up window)
And then we have this Chris Owen turning up again (see previous chapter “The Mystery of the Missing (sic: Inadequate) Referencing”), this time doing his very best basically to damage the trustworthiness of L. Fletcher Prouty. He does that in a chapter in a book that appears only available as a web version out there on the Internet. That book is ‘Ron the “War Hero”: L. Ron Hubbard and the U.S. Navy, 1941-50’ (copyrighted 1999), see particularly chapter “The Intelligence Connection?”.
Chris Owen's distrust about the person begins already in the paragraph in where he is introducing L. Fletcher Prouty. He says: (underlining is mine)
“As for Col Prouty's credentials, he claims to have been an officer of the US Army and Air Force from 1941 through 1964, during which time he served both as a pilot and a Pentagon desk officer in a variety of operational, administrative and intelligence posts. He has never claimed to have been a member of US Naval Intelligence or the US Navy itself. It is fair to say that he holds unconventional views on a variety of topics. He claims, for instance, that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was assassinated; that the 1978 Jonestown mass suicide was perpetrated by the CIA; that oil is not a fossil fuel but is a in fact a plentiful natural resource covertly monopolised by the oil companies, with the aid of the Israelis. He is perhaps best known for his claims about the 1965 Kennedy assassination and was the prototype for the ‘Mr. X’ character in Oliver Stone's film JFK. He also spoken at conferences of the Institute for Historical Review, a far-Right Holocaust denial group.”
Now, what is Chris Owen trying to achieve here? Attempting to get the reader on his side by making these comments about matters that have nothing outstanding with the topic laying on the table? Already in the first phrase he puts the words “he claims to have been”. Well, is there any doubt about that L. Fletcher Prouty would not have served during 1941-64 in the US Army and the Air Force? Why is Chris Owen questioning this, as he forwards no well-grounded reason to do so at all! Watch the game being played here! Watch the mindset!
The remainder of his presentation of L. Fletcher Prouty is thus devoted to other topics which Chris Owen is introducing with saying “he holds unconventional views on a variety of topics”. Chris Owen may be should explain what he actually means with “unconventional views”. He doesn't, so I will do it for him. It means views that are opposed to the official established interpretation of happenings, and that have been released to the media and the population by means of authority. L. Fletcher Prouty is thus opposing that version that has been propagated by governments and sorts. Well, does that make them any less true? Today I think we are living in different times. Each of these topics that Chris Owen makes mention of (forgetting to name the Darwinian conspiracy and 9/11), at present they are all under serious dispute around this globe.
This paragraph of Chris Owen though shows the intent wanting to influence his readers, to have them at forehand being unfavourable towards L. Fletcher Prouty. All I am asking you is to not get caught up in that!
A few more observations made:
(1) Now, there is one particular scenario that we are facing here that this Chris Owen just does not seem to get! That is, if it be true that the war records of L. Ron Hubbard are sealed because him having been in service of the Naval Intelligence, then you will not get access to these records. They are sealed, it ends there. If fake records have been produced then that is what you will find! Chris Owen in his ‘research’ is instead losing himself in focusing on petty details from the records that have been available. But even Chris Owen admits that “There is no doubt that gaps do exist in Hubbard's service records.”, which he explains partly because of “Inconsistent filing”, but mainly blames them to “have been filed in the records of the section to which he was posted” or “where he worked”. He states adamantly that “there is no reason to ascribe sinister motives to this”, implying that there would exist no other records (sealed) confirming he was in service of the Naval Intelligence. Chris Owen is simply guessing. He basically strains himself to the utmost attempting to undermine the credibility of L. Fletcher Prouty, and is trying to present a case in where he apparently thinks that he can disprove somehow that L. Ron Hubbard took active part in the Naval Intelligence. Or at least make it seem that way by his manner of presentation.
(2) Rather interesting as well is that he places faith in the version and ‘evidence’ presented by the Church of Scientology. Like when he refers to that the medal presented by the Church of Scientology was a forgery. This may very well be or not be so, but ... who cares! This stands wholly apart from the person L. Ron Hubbard. More importantly Chris Owen created here a problem for himself and is undermining his own credibility, because it would be rather surprising if there would not be some US law by which a forgery of such a medal would be considered a serious matter and offence. The question is if he has filed a complaint about this? If he did not, and he forwards nothing in where this would show, then we can actually disregard his comments about forgeries.
(3) Then Chris Owen makes various unwarranted insinuations. He claims for example that “It should be noted, before one goes any further, that the source of the records seen by Col Prouty would certainly have been the Church of Scientology.”. Now, how would he know about that? All he can do is assume and assert. This is actually thwarted by the letter supplied at the beginning of this chapter, written by L. Fletcher Prouty and send to Patrick Jost, 1 Jun ’95.
Now, what would be the motivation of L. Fletcher Prouty defending this war record of L. Ron Hubbard? There does not appear to exist one, and none has been forwarded either. This oddity is completely ignored by this same anti-Scientologist. The problem for the anti-Scientologist however is that they themselves indeed are very motivated to have just one interpretation (a discrediting one) being out there. It is not difficult to infer that Chris Owen is one of these persons. His mind was made up in advance about the matter, and he can do no other than looking at it from his side of the fence.
