From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 11 - November 1993
See Home Page at

Regular column

Kemp's Column

by Ray Kemp, USA

That, which you Name . . .

Over the years, an attitude has grown that any individual who
what he learned from either LRH books or actual courses must give
his practice a name.

From this assumption, a desire has grown in some cases to disassociate
from any word that can possibly be identified with Scientology
or Dianetics. Thus, many people have coined new words to identify
what they are doing.

I shall examine the history of this, and try to pull off some of the
opinions that have been laid over the top of a quite rational

In the early days, when Ron was teaching, he found that people who
were already into a regimen(1) of healing picked
up some Dianetic principles and melded them into their own existing
activities. (See a recent column, Why Something New?)(2)

The resultant practice was more like a dog's breakfast of
techniques than anything Ron had taught. Yet, when challenged, the
practitioners would call it Engram Running or Dianetics or
or would call it something else if the challenge and resulting
justification were from another source.


I am talking about practices such as running an engram and asking
the patient to consult his spirit guide to explain the signficance;
or hypnotizing a person and analyzing (evaluating) the patient so
as to relieve trauma by sexual adjustment and 'Blow the engram

Weird practices. And, when the practitioner was asked what he was
doing or where he got this technology, he would always be around
the other side of the tree.

From this, came the term 'squirrel,' for one could never pin
the guy down. Like a squirrel, every time you approached him, he would
pop around to the far side of the tree for protection and never was
available to confront.

Now, since Ron's mission was to teach what he had put together as
a complete, unadultered subject, he naturally took offense at these
and other glaring examples of a person using the name Dianetics
or Scientology while actually doing something else.

This matter was exacerbated, in the early 1950s, by a law-suit by
a Mr Don Purcell wherein Ron lost all rights and titles to his book
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and, by Court
order, was forbidden to use even the name Dianetics. It was not until,
I believe, May 1955, that he was able to get back the rights to what
he had written.

By then, he had promoted his subject under the heading 'Scientology'.
In fact, the Original Thesis book has two versions: Dianetics:
the Original Thesis and Scientology: the Original Thesis.


As I said in an earlier article, special solutions always cause
confusion, and although Keeping Scientology Working can be
fully understood in light of its need, it should be recognized that
the document was written to fulfil a specific proper requirement of
its time, and the parameters laid down in that document do make a
great deal of sense - especially from the viewpoint of Ron's mission.

Again, it is a matter of separating the Organization, with its blind
adherence to certain rules (and, yes, totally ignoring others when
it suits them), from the basic subject that was the gift of LRH for
the benefit of Mankind.(3)

It could be argued that the current regime is by definition squirrel:
read some of the testimony in Court transcripts. Whether that would
be a really valid statement, I leave to the reader.

What is more important is to understand the gradual distintegration,
in much of the public's mind, of acceptance of 'official'
Scientology. Observably, there has been such a deterioration.

(Oddly, what was true in the 1950s is still true - there is little
or no criticism of the basic tenets of Dianetics or Scientology, once


What seems to have happened is that, seen through the front of the
Church, the perception of Scientology is controversial, to say the
least. Why and how did this happen?

There is the matter of Public Relations, as covered by LRH Policy
#1: 'Maintain friendly relations with the environment'. This
has been done either not at all or poorly. The plethora(4)
of front or satellite organizations, giving legal yet convoluted
who-owns-what situations, is in my opinion close to the definition
given earlier of the little, furry animal.

The reason might well be understood if one comprehends the mechanism
of Elitism - government by 'the best people'. When a group
creates an elite, those who are 'the Chosen' go out of communication
immediately with the proletariat, in this case meaning the uninformed,
lower class of people, often referred to within the Church as Wogs.

Inside the Organization, there was and is a definite elitist Think.
For example, Classes of auditors: a XII being better than an VIII,
which is superior to a IV et cetera. And 'I am OT 99, what are
you?' Sea Org, Guardian's Office, Finance Police, Ron's Messenger
Org, FLag, Class IV Org, Missions Can Only Perform . . . And more.

Each elite group vying for the recognition of its own superiority,
each committing overt acts in the name of its own elite.

ARC Break

The mechanism is inevitable. An elite goes out of communication with
the proletariat in order to maintain its elitism.

This is a total violation of the Power Formula, which does not rely
on mechanisms: it requires Theta for its operation - elitism does

An elitist Think has to happen as soon as one puts a name on an
It exists in the 'Free Zone' too. There are named groups within
the Free Zone or among the disaffected that subscribe to their own
form of elitism and, by doing so, build a wall around their own elite.

I wonder how many of these groups have already expelled a member for
not following the rules. 'That which you name you restimulate'
has never been truer than in this application.

Pam and I have no name for what we do. We were trained by L. Ron
and use his philosophy to the best of our understanding, and we apply
it to our fellow beings.

I like Ron's personal definition, laid out in a lecture on how he
would start a practice.

 'What is it we do?' We Help.

 'What do we call it?' Help.

 'What are we?' People who, through our studies and training, can

And, really, isn't that what it is all about?

(1)A systematic procedure of therapy - The American Heritage

(2)IVy 8, page 13, IVy 11, page 14.

(3)Not forgetting Womankind, Boykind, Girlkind,
Childkind and any Castratekind still around after the 18th Century.


Mon Jul 17 19:19:07 EDT 2006