In terms of the Church of Scientology, I have to be clear in reiterating Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard‘s policy on politics, which is entitled “Politics, Freedom From,” and wherein he states:

I hereby declare Scientology to be nonpolitical and nonideological.”

…

Scientology is for a free people and is itself on this date declared free of any political connection or allegiance of any kind whatever.”

L. Ron Hubbard was however no stranger to the subject of politics. Since politics itself as a word is derived from the Greek polī́tēs, meaning “citizen”, and Ron was a philosopher concerned with the improvement of people’s lives, he also had something to say on the subject of politics and government.

In working toward true freedom for others, Ron became involved in human rights causes. In his article Goverment and Revolt, he wrote:

Governments by, for and of special privilege are doomed the moment they set up the first barrier to the many. It becomes a barricade.

Ron’s support for human rights and his acknowledgment of civil rights campaigners in the 1960s, as well as his published disgust at Naziism and totalitarian government regimes, would tend to point toward a left-wing political leaning, but then again his disagreement with the hugely unworkable communist model would tend to indicate otherwise. Additionally, in 1966, he wrote about the composition of a successful organisation—including an entire nation.

In speaking of “why organisations stay small,” Ron lays it out like this:

A LARGE ORGANIZATION IS COMPOSED OF GROUPS. A SMALL ORGANIZATION IS COMPOSED OF INDIVIDUALS.

He goes on to mention how this applies to a planet or nation and how in terms of socialism, “The government seeks to run the individual”. Speaking of the countries where he spent most of his time, Ron stated in no uncertain terms:

To the degree that England and the US tax the individual and seek to govern him they will dwindle in size.

Essentially, the groups that make up the larger organisation of a nation would be businesses that produce and contribute to the economy of that nation, a concept most readily embraced by the centre-right political parties and most staunchly, and perhaps memorably, by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

So where does that leave the Scientologist? There is much philosophical and practical information in Scientology that ought to be applied in the case of choosing a representative one would like to elect. But the only thing that sums up the view taken on government specifically, comes from Ron’s non-religious moral code, The Way To Happiness, which is very much taken to heart by Scientologists. In Precept 10 (see the video), it advises this:

SUPPORT A GOVERNMENT DESIGNED AND RUN FOR ALL THE PEOPLE

…

The way to happiness is hard to travel when shadowed with the oppression of tyranny. A benign government, designed and run for ALL the people, has been known to smooth the way: when such occurs, it deserves support.

For more information about Scientology, visit the official Church of Scientology website at http://www.scientology.org/, buy one of the beginning books, or contact your local church or mission.

(The L. Ron Hubbard quotes in this article are from copyrighted material owned by L. Ron Hubbard Library.)

Recently the truly excellent (IMHO) short film director and Scientologist Taron Lexton completed work on a visualisation of the 1981 nonreligious moral code by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, The Way To Happiness. It’s basically a feature film but the characters don’t have any dialogue as such; rather the narrative is provided by a word-for-word reading of the book, with the video imagery supporting and helping visually explain the content. Never seen anything quite like it, loved it, end of story. So here’s a quote from my favourite part of the book, the penultimate (second-to-last) chapter:

“Sometimes others seek to crush one down, to make nothing out of one’s hopes and dreams, one’s future and oneself.

“By ridicule and other means, another who is evil-intentioned toward one can try to bring about one’s decline.

“For whatever reason, efforts to improve oneself, to become happier in life, can become the subject of attacks.

“It is sometimes necessary to handle such directly. But there is a long-range handling that seldom fails.

“…The real handling of such a situation and such people, the real way to defeat them is to flourish and prosper.

“Oh, yes, it is true that such people, seeing one improve his lot, can become frantic and attack all the harder. The thing to do is handle them if one must but don’t give up flourishing and prospering, for that is what such people want you to do.

“If you flourish and prosper more and more, such people go into apathy about it: they can give it up completely.

“If one’s aims in life are worthwhile, if one carries them out with some attention to the precepts in this book, if one flourishes and prospers, one certainly will wind up the victor. And, hopefully, without harming a single hair on their heads.

“And that is my wish for you: flourish and prosper!“—L. Ron Hubbard

For more information about use of The Way To Happiness in upholding and restoring morality across the world, visit the website of The Way To Happiness Foundation. The Way To Happiness is © L. Ron Hubbard Library.

I was lucky enough to watch all these on Sunday and they’re so well made I can hardly believe it myself. They used a real black panther to illustrate what is known in Dianetics as “The Black Panther Mechanisms,” ways in which the mind will deal with problems it encounters. There was even a scene showing infantry fighting, which is shown several times throughout the double DVD set as an example of a traumatic experience. I was impressed with the professionalism with which it was put together, and it certainly hits the nail on the head in terms of bringing about an understanding of Dianetics and what it is, as well as how to use it, which is absolutely the most important thing.