It is just not very proper to discredit a person solely based on the premises that you don't like what he is saying, or that does not confirm your preconceptions. But somehow I don't think that this Chris Owen will learn his lesson.
Now, all these war records business does that interest me to any degree? In fact it interests me very very little! Why would I care about something what would be in some folders or records located at some place regarding this? All that interests me here are the subjects that this person under attack has developed, to simply determine if they are anything to have or not to have. That is what the matter in reality is and should be about! Some years ago I received a response from an anti-Scientology propagandist of high repute (I won't mention his name), anyhow he was of the opinion that the best way to determine if these subjects of Dianetics and Scientology were anything to have was by investigating the past of the person that forwarded them. Well, I disagreed with him, and I told him why. Which is to judge a person by his works and results from a first hand source.
You see, it is really not a very good nor very reliable stick to measure with at any length, as you have to rely on what archive records will tell and what individuals will tell. Through all ages it has been common practice to falsify or burn records, ban books, and so on. And if such records somehow survived and are brought to light, like it did for example with the records regarding Jeanne d'Arc, we then commonly find a sham or cover up of some sort. In addition here we also have records that have been exchanged for security reasons such as the person being active in Intelligence endeavors. And really, it is not a hard thing to have that done. With a correct authority backing it up or condoning that, you can basically do whatever you like. The bottom line here is however that delving in all that will never, never, never put the workability of the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology to the test!
The game that is being employed by the member of the anti-Scientology community is simply to get you disinterested prior to you finding out what the subject actually involves! That is the trick that is being played! And there are many that fall for this trick! You can be assured however that if so much effort is exercised in some topic, that as a rule there is something to get, and that it is attempted to have that something covered up. Why otherwise bother to convince you that there is nothing to get?
Plans for an official biography and the Church of Scientology (early 80's) (Includes: The ‘Ron Series’ (1989-99) & ‘The L. Ron Hubbard Series’ (2012))
“There is a natural law at work that unfortunately favors black propaganda.
WHEN THERE IS NO DATA AVAILABLE PEOPLE WILL INVENT IT.
This is the Law of Omitted Data.”
“1. Fill the vacuum of omitted data with factual data.
2. Prove all false utterances heard are lies.
3. Discredit every rumor encountered. ...” LRH (all quotations from HCO PL 21 Nov 72 I “How to Handle Black Propaganda”)
Could it be perceived that the book of Russell Miller filled up a vacuum created by the Church of Scientology? The matter is that if an official and for all truthful biography would have existed (for example originated and issued by the Church of Scientology), then a vacuum would have been filled already. Instead we have Russell Miller jumping in there and issuing his ‘biography’.
At various intervals we see though that official biography initiatives had been about. The noteworthy occurrences are first Omar V. Garrison who was approached as early as 1977, but in the final end this didn't really work out well (more info here, separate window). Secondly we have this retired Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty. On 1 Jun ’95 he wrote to Patrick Jost. In the below quoted section of the letter he refers back to the 1st half of the 80's:
“Many years ago I was asked to write the biography of LRH by the Bridge people. I worked on the project for years and even was invited to American Booksellers Ass'n meetings where I was featured as the ‘LRH Biographer’ to be. ...
Then LRH died, and things cooled off for a bit. I was busy and without their continued support, or retainer from Bridge, I had no recourse but to stop my work and to get on with other things, such as my work for for Oliver Stone with the film ‘JFK’ and my book about all that.”
The book of Russell Miller was issued in 1987, he himself reveals that he worked on it for 2 years. Obviously the Church of Scientology did and must have know about this, even Russell Miller himself tells he was being harrashed by them during the time he worked on it. It would have been an intelligent and logical move to simply bypass Russell Miller, and get a biography issued before he could do that. Here in particular these notices from L. Fletcher Prouty carry a rather significant consequence! Why had “things cooled off for a bit” in early 1986?The Church of Scientology (and thus Bridge Publications) obviously knew what Russell Miller was working on and what was coming!
So, what had been achieved here? The public had been left with an information vacuum! In this the enemy could now freely enter his propaganda!
The ‘Ron Series’ (1989-99) & ‘The L. Ron Hubbard Series’ (2012)
And what was done (and only later) by the Church of Scientology? From 1989 to 1999 we see 21 paperbacks being issued dealing with various facets of the life and goings of L. Ron Hubbard. But did they have any biographical value? I fear they were rather superficial, it is more like bragging about how grand he was and all that. Many claims made in these series simply were unsupported, and much factual data was gloriously missing. It's like the biography written by Russell Miller but then worked upon from the other side of the fence. The photographic material in these ‘Ron Series’ was good, but the information superficial and incomplete. Some where better than the other in this series though. It remains however that with both these publications I experienced actually the same thing, instead of answering my questions, I got more questions. And both these were very tiring for me to read, one was hateful (Miller) and the other (the Church) was habitually bragging. Neither of these will do for a biography! (more info here, separate window)
And now finally in 2012 we see these ‘Ron Series’ republished/reworked in 16 hardback volumes as ‘The L. Ron Hubbard Series’ that is marketed as if being “The Complete Biographical Encyclopedia”. I am not sure how they figured that as his family is still not mentioned anywhere in these. Hey guys, he was actually MARRIED, and had CHILDREN, there was a FAMILY LIFE, don't ya folks all wanna learn about that? (more info here, separate window)
Who is ...? and aftermath
Who is Russell Miller?
