Writings

Recently, a person alerted me to some Facebook comments academic Scientology collaborator Massimo Introvigne had posted that mentioned me and my legal history with the Scientologists in relation to L. Ron Hubbard’s Affirmations. Another person then asked me if I could respond in some way. Since these are matters of public interest and controversy that have been written about for decades, and they occur within a greater public and legal controversy that also directly involves me, and for others reasons, I am making Introvigne’s comments and my response public.

This Facebook exchange is between Introvigne and Professor of Religious Studies at Ohio State University Hugh B. Urban. The exchange arises from an article “The Gnostic L. Ron Hubbard: Was He Influenced by Aleister Crowley?” that Introvigne authored and published in his Journal of CESNUR, Vol. 3, Is. 3, May-June 2019. The article is wrong factually and morally and calls out to be challenged. Right now, however, I will just respond to Introvigne’s Facebook comments that follow.

Hugh B Urban: The Crowley-Hubbard piece has many good insights. However, I am rather baffled by the fact that it does not even mention the key “Affirmations” text (circa 1946-47) which is widely believed to be Hubbard’s and provides the most explicit discussion of magic and Crowley’s ideas. Even if one does not accept it as Hubbard’s (which seems unlikely), it seems worth discussing at the very least.

Massimo Introvigne: I noticed your repeated mentions of the “Affirmations” but I do not believe that even if written by Hubbard they are relevant for his thought. If they are not false, which is a possibility (that the Church claimed copyright on the text is not crucial, it could have been a simple legal strategy known to copyright attorneys), they are the sort of free ramblings Catholics of old were encouraged to write down by confessors about their sins and forbidden fantasies (only, in this case, Hubbard would have confessed himself). As ramblings intended as a sort of confessional experiment, I do not believe they are a “key text.” I believe Hubbard’s teachings are those included in speeches he gave or texts he wrote for his disciples. If he ever wrote the Affirmations, they were a sort of experiment he made with himself…

Hugh B Urban: I have to politely disagree. If they are Hubbard’s writings, they are evidence that he took magic quite seriously (at least at that time) and was extremely interested in Crowley-ian ideas, such as the Guardian Angel, etc. Your point below about the time difference between the Armstrong case and the release of the text is possibly valid. But I have interviewed Armstrong several times and don’t find a compelling reason to distrust his judgment on this. In any case, my point was that not engaging with them in such an article is an odd omission.

Massimo Introvigne: If we believe Armstrong and Garrison (which I don’t, and certainly not always), Hubbard wrote a series of positive and negative sentences about things he regarded as attractive or scary and intended to use them by reading them to a recorder and then playing them back, observing his own reactions. If this was so, obviously for such an experiment he did not need sentences representing real events in his life and much less ideas he would approve of or propose in public. To regard this note (called “Affirmations” by Garrison, he admitted in the Armstrong case that no Scientologist ever used this title) as a key source of Hubbard’s ideas is something I have always regarded as preposterous …

Massimo Introvigne: Finally, I believe it is important to distinguish the “Affirmations’1 as quoted by Armstrong in 1984 in the court case and as published in 2000 on the basis of a text he received by an anonymous. Most of the stuff about magic was not quoted in 1984 and only showed up in 2000. When in 1984 Scientology asked for the notes written by L. Ron Hubbard, that opponents called “affirmations” to be given back to them, it was referring to the 1984 text (that Armstrong says is unfortunately “lost”) not to the text that surfaced in 2000. How can we know that the 2000 text is the same as the 1984 one? One argument may be that Marty Rathbun quotes from it when discussing the 1984 case in “Memory of a Scientology Warrior.” But this book was written in 2013, when Rathbun presumably had in front of him the text of 2000 – Rathbun didn’t claim he was in possession of the 1984 text.

Introvigne says he does not believe that the Affirmations are relevant for Hubbard’s thought. I assume Introvigne means that he believes they are not relevant for understanding or trying to understand Hubbard’s thought, that is, what he might have been thinking at some point or points in his life  — what he, Hubbard, believed. I don’t believe Introvigne believes for a second that Hubbard’s Affirmations are not relevant for Hubbard’s thought. What Introvigne says is his belief or nonbelief is unbelievably unbelievable, especially coming from a practicing academic.

What Introvigne says, however, does provide an insight into his own thought. The clear falsity of his claimed belief, and his making such a ludicrous claim with a seemingly straight cyber face, I believe, evidence his contempt for Hubbard’s victims, like me, and for knowledgeable people like Urban, who obviously knows the Affirmations are relevant for understanding something about Hubbard’s thought. Urban calls them key. And I agree.

Introvigne’s function is to artfully, faux-scholarly whitewash Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists. This function comes with and necessitates overarching bias. Persons on the whitewash program standardly employ both semantic and factual dishonesty to achieve their goal, or product – fully whitewashed Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists.

Whitewash: to give a speciously pure or fair appearance to: as a: to gloss over or cover up (as vices or crimes) b: to exonerate or clear (as a person) of charges by means of a superficial or perfunctory investigation or examination or through artful or biased presentation of data (Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary)

The Scientologists “postulate” the whitewash goal; or really the ecclesiarchs running the cult “postulate” the goal; and they direct the operations, funding and personnel to achieve it. The Scientologists use their own writers, their own PRs, their own agents, their own publishing companies, their own printers, their own thugs, their own snitches, their own lawyers, their own police, their own e-meters, their own scriptures. The Scientologists also hire outside professionals to whitewash Hubbard, Scientology and themselves, and they use academics like Introvigne who are willing to squander their resistance and scholarship to serve the Scientologists’ interests. Relevantly, this service here is direct participation in their whitewash program.

This program has been going on for decades. It motivated Hubbard’s creation of the Department of Government Affairs, the Guardian’s Office, his “Suppressive Person” doctrine, his “fair game” policy, his “Source Missions” and “Source Briefings,” his infamous “Snow White Program,” “All Clear,” the “Sheepdip Dodge,” and much more. The whitewash program led to the mass destruction of evidence, to the criminal prosecution of the “Scientology Eleven” for carrying out “Snow White,” to Hubbard going into hiding, to his further debunking, to the pillorying of the whitewashers, and on and on.