Between you, me and the rest of the world, I’ll let you know that Dianetics is something that has really helped me, and I have applied its principles to help others—it works both ways. So if you fancy a go, have a look. The DVD should be available for purchase online very soon but until then it can be bought at your nearest Church of Scientology.

As a Scientologist, I use the technologies developed by L. Ron Hubbard through his research in the 20th century, in order to improve conditions in my own life and to help people around me. A major factor in Scientology is the use of a workable technology of “ethics”. This is detailed in full in the book, An Introduction to Scientology Ethics by L. Ron Hubbard, which you can buy or get from the library. One part of this technology is the explanation for relatively unexplained departures, which are referred to as “blow-offs”.

We have the view of a person who has a good job, who probably won’t get a better one, suddenly deciding to leave and going. We have the view of a wife with a perfectly good husband and family leaving it all. We see a husband with a pretty and attractive wife breaking up the affinity and departing.

Man explained this to himself by saying that things were done to him which he would not tolerate and therefore he had to leave. But if this were the explanation, all man would have to do would be to make working conditions, marital relationships, jobs, training programs and so on all very excellent and the problem would be solved. But on the contrary, a close examination of working conditions and marital relationships demonstrates that improvement of conditions often worsens the amount of blow-off. Probably the finest working conditions in the world were achieved by Mr. Hershey of chocolate bar fame for his plant workers. Yet they revolted and even shot at him. This in its turn led to an industrial philosophy that “the worse workers were treated, the more willing they were to stay,” which in itself is as untrue as “the better they are treated, the faster they blow off.”

Before I share the crux of it all with you, I wanted to define a term used in Scientology, the word overt (also overt act). This is a noun meaning “a harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group”. A sane person is ashamed of his or her misdeeds and reluctant to confess them, thus following an overt act we get the effort to withhold the fact of having commited it. This is known simply as a withhold. Here goes:

People leave because of their own overts and withholds. That is the factual fact and the hard-bound rule. A man with a clean heart can’t be hurt. The man or woman who must, must, must become a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. It doesn’t matter whether the person is departing from a town or a job. The cause is the same.

Almost anyone, no matter his position and no matter what is wrong can remedy a situation if he or she really wants to. When the person no longer wants to remedy it, his own overt acts and withholds against the others involved in the situation have lowered his own ability to be responsible for it. Therefore, departure is the only apparent answer. To justify the departure, the person blowing off dreams up things done to him, in an effort to minimize the overt by degrading those it was done to. The mechanics involved are quite simple.

For more information, consider taking a course from the Scientology Handbook: Integrity and Honesty. Get it at your local Scientology Church or Mission, or as a free online course through the Scientology Volunteer Ministers website. You can also read the chapter from which the above quotations were taken, on the Scientology Handbook website.

Please leave a comment if you have any further questions. Quotations above are © L. Ron Hubbard Library.

As you should probably already know, I’m a Scientologist. That doesn’t mean I tell everyone about how they have to become Scientologists in order to survive, or that I try to “convert” all my friends. Far from it in fact, but I use Scientology in my life every single day, and it really does run through a lot of my activities, particularly because I work at the Church of Scientology, but also because as a practical philosophy, it has solutions to many of the common problems we are faced with on a daily basis. So let’s take this criminal. I witnessed a crime this week but I didn’t catch the perpetrator because I thought he was legitimately in the place where I saw him, which I later found out he wasn’t. He left behind several clues, including his own blood. I joked with the police officer and forensic expert about how he wasn’t even a clever criminal, but then it makes you wonder why people who commit crimes really do leave so many clues. Cryptic as they may be, the police usually find them or they get otherwise caught up or end up destroying themselves, even if that means living in hiding or on the run—it’s destructive of their life for sure.

So I’m reading a book called Introduction to Scientology Ethics by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. It’s a reference book taken directly from Hubbard’s administrative policy letters for Churches of Scientology on the subject of “ethics”. Before I give you the quote about criminals that I want to share, why don’t we have a look at this thing called “ethics”. What does Hubbard mean exactly?

“Throughout the ages, Man has struggled with the subjects of right and wrong and ethics and justice.

“…Ethicsconsists simply of the actions an individual takes on himself. It is a personal thing. When one is ethical or “has his ethics in,” it is by his own determinism and is done by himself.”

So now what does Hubbard say about the criminal?

“When a person finds himself committing too many harmful acts… he becomes his own executioner. This gives us the proof that Man is basically good.