When I forward this question, then I refer to the personality of Russell Miller, his motivations and his actual mindset. Luckily for us Russell Miller was interviewed by one Luke Muehlhauser on October 24, 2010 as part of a series of ‘Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot’ (see here, external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). Luckily for us and, what it appears to be, a significant mistake of Russell Miller. See, this particular interview is rather revealing about what sort of person Russell Miller actually is. There is one thing that the interviewer particularly can be commended for, and that is that he forwarded the right questions to Russell Miller. The interview lays out rather detailedly what the position of Russell Miller is, his prejudices, his flair for predominance and all that. It would appear that he is just a run-of-the-mill critic that pretty much has bought and happily promotes any of the convictions that we find are commonly used by the media and the common anti-Scientologist propagandist. That we find them using these, well alright, but one would have excepted much better supported arguments forwarded by a person that claims, not just once, but many times in this interview, to have performed “extremely careful”, “most diligent painstaking” and “proper research”! The problem here is, when we get into this a little deeper, that we can not conclude anything other then that he simply does not live up to that claim.
As an example Russell Miller easily claims that L. Ron Hubbard initially earned his living with just writing science fiction. In fact he repeats this various times. Then he lays a deliberate correlation between science fiction and the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology as if these also would be science fiction. This logic and association is very usual and as a rule found among the typical anti-Scientologist. The reality is however that it has no ground. Only 21% of just the fiction part of L. Ron Hubbard published in the 1932-50 time frame can be categorized as science fiction (see here, separate window). Now, why does Russell Miller not know about this when he claims: “I have never been so careful with my research”?
Another illogic that surfaces are his persistent and repeated claims that L. Ron Hubbard was a lunatic and a charlatan, and then calling for example the book Dianetics for “complete and utter gibberish, total balderdash”. Russell Miller however does not account for its success, although he does acknowledge that it was a success. Is he claiming that a book has to be gibberish before it can be successful? Well, may be he does. In the interview he also speaks about that the reviews he got for the book were “overall very positive”. Well, his book must be gibberish then as well, èh?
A small anecdote would then be that it states as a first sentence on the Wikipedia page “Bare-faced Messiah” in chapter entitled “Reception”: “Reviews of Bare-faced Messiah were overall very positive” with reference given: “Miller, Russell (24 October 2010). ‘Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot: interview with Russell Miller’” (external link) (last checked: 8 Oct 2013). Here we thus see that an assertion from the writer of a book being quoted (by some anonymous person) as a given reference of how that book had been received by the public. Now, isn't that interesting?
Here under I forward snippets from this interview that are categorized by subject. The complete interview is rather easily found elsewhere on the Internet. Here however I have collected and broken relevant pieces out of it, and subjected it to analysis. Here you are thus forced to look at his actual statements and what they imply.
Quite some claims are being made here by Russell Miller. Take a pick: “I was extremely careful in my research”, “I assumed nothing”, “I never asserted anything if I could not back it up”, “I knew that my book was absolutely solidly based on diligent and proper research” & “I have never been so careful with my research”. Although making such claims is rather easy, backing them up is an entirely different thing.
Sound snippet (0:25)
Here Russell Miller tells about that he went to Montana and “found members of his family”. One may wonder who these family members were, Russell Miller does not share this information. We find in the referencing in his book some persons from Montana that were interviewed, these are: Andrew Richardson, Gorham Roberts & Mrs. Margaret Roberts all from Helena, Montana. I am not sure who these persons actually are. But were they family members “who showed mephotographs of him growing up as a small boy”, not that I know of. Russell Miller is closing of this snippet with once again stating: “I did the most diligent painstaking research”.
Sound snippet (0:31)
Here we have various comments from the interviewer about claimed responses from the media. Here we hear the phrases: “an admirable meticulously documented biography” and “by far the most important biography available”.
In both the above sound snippets Russell Miller makes mention of the war record of L. Ron Hubbard. I addressed this already in previous chapter “The appearance of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty”.
Sound snippet (0:15)
And here we have again this interviewer but this time he himself is commending Russell Miller for his “extremely well-researched biography.”. All this in a rather gullible and highly uncritical manner though.
Sound snippet (0:14)
It is rather interesting to see here how easily people get swayed and overthrown by means of authority and then ... copy it and pass it on! All you have to do is to forward or talk along lines that will feed people's preconceptions and prejudices and they will adapt to that and swallow anything that is stated with little confidence, indeed pretty much anything! Then the media, they will forward or tell all that will actually sell. Good news commonly does not sell very well, or it least it does not result in high selling rates of the newspaper/magazine/book.
(1b) How the book was received according to Russell Miller
Here he is rather self-confident and actually is generalizing. We find here phrases like: “very well, I mean, it was reviewed very well indeed, nobody questioned my research” and “the book was received well by everyone apart from the Church of Scientology”.