Hubbard told a ton of lies and made others tell tons of lies. He defrauded, abused and persecuted tons of people and made others defraud, abuse and persecute tons of people. Consequently, there are tons of people to tell tons of truth – their experiences and knowledge — about the lying, fraud, abuse and persecution.

The ecclesiarchs, however, have not given up on their whitewash program. Much of what they direct or compel is bare-faced lying. Standardly, when the Scientologists’ lies are challenged, they lie even more, including lying about the challenger. With this “comm tech” for confronting challenges, the Scientologists generate more and more lies, fraud, abuse and persecution to be challenged. And the increasing challenges generate a greater need to keep the whitewashers working.

Introvigne has put his time, resources and reputation into the program to at least try to whitewash Hubbard on the occult angle, and an incidental point or two. A parallel action is to negate, or feign negating, or appear to negate, the relevance of a document which really is key to understanding Hubbard’s unwhitewashed occult thought.

With all his lying, self-promotion, self-aggrandizement, Hubbard was, of course, the biggest whitewasher of all the whitewashers who would ever do his whitewashing. Not only did he call himself a Civil Engineer and a Nuclear Physicist to deceive us and obtain our trust, time and money, but to whitewash the fact that he flunked out of his second year of university, had no degrees, was no scientist, and there was no science in Scientology.

What Hubbard did with his US Navy service, which he knew to be not too glorious, is a whitewash that reached criminal valor-theft level. All the whitewashing he did and made others do led to a sea of exposés and mockeries. Historian Chris Owen has just published the definitive stripping of Hubbard’s navy whitewash: Ron the War Hero – the True Story of L. Ron Hubbard’s Military Career. The book validates and documents in great detail the elementary picture of his naval career I had pieced together and spoken up about in 1981 that so dramatically contradicted the stories he told and had us telling.

Hubbard’s Affirmations, can themselves be seen as psychic whitewashing, or autobrainwashing. He several times admits or alludes to some fault or fear, and then wills a different, “ideal” reality for himself. “I must be convinced …” He was convincing himself, or willing himself convinced, of what a big, powerful, satyric, euphonious magus he was. At times he certainly acted the part. But his “tech” for brainwashing himself, for whitewashing his knowledge of his past, his inadequacies, his failures, was itself a failure. It doesn’t work. It adds more things that need more whitewashing.

An indispensable tactic in the Scientologists program is to not deal logically and maturely with challenges to lies, fraud, abuse and persecutions, but to attack the challenger. Hubbard called this scriptural policy “attack the attacker,” and countenanced only attack in response to challenge. The Scientologists automatically, of course, call challenges, no matter how legitimate, “attacks.” In reaction, they attack the character, credibility or believability of the persons the Scientologists consider stand in the way of a complete whitewash job.

The ecclesiarchs direct their underlings and hirelings to “grant no credence” to challengers bearing legitimate challenges. And the ecclesiarchs direct the fair gaming of the challengers by the professional fair gamers. Fair gaming is what they can get away with. These are all illogical and immature responses, as well as sadistic and dangerous. Scientologists are, of course, called to confront their condition, to deal with legitimate challenges logically and maturely, and to love their challengers as themselves.

Introvigne challenges Hubbard’s Affirmations’ authenticity. He also says that if they are not false he [still] does not believe they are a key text. I attest they are as authentic as authentic can be. They are authentic enough, and have been accepted by enough people as authentic enough, for rational discussion, or for challenge purposes. They are also a key text for a number of matters; definitely for some of Hubbard’s Crowleyite, occult, magickal or magusian thought.

A considerable number of people who have left Scientology have communicated about the Affirmations. A number of published books have quoted them at length. People have expressed appreciation of my publishing the copy I received in 2000. Many Exscientologists have in some way said the Affirmations were valuable for understanding Hubbard and his magickal grip on them, and for getting free from Scientology.

Obviously the Affirmations have also been valuable or relevant to people who have never been in Scientology. Religious scholars, as Urban shows, sociologists, journalists, lawyers and who knows what else, have found enough value in them to read them, analyze them, write about them, quote them, and cite and link to them. My never-a-Scientologist lawyer Michael Flynn considered them so relevant for purposes of justice that he had me read excerpts while on the stand in my 1984 trial. The presiding never-a-Scientologist Los Angeles Superior Court judge similarly viewed the Affirmations as relevant for my defense and admitted them into evidence. Omar Garrison, with whom I spent a lot of time, possessed them for some years and considered them highly relevant for Hubbard’s biography. In Ron the War Hero, Chris Owen found the Affirmations relevant for understanding and explaining Hubbard’s career in the US Navy, and published several excerpts from them.

As Scientology’s rulers – the Miscavige regime – have witnessed happening with Exscientologists, they recognize the value or relevance of Hubbard’s Affirmations to their controlled underling Scientologists. The Affirmations are valuable for obtaining an understanding of his thought that could free the rulers’ underlings from their control. The rulers recognize the Affirmations’ relevance to their own hold on power. The rulers pretend they aren’t relevant with a risky stratagem, the lie that I forged them. What I had published in 2000, of course, was electronic text.

By brazenly claiming I forged them, when the rulers possess the same original text, they can take or fake the position that the content – what the Affirmations show about Hubbard’s thought and history – is not worth discussing. By taking that fake position, however, the rulers also might have lost any chance to suppress the document with copyright infringement claims. Having withheld the truth from Scientologists and the world for so many years, having falsely denied Hubbard’s authorship of the document, and having black PRed the person who brought it to light, the rulers risk the flight, or even the wrath, of the masses they control.

Introvigne has added his voice, with his renown as well-connected academic virtuoso, to the rulers’ chorus denying the Affirmations’ authenticity. He is helping the rulers hold on to power, keep their masses down and ignorant, and belittle as unbelievable the person who published the Affirmations and authenticates them.