“The criminal who leaves clues behind is doing so in hopes that someone will come along to stop him from continuing to harm others. He is basically good and does not want to harm others. And in the absence of an ability to stop himelf outright, he attempts to put ethics in on himself by getting thrown in prison where he will no longer be able to commit crimes.”

I found something else interesting. The police officer told me that statistics show 2% of people commit 95% of crime. We were discussing the fact that even if crime is prevalent in an area, it still represents a minority of activity, because most people are doing good things. It’s only if you believe the media that you’ll start thinking the world is full of war, crime and madness.

In discussing the antisocial personality, Hubbard gave some interesting statistics which seem to correlate with this. He said that “they only comprise 20 percent of the population” and “only 2 1/2 percent are truly dangerous”. That fits with our policeman’s 2% figure. Very interesting.

So in conclusion then, people are basically good but sometimes it goes wrong. The evil actions people undertake may be very harmful, but they are against the best nature of the individual and sooner or later he won’t need to seek for whom the bell tolls…

“What is true for you is what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you have lost everything…”
“Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it and it is true according to your observation. That is all.”—L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology

What this means is that you could be a Christian or a Jew or a Mormon or whatever you liked, and you could still use Scientology if you found something in it that was true for you. You wouldn’t necessarily have to call yourself a Scientologist, but if you did, you wouldn’t have to stop calling yourself Christian, Jewish, or whatever you already consider yourself to be. Equally, a Scientologist may be only a Scientologist and have no other faith or religious denomination. Personally, I am a Scientologist and nothing else.

So if you want to find out about Scientology, don’t think you’re going to have to denounce your faith, give up your job, stop eating chocolate, or live in a commune. Because Scientology is about life, and you live life every day! Scientology helps you to live life to the full, and to improve your ability to communicate and to get along with the world around you. And I think that’s a good thing, don’t you?

• Read about Scientology in L. Ron Hubbard’s books
• See videos about Scientology
• Find out about Dianetics
• See inside a Church of Scientology
• Find out more about L. Ron Hubbard

The over-worn phrase came into play today as I read an article on Reuters UK about English spelling. The general consensus inside the insular world of one Professor Ken Smith, a criminology lecturer at Bucks New University (where?), is that we should just accept commonly misspelt words and get over it. It almost sounds reasonable until you look closely at the insinuation. Smith is saying that the fact that people spell things incorrectly is ‘unchangeable’ and that rather than helping students—and people in general—to properly conform to the agreed-upon spellings of words so as to effect intelligible written communication, we should modify the agreements and accept it as a consequence of life, the universe and everything. I disagree…

“Instead of complaining about the state of the education system as we correct the same mistakes year after year, I’ve got a better idea,” Ken Smith, a criminology lecturer at Bucks New University, wrote in the Times Higher Education Supplement.

“University teachers should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell.”

To kickstart his proposal, Smith suggested 10 common misspellings that should immediately be accepted into the pantheon of variants, including “ignor”, “occured”, “thier”, “truely”, “speach” and “twelth” (it should be “twelfth”).

Codswallop. Responses were invited on the Reuters blog, and I was beckoned…

@Steve, 1:05pm, who supports Professor Smith: You spelt “grammar” wrong. Of all the possible words…

Alright look-a-here: to subscribe to the notion that spelling mistakes are ‘a consequence of life’ or ’something we have to accept’ is to equally submit to the idea that ‘man can’t change’ and ‘intelligence can never rise.’ These are the ideas propounded by modern psychology and it does not surprise me that this call for *more* dumbing down of education comes from a “criminology” lecturer. Criminology, the study of crime as an individual and social phenomenon, is deeply rooted in psychology. Modern psychology however, has led to ‘pleas of insanity’ and ‘mental incapacity’ in place of “Yes, your honour, I killed the man – I plead guilty.”

Before I rant too much, know that there is a way to overcome this and it’s called teaching. Teaching does not mean however, that you throw words and numbers at children or get them to chant things and hope they remember enough to regurgitate it onto an exam paper for which they have prepared the night before. Teaching is the process of effecting LEARNING, which is something you can’t do if your mistakes, including spelling mistakes, are not corrected. And the correction should be done with care and patience, or you’ll rub your students up the wrong way and they’ll *refuse* to learn.

Recap: This is a bunch of crap; it is possible to change things; teaching requires learning be effected.

(By the way, this sparked a bit of a discussion about usage of the word spelt. For your information, this is a chiefly British past participle of the verb spell.)

Now, I want to expand on that. That’s why I have my own website you see, because I can’t say everything I want to in those little comment boxes. The question raised in the title of the blog entry was “Does spelling matter?” I say yes; emphatically so.