Sound snippet (0:20)
In fact Russell Miller is not telling the truth here. For one his ‘research’ has been questioned very seriously by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty as early as October 1987 (see respective chapter on this page). So, how can Miller make such a claim in this interview? Has he forgotten all about that?
There is a book review on a more recent book written by Russell Miller that can be consulted on the cia.gov homepage. The book reviewed is ‘Codename TRICYCLE: The True Story of the Second World War's Most Extraordinary Double Agent’ (2004). This given review does place a question mark concerning his accuracy and if Russell Miller would not play fast and lose with the facts. The reviewer Hayden B. Peake thus comes to the conclusion: “Finally, the careless errors and many undocumented comments place the book in the easy-to-read-but-of-limited-scholarly-value category.”.
The book review can be consulted in full in the link here below:
This final judgment from Hayden B. Peake would rather easily fit in Russell Miller's supposed biography on L. Ron Hubbard. All you have to do is simply check its referencing (i.e. if and where it is indicated) and compare/verify it with the things that Russell Miller claims. Then ask the question: “Does the original source justify his claims and evaluations?”.
(2a) A ‘charlatan’, ‘liar’, ‘megalomaniac’, and so on ...
Russell Miller concludes from his ‘research’: “It proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that Hubbard was a charlatan, a confidence trickster, a liar”. (see also 2nd sound snippet at (5a) in where Russell Miller repeats this once again)
Sound snippet (0:06)
And here about the earlier life of L. Ron Hubbard: “I proved that everyone of those claims was a complete and utter lie, it was total fiction from beginning to end.”.
Sound snippet (0:06)
Russell Miller: “I think he was surprised by the success of Scientology, but delighted of course at the same time, and he became a megalomaniac I think, and I think he began to lose touch with reality, because he was making money, he was the founder of a so-called religion, he was living very high on the hog, and he decided that normal rules did not apply to him.”. Well, it would make for a good story then. Surely any person may become a megalomaniac after achieving all these things mentioned here above.
Sound snippet (0:37)
Rather bold statements are persistently being made, one should however ask the question here why he has to repeat it again and again and again.
It is a simple reality that the utterances from Russell Miller in this interview do answer to this profile. “Aah”, you may say, “but L. Ron Hubbard does fit that profile also!”. Does it? Well, find out about that then! Not by following rumours, the media, your adored authorities and all that. Get to the actual source of matters.
(2b) Megalomania versus the ‘Snow White’ affair
Here Russell Miller makes some more bold statements: “To give you an example of how megalomaniac hehad become. He realized that a lot of documentation had been accrued by the Internal Revenue and various other agencies in the United States. And so he decided that he would mount an operation to steal the incriminating documentation and replace it with documentation that wasn't incriminating. And that is what he did. I mean he didn't do it personally, but he set up this operation called operation Snow White which was essentially to launder official government documents. Now, anybody that thought they could do that and get away with it is nuts in my view, I mean it's, this is self-delusion, but nevertheless they did it.”.
Sound snippet (0:42)
I have underlined in where Russell Miller in regards to Snow White refers to L. Ron Hubbard (“he”). Now, he does this a whole 5 times! The fact on the matter is that not at any time has it been shown within documentation presentation that some L. Ron Hubbard was ever involved in the whole thing. There is no possible way that Russell Miller can back up his claims he is making in the interview regarding Snow White. It also shows that he has zero understanding of how missions are carried out and all that. So-called missions are exact handlings, they are laid out precise, and step by step as indicated on the mission orders. The documentation available of Snow White does not confirm the things that Russell Miller tales about.
In the link here under factual data about this Snow White can be consulted, as well as an overview of the events leading up to the coming into being of the Guardian Office: (separate window)
Mind that Russell Miller makes his accusation of “megalomaniac” entirely based on his fiction tale about Snow White. Well, this is rather interesting and actually tells a lot about Russell Miller himself. Now, by law, is a person not innocent until proven otherwise? So, where is the evidence here?
(3) The ‘Gerry Armstrong’ angle ...
He also fully accepted the tale told by this Gerry Armstrong. More interestingly Russell Miller himself tales about materials being on the public record because them being entered into the court. Here he mentions some childhood diaries. He obviously is mistaken about something here, as only these things that actually were taken up in these court proceedings become part of court record. For some childhood diaries this was simply not the case. For that reason he had no access to these either. Basically the only materials that did enter the proceedings were these materials that are referred to as the affirmations, and Russell Miller uses these fully in chapter 8 of his book, and he doesn't ask any questions either about their supposed authenticity. And what about these childhood diaries, Russell Miller just assumes various things here and takes it all for granted. Now is this meticulous research? Is this living up to his own claim about himself: “I assumed nothing”?
Sound snippet (1:34)
The tale of Gerry Armstrong can be consulted in the link here under: (separate window)
(4) Russell Miller about ‘the Church does not address my arguments’
Russell Miller: “They sued me on those kinds of basis, but no where, in no part of the world and in no court anywhere in the world did they ever say, that what I said about Hubbard was wrong. They knew they couldn't do that, because they are on dangerous ground. That was, you know, unfortunate for me because I would have liked to defend on that basis. But of course, the copyright laws were highly complex and different from state to state”.