Actually, the Scientologists’ actions to prevent the Affirmations’ disclosure, to collect up copies, to silence or destroy me — at great cost to both me and them — and then the concerted effort to install the narrative that the text is fabricated, including the bit part Introvigne performs, all show how very relevant this document is to the people insisting how irrelevant it is. The Affirmations are so relevant to the Scientologists that in their December 1986 “settlement” contract in their first lawsuit against me they specifically identified them in the delineation of documents to be delivered to the cult.

In addition to the documents and other items to be returned to the Church of Scientology International listed above and in Appendix “A”, Plaintiff agrees to return the following:

[…]

(b) All originals and copies of documents commonly known as the “Affirmations” written by L. Ron Hubbard;
(Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement, para. 7E)¹

Introvigne says that he believes Hubbard’s teachings are those included in speeches he gave or texts he wrote for his disciples. Who or what was talking about teachings?

Ignoring the out-of-the-blueness, of course Hubbard’s teachings are those included in speeches he gave or texts he wrote for his disciples. Hubbard’s teachings, however, are not just or only those included in his speeches or texts – whatever Hubbard speeches or texts Introvigne has in mind. Hubbard taught in many different ways, just as we all do. He taught by example. He taught by lying. Although not what he wanted us to learn in his speeches or texts for his disciples, he actually taught that he was no one to follow or embody, no one to trust or believe.

There is no denying that there is a whole lot of lying in his speeches or text. In Scientology, Hubbard’s “speeches” are called “lectures.” Because of his crafty sanctification campaign, they are properly called “sermons.”  Along with Hubbard’s “text,” his sermons comprise Scientology “religious scripture.” To really get what a gargantuan liar he was – a very valuable teaching to absorb – it is beneficial to open one’s mind to writings, speeches, documents, facts, sources beyond the cult’s published scripture.

Although the Miscavige regimers, who possess the Affirmations, have not made them publicly available, they are inarguably Scientology scripture. The most relevant Hubbard texts or recordings in scripture for understanding his thought are not those published but those kept hidden away in files or vaults the regime head controls. Many of these pieces of secret scripture trump what might be “policy” or “tech” in published scripture. Other scriptural texts are not published because they evidence Hubbard’s venal, antisocial actions and thought. I mentioned the Affirmations (or Admissions) being secret scripture when I posted them to the Usenet group alt.religion.scientology in 2000, and I observed their secular relevance, or, theologically, their “holiness.”

Hubbard’s Admissions are quite obviously a part of $cientology’s “scriptures.” On the holiness scale ®, they are holier than the holiest of the Advanced Technology scriptures, because the people who run $cientology won’t show them to $cientologists even if they have a half million dollars to pay and agree to the organization implant. Although the Admissions are the holiest of $cientology’s scriptures, the Miscavige regime withholds them for the identical commercial, secular, base and criminal reasons they withhold the “OT” “Levels,” the “NOT$,” and the whereabouts of Xenu’s mountain cave.²

Hubbard and Scientologists claim publicly that he started Scientology in 1938. I do not disagree with this. Hubbard started Scientology, and became the world’s first Scientologist, when he wrote Excalibur. It could be said that Excalibur is the result or aftermath of Hubbard’s nitrous oxide vision during a tooth extraction incident. The Affirmations are a rare, very early book of scripture. They are Hubbard’s very early self-application of Scientology to conditions or problems he wanted to handle. They are very relevant in the development of the “technology” and the thought or philosophy underlying it.

Introvigne says he doesn’t believe Omar Garrison and me, and stresses that he doesn’t believe us “certainly not always.” This is semantically nonsensical. I am sure, however, that Introvigne means to convey his scholarly opinion that Garrison and I are such big liars we are hardly ever believable.

After ridiculing our believability, Introvigne continues that if Garrison and I are believed, Hubbard wrote his Affirmations. Introvigne uses what he says are Garrison’s and my interpretation or description of them, rather than his own, for the obvious whitewash purpose. Introvigne could easily provide his own scholarly interpretation of the Affirmations; but then he would have to acknowledge reading them. By pretending to not read them, and pretending to depend on the interpretations of persons he has rendered unbelievable, Introvigne forwards the pretense that the Affirmations are inauthentic, and not worth reading and not worth interpreting or describing.

Even while pinning the interpretation on Garrison and me that he’s employing for invalidating the Affirmations, Introvigne conveniently does not identify where he got that alleged interpretation. In fact, I challenge him to produce where Garrison and I actually said what he claims. I believe Introvigne is fibbing, and fobbing off a strawman argument.

Introvigne is also applying a common form of the rite Hubbard called “double-curving,” which is standard Scientology for handling challenges. In this instance, the double-curver misinterprets or lies about a target’s words or actions, and then pronounces how unbelievable the target is. Introvigne has not provided what I actually wrote or said that he finds so unbelievable.

Introvigne asserts that if what he says is Garrison’s and my interpretation of the Affirmations, then Hubbard “did not need sentences representing real events in his life and much less ideas he would approve of or propose in public.” Obviously Introvigne makes this goofy assertion to cast more fake doubt on the Affirmations’ authenticity.

Of course Hubbard didn’t need to writes sentences about events in his life when he wrote his Affirmations, or even mention such events.  But he did mention a bunch of them, and he did write them as sentences. He didn’t need to even write the Affirmations. But he did write them. He didn’t need to invent Scientology. But he did. He didn’t need to lie like the devil, conjure up his diseased “Suppressive Person” doctrine, and direct “Fair Game,” but he did. The argument that Hubbard didn’t do what he did, didn’t include in his Affirmations what he included, because he didn’t need to, is vain whitewash.