Communication is a key part of life. You don’t have to be a Scientologist to know that, but I must admit that I’ve learned more about communication from reading L. Ron Hubbard’s books than anywhere else. Communication is ordinarily based on agreements such as language and grammar, as well as social agreements like the distinction most people make between talking to a close friend and talking to their employer. Spelling is one of these agreements, and it can exist within the context of a language or even a dialect.

Spelling reform has occurred throughout Europe at various times in history, and I’ll leave that one to the linguists contributing to Wikipedia, or your local language professor. I don’t claim to be an expert on such matters, but I do know of recent changes to the German language from studying it at school and college. They changed the agreed-upon spellings of certain words, thereby changing what was considered ‘real’ German by its speakers. This reform therefore changed the agreed-upon reality. So you see that reality is essentially composed of agreements of some kind.

In Britain, English spellings have been standardised for many years. According to the Wikipedia article on British English, “modern British spelling was [largely] standardised in Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (1755).” This may have been arbitrary but it became the agreed-upon reality. Lexicographers compiling the ever-growing Oxford English dictionaries do not control usage and spelling per se, but they of course have a hand in propagating what they record by including it in such an authoritative text as the OED or its derivatives.

Grammar is another one but this is largely misunderstood, misinterpreted or ill-defined. L. Ron Hubbard wrote about this, so I thought I’d give you what he said. It makes perfect sense to me…

Grammar is the way words are organized into speech and writings so as to convey exact thoughts, ideas and meanings amongst people. It is essentially a system of agreements as to the relationship of words to bring about meaningful communication.

That is all that grammar is. If it is defined otherwise, students will think they are being taught classroom rules rather than how to talk and read.

From Grammar by L. Ron Hubbard.

Like spelling, grammar has evolved out of common usage; agreed-upon or logical ways of writing and speaking that have been adopted by others. The English language has grown out of Germanic and has influences from many different languages, particularly Latin and French. It is a very well-developed language with its own simplicity and odball complexities. An effort to create a universal language was made by Russian-Polish opthalmologist L. L. Zamenhof. The result was Esperanto, a constructed language which did not take off to perhaps the intended degree. But this was based on one man’s arbitraries rather than cultural development and accepted usage.

Sometimes, a break from the norm of agreed-upon reality can be used in a literary context to create an effect. I regard the most famous example of this to be Lewis Carroll’s poem, The Jabberwocky (1872). Carroll uses made-up words and portmanteaux to weave a world of mystery and nonsense, and he does very well at it. This, Edward Lear’s The Jumblies, and John Agard’s Half-Caste are among my all-time favourite poems.

But when I talk to people, or otherwise communicate, I don’t see that using unfathomable words or unintelligible spellings is going to achieve the intention of my communication. It might create an effect, but what effect am I trying to create? So in written communication, spelling helps us to achieve an agreement as to what we are trying to say. Sometimes words have different meanings but often the context is enough to point out which definition is being applied. Then again, it is always possible to misunderstand words, so knowing how to use a dictionary helps tremendously.

Now, I have always been good with English. I was able to read before going to school and I did very well in spelling tests and English classes. I came out with the top grade in GCSE English Language, and I’m proud of that. I know people who have not had such a good time, and in some cases it’s because they have trouble with their spelling. Here’s where you meet the challenge of correcting a person’s spelling in such a way that they don’t feel that they are being attacked or made to feel wrong. Yes, in some ways they may be wrong because they’ve departed from the agreed-upon reality of what constitutes standard spelling. But at the same time, the task must be done tactfully.

This is something that really needs to be done—and done well—at primary schools and by parents at home. Noticing an incorrectly-spelled word and letting it slip could make a world of difference to that person. If no-one says otherwise, he or she will think they are right, and will continue to make the same mistake because they don’t perceive it as a mistake. That’s what learning is for! So the person makes a mistake—alright, pick them up, tell them where they went wrong, and encourage them to carry on. The way not to do it would be by blasting the person, especially a child, and telling them how horribly wrong they are and how the world is going to fall apart because of their little spelling error. I do not advocate this tyrannical approach to teaching or to generally dealing with people.

In the end, your knowledge carries a responsibility. If you see something and you know it isn’t right, then correct it! Too often in society I see things go by ‘unnoticed.’ They aren’t unnoticed; they’re ignored. I too have done this and I always feel bad for it afterwards. It’s almost a corollary to the old adage, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Well, if it is broke, do fix it! And in doing so you’ll have helped somebody, as long as you don’t ‘fix it’ by making them wrong in the process.

So, in short, spelling matters, communication is important, and teaching is useful only where somebody learns something. I could write more on the different aspects I’ve touched on here, and perhaps I will. Until then, adiós.