Sound snippet (0:24)
Now, why would the Church of Scientology want to play the game of Russell Miller? Is this Russell Miller so naïve that he thinks that? The Church of Scientology has been rather known to follow a particular directive, and Russell Miller would not have known about that? Lawyers even know that, as do about all in such positions. Doesn't Russell Miller know anything at all about court proceedings? Nonetheless he says “They knew they couldn't do that, because they are on dangerous ground”? Of course he says that, he simply uses the situation for his own advantage and defence. Now, if I can query his claims this easily, so can they. But would it have lead to anything, I wouldn't think so!
If you go into their arguments, justifications and all that, you will get hooked in playing their game. Particularly in court you really don't want to do that. You see, Russell Miller projects here, “Ah, see they don't say against me!”, and so, “My data is right, otherwise they would have said against it!”. It may very well be so, that his response is carefully calculated here.
(5a) Russell Miller about ‘L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer’
He keeps a full focus on science fiction: “He became a reasonably successful science fiction writer, and that was essentially what his career was. He did quite well at the time in science fiction. The books they were very popular. He had a very good imaginative mind. He was a good writer. That was how he earned his living until he produced Dianetics, you know, the so-called bible of Scientology.”.
Sound snippet (0:33)
Russell Miller is being asked here by the interviewer (see sound snippet) about some of the evidence he was referring to regarding that L. Ron Hubbard would be a charlatan. He then responses with: “I proved that what the Church claims for L. Ron Hubbard was lies, I mean it was all lies and indeed, you know, if you look at L. Ron Hubbard's career. He lived in a fantasy world actually. I think he was a successful science fiction writer but fiction and reality became very blurred in his mind and remained so for the remainder of his life. So, from that point of view I think it is very easy to show that he was a charlatan, a liar and a confidence trickster. In my view these were his primary talents.”. Ah, that's, well, ... grand evidence indeed! The interviewer does not even have to follow up on it either, and ... he doesn't. He goes right on to a next, disrelated, question. An indeed gullible interviewer.
Sound snippet (0:52)
I pointed out already in the beginning of this chapter that only 21% of just the fiction part of L. Ron Hubbard published in the 1932-50 time frame could be categorized as science fiction (see here, separate window). Why does Russell Miller put a full focus on science fiction here?
(5b) A deliberate association of science fiction with Scientology
Here is another example of the gullibleness of the interviewer that simply adopts the claims of Russell Miller, no questions asked. Interviewer: “And of course he was a science fiction writer. I am sure you think that his ideas in founding the religion were greatly influenced by his science fiction imagination. Is that right?”.
And the response of Russell Miller is just more spinning around the concept of ‘it is ALL science fiction’: “Absolutely no question about it, absolutely no question about it. You know, if you compare the 2, if you look at his science fiction and you look at all these ludicrous claims from within the Church. Yes, I mean, one exactly reflects the other.”.
Sound snippet (0:27)
(5c) Science fiction, Scientology & belief system
It is nice of Russell Miller that he once again is so very specific about the matter. He states: “You know, for any sane person to read this stuff and take it seriously is in my view beyond belief. And it is an indication to you and to everybody else that the state to which Scientologists are, I can't think of a better word than, brainwashed. To believe this kind of baloney is incredible to me but yet they do. I mean, you know, no sensible sane person would consider this stuff to be anything other than the daftest science fiction you could imagine.”.
Sound snippet (0:34)
Russell Miller indicates here very clearly that he has misunderstood the whole concept of the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. It does not appear that he at any time sat down and looked at these subjects, and said to himself, “Now let's examine these subjects seriously, and establish if there is anything of value!”. See, if he would have done that, at any time, he would have known that these subjects are applications, they are no belief systems to any extend! How could Russell Miller have missed out on this so gloriously? And there is nothing that would ensure that the presentation from some Church of Scientology would be correct either. The Church and the subject essentially are 2 separate entities.
I address and explain this matter further in the link found here under: (separate window)
Everything or nothing once again for Russell Miller: “Now, I never found out where he got the material from Dianetics from. I mean, I consider it to be complete and utter gibberish, total balderdash and I am amazed that anyone can take it seriously but obviously a lot of people do. You can not count me on among those, among that number.”.
Sound snippet (0:17)
Now, who does Russell Miller think that he is? He does confirm that “a lot of people” do take it “seriously”. And ALL these people he deems them to be, well ... what exactly, suffering from delusions?, out of their mind?, nuts? See, if you profit from application of these techniques, you basically have to submit to that there are values to be found. So, Russell Miller may be “amazed” about that people do find values and benefits, I on the other hand am utterly astonished about his vast reaching shortsightedness! For God's sake, he was supposed to write a biography on the man that created this something that benefited so many. And he herewith does admit that these people exist. Nonetheless, if you look back at the sound snippet at (5c) we see him throwing out statements like “it is an indication to you and to everybody else that the state to which Scientologists are, I can't think of a better word than, brainwashed.”. He is here indeed rather generalizing.