Introvigne writes about Hubbard’s Affirmations that Garrison “admitted” in the Armstrong case that no Scientologist ever used this title. There are eight “Armstrong cases,” but it is understood that Introvigne is referring to Scientology v. Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. C420153. Following is where Garrison was questioned about the title “Affirmations” in my 1984 trial in that case:

[Question to Omar Garrison by Barrett S. Litt, attorney for Mary Sue Hubbard] Now, you have testified some about Mr. Armstrong’s discussions with you about materials to use and about the amount of materials.

Do you know what a set of materials called the Affirmations are?

[Answer by Garrison]  I do because I was the one that gave it that designation. The word “Affirmation” doesn’t appear on any of it.³

Garrison did not admit that no Scientologist ever used the title “Affirmations.” I have not been able to find where he said such a thing. It is illogical that he would say such a thing because he could not possibly know what term every Scientologist uses or ever used in their speech or writing; and because he positively knew that Scientologists did use that title. I also know Introvigne to be willfully sloppy with facts and logic. So I do not believe him about the claimed admission by Garrison. If Introvigne can produce where Garrison admitted such a thing it would be helpful for further analyses.

As I mentioned above, the Scientologists, or the people controlling the cult’s legal affairs, used the title “Affirmations” in their “settlement” contract in the identification of materials to be delivered to the cult at that time. I would be extremely surprised if there is any individual within the leadership of Scientology since 1982 who has not known what the Affirmations are, does not know them by that title, and does not have a good idea of their extraordinary relevance.

By the time Garrison testified at my trial in 1984 many Scientologists, as well as collaborating lawyers and PIs, knew what the Affirmations were. I knew Garrison called them “Affirmations” when I was a Scientologist, and I adopted the title he coined and I used it myself. Robert Vaughn Young, who succeeded me as L. Ron Hubbard Biography Researcher after I blew in 1981, called them “Affirmations.” Stacy Brooks read them and called them the “Affirmations” while she was still a Scientologist. My wife Jocelyn called them “Affirmations” when she was still a Scientologist, and, like Garrison and I, also called them “Admissions.”

Garrison knew his way around occult subjects, and recognized from the Affirmations’ form and content that they were Hubbard’s record from occult operations or “experiments.” It was logical that Garrison called them “Affirmations” and that Scientologists, as they learned of their existence or discussed them, also call them “Affirmations.” At trial, both Mary Sue Hubbard’s attorney and Scientology’s attorney called them “affirmations.”

Mark Rathbun claims in his book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior that during my 1984 trial he was on the post of “Legal Executive ASI” (“Author Services Incorporated”), the for-profit company he says, “through which L. Ron Hubbard continued to run the Scientology empire.” Rathbun was a Scientologist and says he “was working directly for and being paid by L. Ron Hubbard.” Rathbun claimed to have a supervisory role over the Scientology v. Armstrong case, and certainly knew and used the title “affirmations.”

More damning, [my attorney Michael] Flynn entered into evidence what were called “the affirmations.” These were dozens of handwritten pages from the Hubbard archives. They contained some sort of self-processing Ron had been engaged in, in the late forties.  They were called the affirmations because for the most part they seemed to be a sort of positive thinking Ron was writing down, to boost his own self-confidence.  They began with this statement of purpose, ‘The purpose of this experiment is to re-establish the ambition, willpower, desire to survive, the talent and confidence of myself.’

There were a number of entries acknowledging Ron’s sexual and living relationship with Sarah Northrup, and his close personal friendship with Jack Parsons, the rocket scientist who had headed the Ordo Templi Orientis black magic group Ron had participated in.

Flynn harped on the following passage to give credence to his former-staff witnesses, who had testified about slave-like conditions in the Sea Org:

Material things are yours for the asking. Men are your slaves. Elemental spirits are your slaves. You are power among powers, light in the darkness, beauty in all.

The passage that perhaps had the greatest overall effect, in a trial about whether L. Ron Hubbard’s archives proved him to be a self-promoting liar, read:

You can tell all the romantic tales you wish. You will remember them, you do remember them. But you know which ones were lies. You are so logical you will tell nothing which cannot be believed. But you are gallant and dashing and need tell no lies at all. You have enough real experience to make anecdotes forever.

The affirmations were highly personal, detailing Ron’s sexual problems, physical deficiencies, fears and phobias. I felt like they were a precursor to some Scientology confessional processes, and felt sorry for LRH that they were being bandied about in open court. However, one of the first exhibits Flynn entered into evidence was a Guardian’s Office order authored by Mary Sue herself, which directed that preclear folders (supposedly confidential notes from auditing sessions) of Scientologists deemed “security risks” be routinely culled for information, for use against them should they become a problem for the organization.  We would be receiving no sympathy from the court over the airing of Ron’s secrets.

Rathbun was still a Scientologist when he published Memoirs in 2013. So was Mike Rinder, whom Rathbun identifies as editing the book. Rinder ran the cult’s intelligence, PR and legal departments for many years, and also used the title “Affirmations” throughout those years. They both were in on Scientology strategy and actions to falsely claim the Affirmations are forged or fabricated. Rathbun and Rinder’s acknowledgement in Memoirs of the Affirmations’ authenticity, and their inclusion of excerpts, might belie the lies the Scientologists and their collaborators have told about any forgery or fabrication. Introvigne might get the message.

In Introvigne’s brief exchange with Urban, he uses the word “Affirmations” five times. He does not provide any other title for the document or work. Properly, I suppose, it would be L. Ron Hubbard’s Affirmations. An alternative or competing title for some time has been The Admissions of L. Ron Hubbard. At one point I chose, for various reasons, to go with Affirmations rather than Admissions. Potentially a better title might emerge and replace Affirmations; for example, I Must Be Convinced: L. Ron Hubbard Doing What He Willed. For now, however, Affirmations they are.

Introvigne calls them “ramblings,” and he calls them a “note,” but he provides no other title for them but “Affirmations.” He does say they are an “experiment,” which is what Hubbard says:

The purpose of this experiment is to re-establish the ambition, willpower, desire to survive, the talent and confidence of myself.

“Experiment” is a common synonym in occultism for that system’s magickal “operations” or “exercises.”

Hubbard continued in his Affirmations and confirmed this meaning:

To accomplish the above the following fears must be removed

[…]

(d) Any distaste I may have for Jack Parsons originated in a psychic experiment. Such distaste is foolish. He is my friend and comrade-in-arms.

It is common knowledge that Hubbard’s “psychic experiment” with Jack Parsons included “The Babalon Working.” This is a set of “high level” OTO rituals derived from Aleister Crowley’s magickal materials.

Hubbard’s Affirmations are so well known by that title and so widely accepted as authentic that they have their own Wikipedia page.⁴

The Affirmations also get their own section on Wikipedia’s “Scientology and the Occult” page.⁵

Introvigne states that people regarding the Affirmations as a key source of Hubbard’s ideas is something he — Introvigne — has always regarded as preposterous. That is, persons doing such regarding of the Affirmations have always been to him, doing something preposterous. Good question: Who or what is preposterous?

There are, as noted above, many people, both Scientologists and others, who have done exactly what Introvigne regards as preposterous. We have regarded the Affirmations as a key source for some of Hubbard’s ideas. I am quite sure even David Miscavige and his accomplices regard them this way. And so does Introvigne. But neither Miscavige and the accomplices nor Introvigne acknowledge the Affirmations’ authenticity, let alone their relevance for Hubbard’s thought and what ideas of his they are key to.

The Affirmations are, of course, not a key source for all of Hubbard’s ideas, or for understanding all of his ideas. No one with half a brain is saying they are. Introvigne posits or implies two idiocies: that there is a collection of people who regard the Affirmations as a key source of all of Hubbard’s ideas; and that he – Introvigne – regards the Affirmations as a key source for none of Hubbard’s ideas. Introvigne is stuffing a straw implication. He pronounces “preposterous” what no one is doing or has ever done, as if he is above such “preposterousness.” He evades dealing with anything in the Affirmations that is relevant for Hubbard’s thought or a source for any of his ideas.

The truth is that the Affirmations are inarguably a key source for some of Hubbard’s ideas, or for understanding some of his ideas, indeed several of them. And Introvigne cannot but know this.

To be clear, for discussion purposes I am using the common definitions of “relevant,” “key,” “source,” “teachings,” “ideas” and other key words in Introvigne’s statements. It is possible, for example, that in truth everything is key, but that is not the common meaning when we say “something is key to something else,” or “something is a key source of one thing or another.” God in truth is the Source of all that is real; but I am going with the ordinary human meaning for “source.”

Here Introvigne has to mean that the Affirmations are – he says they are not — a resource for understanding Hubbard’s thought, or a resource for understanding his ideas. The Affirmations are precisely such a resource, even a key resource. Introvigne’s implication that Hubbard’s Affirmations are not a useful or key resource for understanding any of Hubbard’s ideas is beyond preposterous. It does not take an academic to divine what Hubbard thought or ideas his Affirmations can be a legitimate or even key resource for understanding.

It is important to distinguish between what Hubbard said or implied his teachings were, and what his teachings actually were; and just as important to distinguish between what his followers or colluders say are his teachings and what his teachings actually are. It is important to keep in mind that Hubbard was a galactic liar. Indeed he was adjudged in a court of law “virtually a pathological liar.” It is also important to understand that Scientologists are taught to lie, and that lying about key issues is enforced among them. Therefore the same standard for believing the Scientologists and their colluders should be applied as the one Introvigne projects onto Garrison and me: they are not to be believed, certainly not always.

Introvigne writes that I say that unfortunately Hubbard’s Affirmations are “lost.” I have no clue where he found such a statement by me. It makes no sense. The Affirmations Introvigne is talking about, which he claims I say are “lost,” are the ones that had been under seal in the Office of the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court from 1982 through 1986, and which were delivered to the Miscavigeite Scientologists in December 1986. These Affirmations are not lost. Miscavige has them.

It could be that no one other than the owner of the Salvator Mundi knows where it is. But it is not lost. The painting might be lost to the rest of humanity. But it is not lost. It is not lost like your winning lottery ticket or your keys might be lost. The facts that Introvigne might not possess and I do not possess Salvator Mundi, and Introvigne might not possess and I do not possess the LA Superior Court-sealed-and-delivered Affirmations, do not, by any stretch, mean that either the subject Da Vinci painting or the subject Hubbard writing is lost. Copies of Salvator Mundi and the Affirmations are similarly not lost.

If he were honestly as motivated as he presents, on proving, or disproving, the posted Affirmations’ authenticity, Introvigne should logically be lobbying Miscavige and his coconspirators or colluders. Introvigne knows they possess the original and multiple copies of the original. He should be getting them to make the previously-LASC-sealed Affirmations they possess public for all. He could easily use his finest academic argument to bring, or at least advise, the Miscavige regimers to acknowledge, confirm and reveal Hubbard’s Affirmations so a scholarly, scientific comparison can be made with the posted Affirmations. Introvigne has obviously and willfully prematurely discounted them as fake, which is risky business.

He could be pillorying Miscavige and his coconspirators or colluders for not making the LASC-sealed Affirmations they possess public for all. Instead Introvigne is attacking as unbelievable the people who made the e-Affirmations public and authenticate them. He could be respecting the people who found relevance, value, thought, ideas, keys, clarity, freedom in the Affirmations. Instead he blanket-smears our reasoned, even religious, conclusions over many years as preposterous.

Introvigne asks, “How can we know that the 2000 text is the same as the 1984 one?” The short answer is because I say it is. This is the 2000 text: ⁶

I am aware that so far his short answer back is, “Sure but Armstrong is not to be believed, in fact believing him (except, wink, where what he says fits my narrative) is preposterous.”