So, he does not know where Dianetics is based on. Now, why is that? As I mentioned earlier, various of these Dianetic case researches have been published since the early 50's by the Dianetic Research Foundation. Now, why does Russell Miller not know about this? There is also the rather interesting magazine Certainty from England (issued 1954-59 by the Hubbard Association of Scientologists (HAS)), frequently in this magazine we find case histories being published. Russell Miller also could have gotten a clue if he would have looked at the little publication “Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science” (1950). Now, the matter actually is about; would people stay on, would they stay, if no results were actually gotten? Those connected up and involved with the subject of Dianetics and Scientology, most particularly during these earlier years, were actually highly educated people. They would not have stayed if nothing was to be gotten. But Russell Miller ignores it all and simply adjudicates it's all “beyond belief”, “baloney”, “daftest science fiction”, “complete and utter gibberish” and “total balderdash”.
And those people involved with it, according to him, must be, the lot of them, “brainwashed”. Well, that's all ... very nice, very nice indeed.
All these materials from these early years actually should be republished, unfortunately I fear that the current Church of Scientology would not be in favour of such a project. Fortunately, in this digital era, people are in the process of scanning their old materials, and they are starting to get around and are being passed on.
(7) The ‘money’ angle
Russell Miller's mind obviously is made up here: “I think he was surprised by the success of the book. I realized that, you know, he could, he was an optimist to make money. My view is that Scientology is all about money. It's a, it's a, it's a money making machine. It catches vulnerable people, using young people, persuades them to take so-called personality tests and tells them they are doing very well. Scientology is a journey in which you never arrive, because you are constantly on the brink of self-discovery of great important achievements in your mental state, but it is very very expensive.”.
Sound snippet (0:38)
Now, Russell Miller makes various miscalculations and slips here, these are:
(1) that if it was “all about the money”, then why did L. Ron Hubbard wait until the late 70's/early 80's (when he was in his mid-60's) getting the pricings skyrocketing? Prior to that pricings were very affordable and cheaper than any other comparable service offered elsewhere. In fact it was very inexpensive if you trained and twinned up with another person in where you were giving auditing to each other in turn.
Details about this can be consulted in the link here under: (separate window)
(2) that “persuades them to take so-called personality tests and tells them they are doing very well”? If you intend to persuade people to take services just because you want their money, you will tell them they are not well, but will get well if they take some course or service, and not the other way around;
(3) that “Scientology is a journey in which you never arrive”? This is a misnomer, Russell Miller may explain why frequently people are contacting me, that earlier during the 70's they felt so great after services taken that they left Scientology altogether, because they wanted to live their life. Now, this many years later they turn to me and tell that they could not sustain their previous condition anymore with ease. This and as well as that the original route did have an end station;
Details about this can be consulted in the link here under: (separate window)
(4) that “it is very very expensive”? Sure it was, but only since the later 70's/early 80's. Which makes one wonder how meticulous the ‘research’ of Russell Miller actually was, as he does not appear to know anything about that at all! (for details see links at (1))
Now, why is Russell Miller making these slips? Why does he not know about any of these matters? That is a question you need to find an answer for if you wish to give this individual any credence for a well done job, being this supposed biography from him about L. Ron Hubbard!
An interesting question asked by the interviewer: “Now, there is a story that L. Ron Hubbard told one of his friends, that, you know, the fast way to make a lot of money would be to start a religion, shortly before he started Scientology. Did you, were you able to track down the truth regarding that story?”.
And Russell Miller replying: “I was not, no, I confess I was not. I mean, I put it in the book as being something that allegedly [somebody once said], that he said, but, I couldn't, I was never able to find the source of that.”.
Sound snippet (0:29)
Russell Miller's book actually contains 3 entries regarding this:
p117: Nieson Himmel (reporter) (fall 1945) “‘Whenever he was talking about being hard up he often used to say that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion.’”.
Source given: “Interview Nieson Himmel, Los Angeles, 14 August 1986”.
p133: Sam Merwin (editor of the ‘Thrilling’ group of magazines) (winter 1946/47) “‘I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money – he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult.’”
Source given: “Interview Merwin, Los Angeles, August 1986”.
p148: Sam Moscowitz (writer) (spring 1949) “‘Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. ... If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion.’”
Source given: “Los Angeles Times, 27 August 1978”.
This information does not appear to match at all that what Russell Miller tells in the interview, which is rather noteworthy!
Details about this matter of this quotation can be found in the article here below:
Is Russell Miller's annoying and persistent habit of using redundancies such as “complete and utter” , “total” and “all”, do they mean to imply that these are basically the same thing as to make him appear as if ‘erudite’? Like in that the book reviewer Hayden B. Peake at CIA basically implied that Russell Miller is nothing but a flaming fraud as both an historian and biographer!
The question to be asked here is if this book of Russell Miller had been written with an initially honest intent or that he possibly had been hired to put together something that would damage the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology overall? Well, I guess you have to look at that then, this is wholly up to you. Would I recommend the reading of this book? Well, possibly not, but if you insist, don't read too much of it all at once, and for all be critical. Just don't get carried away by its flamboyance. Further if you read it then try to balance it with actual writings from L. Ron Hubbard. As I perceive it, he was neither a devil nor a saint, just a human being, but a gifted one. These subjects that L. Ron Hubbard tackled do have values. It's up to you to do find out about them or not to find out about them. Mind though that the only thing that can determine the value of something is by examining it and actually putting it to the test. You will not, I repeat, you will not find out about actual values by relying on some prejudicially written biography by someone that puts together that something for you and makes that decision for you by means of statement. Defaming a person by deliberate mispresentation is damn easy, falsifying papers or archives may even be easier. But having an original work from the creator of that something, here it is all up to your own understanding. No one can fool you here but you.