I am, however, happy to debate Introvigne on the preposterousness issue, and this can be considered a challenge to such a debate. My proposition is that finding or regarding relevance, value, thought, ideas, keys, clarity, freedom in the Affirmations is not preposterous. He can defend his proposition that finding or regarding relevance, value, thought, ideas, keys, clarity or freedom in the Affirmations is preposterous. I am fairly certain that I will be able to find or produce testimonials from a number of unpreposterous people who have benefited or been blessed from reading, studying or understanding Hubbard’s Affirmations.  If Introvigne refuses or loses the debate, it can score for my believability.

The “1984 one” Introvigne is talking about are the Affirmations I identified above as “the ones that had been under seal in the Office of the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court from 1982 through 1986, and which were delivered to the Miscavigeite Scientologists in December 1986 [and which] Miscavige has.” Introvigne presents as not knowing how to determine that the text of the Affirmations that have been available online since 2000 is the same text in Hubbard’s handwriting in his Affirmations that had been part of the first Scientology v. Armstrong case. The question Introvigne asks comes down to how to determine that the text, the content of the Affirmations, which have been available online since 2000 come from Hubbard – that Hubbard is their source.

When Introvigne asks, “How can we know that the 2000 text is the same as the 1984 one?” he is implying or pretending that he knows of no way of knowing. Pretended ignorance is a very common condition among Scientologists and their colluders. It is, also standardly, coupled with pretended knowledge. It would take, one would think, for example, unfathomably superior knowledge to pronounce preposterous the regarding – considering, evaluating, judging – a writer’s writing to himself and about himself as a source of the writer’s ideas. Pretended ignorance of a set of real things and pretended knowledge of a set of false things is the stock-in-trade of confidence men.

Introvigne already knows that the posted Affirmations are real. He knows that they really are what Hubbard wrote to himself in 1946 with enough certainty as to render highly unlikely and not worth entertaining the notion that they are a fabrication. Nevertheless, accepting Introvigne’s question as sincere, there are a number of ways we can know with workable certainty that Hubbard is the source. As provided above there is my short answer: because I know it and say it. I have written, spoken and testified extensively about Hubbard’s Affirmations being his, and about surrounding fact matters, and I am still alive to write, speak or testify.

But supposing I died, or the Scientologists and their colluders were able to finally silence or destroy me. There are still many evidentiary pieces and paths that lead to the conclusion, which people around the world have already been led to, that the Affirmations, as posted, are Hubbard’s. It is not difficult intellectually or morally to reach that conclusion because it is, after all, the truth. Obviously the record of my words concerning the Affirmations, and Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologists and their colluders will outlive me, and this record logically cannot be excluded from the process toward reaching a conclusion concerning Hubbard as source.

So I think the first step, before leaping to preposterousness, would be to confront the existing record, not just what I have communicated, but what has been communicated by others, including Hubbard. Obviously Introvigne went with the preposterous angle. Whether he ever confronted what I’ve communicated and others have communicated in this matter I do not know. There is a likelihood that he knows the truth, knows I have told the truth and others have told the truth, and he’s simply lying. By “confront,” I mean to face or take account of.

When I posted the e-copy in 2000, I entreated Miscavige to make public the complete original, and urged him to correct any typing errors I might have made.

I am also posting the Admissions openly to confirm their authenticity. The copy I received was not clear in places, and it is now gone. All words, spellings, punctuation and notations are Hubbard’s, except for brackets [] which are mine. I pray that DM makes the complete original of the Admissions available for $cientologists around the world. Indeed I pray that he reveals every hidden piece of Hubbard’s writings, and yes, even his own secret documents, to all $cientologists and interested wogs ®. Robert Vaughn Young and Stacy Brooks at least have read the Admissions and will be able to confirm that what follows here is, within reasonable parameters, authentic. I was very careful, but if there are any errors at all in what I have posted of the Hubbard Admissions, I urge DM to have them corrected.

The fact that I openly posted Hubbard’s Affirmations using my own name certainly supports, and in no way negates, the logical conclusion, and my attestation, that he authored them. The fact that I challenged Miscavige openly to make the handwritten original he possessed public so that everyone could compare the text with the e-copy also supports the conclusion that the Affirmations were what I have said they are. The fact that I urged the Scientologists to correct any errors in the text I posted supports that conclusion, and also betokens my sincerity, dedication to the truth, and relative certainty about my carefulness.

In 2009, I videoed a message to Miscavige in which I stated my belief that he had a responsibility to publish the original of the Affirmations:

I believe that it is incumbent upon you, you have a responsibility of publishing the original of L. Ron Hubbard’s Admissions as Scientology scripture so that everyone can have it, and everyone can have the opportunity of going free from Scientology. Because that is what will happen when people begin to realize what L. Ron Hubbard was doing and of course what you are doing. And the Admissions are a view into the mind of L. Ron Hubbard and into his research. His Scientology research.⁷

In the video, I also urged other Scientologists to demand that Miscavige publish Hubbard’s Affirmations:

And I urge every Scientologist to ask David Miscavige, demand that he publish the Admissions. If there’s any doubt whatsoever as to the authenticity or the, the accuracy of the Admissions which I published in 2000, if there’s any question, David Miscavige is the one to go to. David Miscavige possesses the original of the Admissions.

My continuing to nudge Miscavige to make public the original of the Affirmations he possesses, and my calling on Scientologists to demand he publish them, also support the conclusion that Hubbard is the author, and that the e-copy is pretty free of errors.

I have read Hubbard’s Affirmations several times. I have read thousands of pages of his writings. I have read different portions of his Scientology scripture, fiction, letters and journals. I have listened to many of his audio-recorded sermons, and listened to him speak many times in person. Every word in the Affirmations sounds like Hubbard’s writing and thought.

Introvigne is proactively whitewashing Hubbard, relevantly by denigrating the Affirmations’ authenticity and their authenticators, whereas I am in a merely responsive position. So he at least presents as having read at least as much and listened to at least as much Hubbard as I have. Yet Introvigne has come up with no word, no writing, no style, no thought in the Affirmations that does not sound like Hubbard.

Hubbard actually prepared for and composed his affirmation sessions quite carefully. His Affirmations are thoughtful and literarily constructed, even if in note form. They concern personal things he had been thinking about for several years. They are acts of his own will, and not at all automatic writing. In the Affirmations, Hubbard acknowledges doing or using it; in fact, he wrote that he received poetry and stories by automatic writing dictated by a Flavia Julia, his Crowleyan “guardian” entity

You can do automatic writing whenever you wish. You do not care what comes out on the paper when your Guardian dictates. You can hear her easily and when you want her to write or talk dictation you have only to consciously will it and the result is written or spoken by yourself without any intrusions of your own thought. It is entirely automatic. It does not in the least affect or reduce your spiritual will. You may or may not believe what she dictates. That is part of your conscious will and judgment.

[…]

You write wonderful poetry. Your guardian dictates it and she is all wise. People gasp and thrill to your poetry. You handle all forms superbly. You do not care what people think of your poetry. You have always written the most magnificent verse known because of your guardian.

Your guardian can dictate stories, poems to you at will. You do not oppose them. You accept and write them easily. You are not eager. You cannot doubt.

In his effort to inauthenticate the e-copy of Hubbard’s Affirmations, Introvigne has not questioned the authenticity, provenance or chain of custody of the handwritten Affirmations that were maintained by the LA Superior Court Clerk and then delivered to the Scientologists in December 1986. The Scientologists, Mary Sue Hubbard, their attorneys, and clearly Hubbard himself, all agreed with me that these Affirmations were his. The Scientologists’ lawyers and Mrs. Hubbard’s lawyers objected to their being quoted from at trial and entered into evidence, but they did not object on the basis of the Affirmations not being Hubbard’s, or being a forgery.

Introvigne has not questioned the authenticity of the selected passages of the Affirmations that I read into the record in my 1984 trial. He also has not questioned the accuracy of my reading of the Affirmations passages, the accuracy of the court reporter recording my words, or the accuracy of the daily trial transcript the court reporters produced. In his argument supporting his thesis that the e-Affirmations are inauthenticate, and consequently rendering their study or use preposterous, Introvigne says that it is important to distinguish them from Hubbard’s handwritten Affirmations. No one was not distinguishing these two forms.

Distinguishing them, one from the other, however, does nothing to negate or even challenge the authenticity of either. Of course they are distinguishable. That does not mean that the words, the text, the meaning, the relevance differs between the handwritten and e-form Affirmations. It is, obviously, the words, text, meaning and relevance of the e-Affirmations that Introvigne seeks to negate with his claimed belief in the importance of distinguishing the Affirmations forms.

To support this notion and reasoning that distinguishing the handwritten from the e-Affirmations is important – and will presumably lead to the only unpreposterous conclusion, the inauthentication and rejection of the e-form – Introvigne provides one example: “Most of the stuff about magic was not quoted in 1984 and only showed up in 2000.” This fact, however, has no relevance in demonstrating any difference between the words, text, meaning or relevance of the handwritten and the e-Affirmations. And this fact that selections from the handwritten Affirmations about Hubbard’s Crowleyan, magick, magusoid thought were not read into the record in 1984 does zero to invalidate or inauthenticate the e-Affirmations.

What goes into any record in a civil proceeding involves the parties or their attorneys and the court. There are myriad laws or rules governing evidence, and multiple persons’ rights to be considered. There is need, relevance and quality of evidence. Future appeals must be kept in mind. My attorneys were willing to have the totality of the Affirmations read and entered into the record, and at the same time they limited their use to the single issue of Hubbard’s fake or real war injuries. The Hubbard/Scientology side’s attorneys fought to stop anything from them being quoted. Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. ruled what would be quoted and what would be entered into evidence.

Although what the judge did not allow to be quoted does nothing to prove the e-Affirmations inauthentic, what he did allow to be quoted, discussed or entered into evidence from the handwritten Affirmations all supports the e-Affirmations’ authenticity and accuracy. The following excerpt from pages 1924 to 1928 of the Reporter’s Daily Transcript for May 15, 1984, where attorney Michael Flynn is questioning me about the Affirmations, is useful for this purpose:

Q BY MR. FLYNN: 500 quadruple D through 500 quadruple G which you found of much greater significance other than what you are going to read and was that one of the primary reasons that you sent me these documents, the area of greater significance?

A Yes.

Q Now, would you read the portion relating to Mr. Hubbard’s Naval background and Veterans Administration background that we have selected.

THE COURT: Let’s first identify the exhibit that you are referring to.

FLYNN: It is exhibit 500 quadruple D, for the record. And it is a handwritten note of Mr. Hubbard’s with no number on the page.

THE COURT:  All right.

LITT: Is that the document that has at the beginning “course two”?

FLYNN: Correct.

THE WITNESS: (reading:)

“Your stomach trouble” —

LITT: Obviously, we object to any reading. I just wanted to make it clear for the record.

THE COURT: I’ll deem it that you are objecting to each of these.

Overruled so long as Mr. Flynn is continuing the line of what he has already told me he is going to do.

FLYNN: I am limiting it to that. And I have shown it to Mr. Litt.

THE WITNESS: (Reading:)

“Your stomach trouble you used as an excuse to keep the Navy from punishing you. You are free of the Navy. You have no further reason to have a weak stomach.

“Your ulcers are all well and never bother you. You can eat anything.

“Your hip is a pose. You have a sound hip. It never hurts.

“Your shoulder never hurts.

“Your foot was an alibi. The injury is no longer needed. It is well. You have perfect and lovely feet.

“Your sinus trouble is nothing. It is not dangerous. It will vanish. The common cold amuses you. You are protected from further illness. Your cat fever has vanished forever and will never return. You do not have malaria.

“When you tell people you are ill, it has no effect upon your health. And in Veterans Administration examinations you’ll tell them how sick you are; you’ll look sick when you take it; you’ll return to health one hour after the examination and laugh at them.

“No matter what lies you may tell others, they have no physical effect on you of any kind. You never injure your health by saying it is bad. You cannot lie to yourself.”