By the way, in my library Ihave a copy of the first UK print, inscribed by Russell Miller and all. I found it in a suburb of London many years ago. So, for the graphologists amongst us ...
Because I am of the opinion that people should get the opportunity to respond when one writes about them, I do make some effort to make them aware of my article having been written. There are thus 3 persons here that needed to be contacted.
Some people may wonder why I track this in this detail? The answer is rather simple. I think it will tell something about a person that can not or chooses not to respond to criticism directed to them. You see, if your reasoning and evidence is solid, you can stand there and respond to criticism. Not doing so is simply suspect. Instead of allowing any such person to fill up this space here on this site with just their silence, this instead will make them conspicuous by the absence of their response for said reason.
See, I do have some past clashes and experiences with common members of the anti-Scientology community. Because of that I have been subjected to a particular pattern of behaviour, and this made it very clear to me that they primarily operate on opinion (followed with person invalidation if you persist), rather than making a stand with valid arguments. The reason for this behaviour is easily explained, because as a general rule they don't have their facts straightened out and have therefore no defence, worthy of any mention, to offer. I may hope this explains my approach here.
Russell Miller (author of ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’)
He is probably living some place in England, although I do not have a clue where. A search on the Internet and various places did not reveal some Internet activity, a blog, a site or any present whereabouts or contact information.
So, if any person out there would have any such information about Russell Miller I will be happy to make him as well aware of my article. Just send me an email with the information.
Because of the occurrence of republication of his book on L. Ron Hubbard he did attract some attention from the media and television. We find him for example briefly interviewed on live television on Studio 10 in U.S. in April 2014. The interviewers are as gullible and uncritical as ever, and Russell Miller runs his usual avalanche of claims.
Followingly we had this ‘A Five Day Anti-Scientology Conference in Clearwater’, held 5 to 10 May 2014. The ‘Flag Down 2014’ conference. Here we find him presented as one of the live speakers.
On their site we read as the first viewer response: “Kudos to Russell Miller and the Flagdown 2014 Crew! Including Russell in this Event was a stroke of pure genius. His talk on Hubbard - The Serial Fantasist - has made all the blood, sweat and tears you put into this Event worthwhile, in my opinion. I love a well-reasoned argument delivered by an erudite and reasonable man.”.
Well, I guess we still find ourselves among the uncritical gullibles... ah well...
* gullibles = those individuals that like what they hear (getting their prejudices confirmed), or that are just not very knowledgeable in the topic, and thus blindly (must) accept and toe the line presented, entirely unable to be analytical about any aspect of the whole thing.
Quite frankly I don't think Russell Miller will risk to have a debate with me.
Luke Muelhauser (interviewed Russell Miller in October 2010)
On that site apparently run by this Luke Muelhauser and where we find this interview he had with Russell Miller, ‘Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot’. Here we actually find an opportunity to leave a message for each interview. I did actually see there a message that I assume would be deriving from Chris Owen, in where Luke Muelhauser was answering that this message was forwarded to Russell Muller. And so, I though, if he can do that, then why couldn't I give that a try as well? And so, I left a message to be forwarded to Russell Miller. It appears though that messages need to be reviewed prior to posting. The following message I had send in: (30 Sept 2012)
“I recently wrote an article about Russell Miller and in particular his supposed biography on L. Ron Hubbard. There are indeed things to say about the matter, hence the article being written. I am however of the opinion that a person should have the opportunity to respond if one writes about them. For that reason I would appreciate if you could forward a message to Russell Miller about this article that I wrote.”
Well, what can I say? I never got any response and this message never got posted either. See here for yourself here, external link (scroll down to end of page at link) (last checked: 3 Mar 2015) Is it because the site wasn't run anymore actively, so to say I was too late, or is the reason that I am a critic with valid arguments and thus uncomfortable to him. For now we can only guess.
I also send a direct message (28 Sept 2012) to this Luke Muehlhauser via the website ‘Common Sense Atheism’ at http://commonsenseatheism.com(last checked: 10 Apr 2013), that is hosting these ‘Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot’. He shares various data about himself on that site. It appears that he is a believer (Christian) that turned to be an atheist. He says on that site that he is “an outspoken advocate of rational thinking and naturalism”. ‘Rational thinking’, èh? Well, then start being not so gullible in regards to Russell Miller.
Then we find more recent activities and interests of this person at http://lukeprog.com (last checked: 10 Apr 2013).
Will this person respond back to me? I would doubt that very very much. He is being criticized by me, and if one does not have a defence to offer, one will simply ignore, and one can only hope the wind will make it blow over ...
Chris Owen (issued a digital version of Miller's book and wrote ‘Ron the War Hero’)
It would be suitable to have some data here about who this Chris Owen is, his background and all that. Unfortunately about all that I can find are the things he has been involved in. It does appear that he has been writing a lot. We find writings carrying his name as early as 1995. Predominantly out on the Internet these writings are relating to Scientology. He doesn't write in favour of the subject, rather clearly he writes against it. His essays and such we find presented particularly and copied to a variety of anti-Scientology oriented websites. On a renowned anti-Scientology site, in their Information Directory database, we find that Chris Owen is listed as a “British historian, studied Scientology extensively.”. This may however be a misnomer, I don't have it confirmed he would be an actual historian. It is true he has been looking into and has been writing about a whole range of Scientology matters, but primarily from an outsider approach.
We find his essays on Scientology also posted on the website of the Carnegie Mellon University. This particular university receives grants to perform various projects, which are then published on their site. But I don't actually know his exact relation to the site, or why we find these essays all listed there. It may tell something about the background of this Chris Owen, but then it does not appear that he still would be involved there. A variety of these essays and write-ups are accompanied with various email addresses. I did attempt to send him a notice about my own article, but the 3 email addresses that I found simply returned the message as undeliverable (all send 22 Sept 2012).
Since 2003 we find he has been editing on Wikipedia. The topics he involved himself in were of all sorts, and they included an array of Scientology related articles. I myself was active on Wikipedia for a while in 2006 and I sort of came across him. His username at the time was ChrisO and he was active as a so-called Administrator. Today his username is a different one and he does not appear to be active as an Administrator either anymore. I actually mean to say here that he changed the actual appearance of his username. If you type in the address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChrisO in a web browser, then you will end up with user Prioryman. With this username (in use since 31 Oct 2010) Chris Owen does not appear to edit much less Scientology related pages. We do find, in regards to the topic discussed on this page, quite a few entries at the Wikipedia's ‘Bare-faced Messiah’ talk page (history).
A result of him changing his appearance, as I found, appears to be that his earlier edits as ChrisO can not be tracked anymore. This may or may not be the reason why he changed his username appearance on Wikipedia. I do not get the impression overall that he wants to be contacted about these matters relating to Scientology, it seems he is done with it. A further search on the Internet did confirm that this Prioryman indeed was Chris Owen. Now, I've send him a very brief message (22 Sept 2012) via the Wikipedia internal email system, but I failed to get a response. It was my intent here to forward my article to him, and may be get a response of some sort. Another message with more details was send via Wikipedia on 28 Sept 2012.
But to be blunt about it, I don't expect any response at all.
The message I send to Chris Owen read:
I recently published:
‘Bare-Faced Messiah’ (1987, Russell Miller): The No. 1 book of the anti-Scientology movement or A matter of sheer anti-propaganda? http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1-c.html
You are mentioned in the essay because of (1) your initiative to issue a digital version of Miller's book and (2) your writing “Ron the War Hero”.
You are free to comment on my article.
There has been no response what so ever to this from Chris Owen. He however, after I published my article, continues to monitor the Wikipedia article ‘Bare-faced Messiah’.
Then during Jun-Jul 2013 he had been involved in banning user ‘Drg55’on Wikipedia. This individual did attempt to implement more objective information into the article.
Recently he has been involved in banning a person (user ‘Drg55’) that attempted to implement more objective information into the article. This occurred during Jun-Jul 2013. In my opinion these edits implemented by this ‘Drg55’ were, at least the bulk of them, valid. You can see these edits here (external link), search for ‘Drg55’. Chris Owen (as ‘Prioryman’) however objected and persistently reverted them. It gets then easy to violate the 3-revert rule.
It appears thus that Chris Owen continues trying to control these texts on Wikipedia that he has helped to build. On the other hand however till this day he still fails to respond to my article in the matter forwarded and discussed by me.
These recent developments and further questioning towards the behavioural pattern of this Chris Owen (as ‘Prioryman’) can now also be found in the Wikipediocracy forum carrying the title “Prioryman - Out of Control”. Consult here (external link).
It would appear that Chris Owen (as ‘Prioryman’) still just can not let go of the Scientology related topics. After I had written my article about Russell Miller he originated and put life in a Wikipedia article about the so-called Affirmations of Gerry Armstrong and associate them as if written by L. Ron Hubbard. Chris Owen did that during Jan-Feb 2013. A rather silly affair actually, these affirmations. As we just do not have a shred of evidence of any authenticity for them. And when someone on 13 Sept 2013 added to the article: “Evidently the person writing this article is scouring all sorts of ‘content’ from a variety of biased sources, in an attempt to make this look like valid data.”. Our Chris Owen reverted that after just 11 minutes, and his given reason was vandalism. May be it was vandalism as the writer is finding wrong with our Chris Owen within the article itself, which is improper. Nonetheless what was written was very true. How could any fair-minded person create a new article on Wikipedia and base it on such amazingly loose grounds? His article is written out of the viewpoint that they are authentic. He arduously tries to sort of authenticate them. Chris Owen still didn't learn his lesson, and certainly doesn't want to talk to me! (see my article on affirmations and Gerry Armstrong here, separate window)
..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA’, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published.
If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on. audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code. Free Zone: Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window). LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.