Q On the exhibit 500 quadruple E page 18, subparagraph (g) —

LITT: Your Honor, before that occurs, Mr. Flynn has chosen out a series — what is a subsection (g) —

THE COURT: May I see it?

LITT:  — from this document and at the top of the previous page are the words “by hypnosis I must be convinced as follows:” and then there are a series of subsection (a), (b) et cetera from which Mr. Flynn wishes to read subsection (g).

FLYNN: I’d be happy to have the whole document go into evidence.

LITT: No, no, no. The words “by hypnosis” —

THE COURT: If you want that read, it may be read. “By hypnosis I must be convinced as follows:” and then skip to subparagraph (g).

LITT: Yes.

THE COURT: The court will deem that the witness has read what I have just read to avoid repetition.

THE WITNESS: This is (g), “That my eyes (which I used as an excuse to get out of school) are perfect and do not pain me ever.”

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, were you able to date, Mr. Armstrong, when these documents were written by Mr. Hubbard?

THE COURT: Well I think you should ask him if he formed an opinion as to the time when these were prepared. He can’t date them as a matter of personal knowledge. He may have an opinion based upon his work with him.

Q BY MR. FLYNN:  Do you have an opinion, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q And what is that?

A In the period of 1946-1947.

Q And how did you arrive at that point?

THE COURT: Without going into the details of anything that is set forth therein.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Because of the mentions of what is occurring in his life at that time and the names of people referred to, specifically Jack Parsons who was John W. Parsons and Sarah, his second wife.⁸

The following are the two sections from the e-Affirmations that correspond to the text of the two selections above that I read into the trial record from Hubbard’s handwritten Affirmations:

Your stomach trouble you used as an excuse to keep the Navy from punishing you. You are free of the Navy. You have no further reason to have a weak stomach. Your ulcers are all well and never bother you. You can eat anything.

Your hip is a pose. You have a sound hip. It never hurts. Your shoulder never hurts.

Your foot was an alibi. The injury is no longer needed. It is well. You have perfect and lovely feet.

Your sinus trouble is nothing. It is not dangerous. It will vanish. A common cold amuses you. You are protected from further illness. Your cat fever has vanished forever and will never return.

You do not have malaria. When you tell people you are ill it has no effect upon your health. In the Veterans examination you will tell them how sick you are. You will look sick when you take it. You will return to health one hour after the examination and laugh at them.

No matter what lies you may tell others they have no physical effect on you of any kind. You never injure your health by saying it is bad. You cannot lie to yourself.

And:

By hypnosis I must be convinced as follows:

[…]

(g) That my eyes (which I used as an excuse to get out of school) are perfect and do not pain me ever.

The paragraphing differences between the Affirmations text quoted in the trial transcript and the matching text in the e-Affirmations are easily understandable and do not in any way inauthenticate either form, or generate any doubt that Hubbard authored them. The paragraphing that was done actually expresses the thought and care multiple people put into getting right whatever their part was that produced the trial transcript and the e-Affirmations.

There are some textual discrepancies between the trial transcript and the e-Affirmations, e.g.:

Transcript: “When you tell people you are ill, it has no effect upon your health. And in Veterans Administration examinations you’ll tell them how sick you are; you’ll look sick when you take it; you’ll return to health one hour after the examination and laugh at them.”

e-Affirmations: “When you tell people you are ill it has no effect upon your health. In the Veterans examination you will tell them how sick you are. You will look sick when you take it. You will return to health one hour after the examination and laugh at them.”

Obviously, adding or omitting the word “Administration,” or pluralizing or singularizing “examination,” or apostrophizing or not “you will,” does not alter the meaning of what Hubbard wrote. These differences or possible errors are all explainable by the processes that produced the trial transcript and the e-Affirmations. The Veterans Administration examination Hubbard was referring to has been identified, at least to my satisfaction, as being in Los Angeles on September 19, 1946.

Relevantly, none of these textual differences or possible errors generates any actual doubt about the e-Affirmations’ authenticity or accuracy. The majority of such errors are likely in the court reporting process on the court reporting machine. There were two court reporters throughout the trial. They were not equally competent, and they changed off throughout each session. One reporter wrote for a while, then at some quick break tore off the steno paper in the done tray, and took it away to produce the just-recorded part of the daily transcript. The other reporter immediately sat down and picked up writing where the first reporter had stopped. The Scientologists were paying big bucks to get expedited copies.

Leapfrogging court reporters like that meant that they sometimes missed what had just happened, been explained or spelled. Also, the subjects being testified about or discussed were uncommon fodder, and the Scientologists’ have their own argot, Scientologese, their own neologisms, and their own meanings for certain English language words. Consequently there is a multitude of errors throughout 4900 pages of the Reporters’ Daily Transcripts. Phonetics explains many of the errors, and none of them alter the meaning that can reasonably be derived from the transcript. Nor is there any record that any transcript errors were a factor in the judgment in the case or the appellate decision affirming it.

While discrepancies between the Affirmations quoted in the trial transcript and the corresponding passages in the e-Affirmations are easy to find, no discrepancies between the handwritten Affirmations and the e-Affirmations have ever been identified and made public. Introvigne has revealed none. The Miscavigeite Scientologists have revealed none. I have an extremely high degree of certainty that any discrepancies discovered will not materially affect the correspondence, indeed equation, between the Hubbard originals and the e-Affirmations derived from them.

The undeniable potential in this matter, however, for the existence of discrepancies or errors, no matter how few or unimportant, is why I have urged Miscavige and his Scientology underlings to publish the originals, and to make or order corrections. He has made the strategic move of letting the e-Affirmations exist, and not seeking to suppress them on copyright infringement grounds. Regardless of any discrepancies or errors his underling researchers have identified, he has chosen to not directly challenge the e-Affirmations’ authenticity or accuracy. Miscavige utilizes programs that attack the e-Affirmation’s authenticity and their authenticators obliquely, as, for example, with academic Introvigne. But Miscavige has not come out of hiding to confront Hubbard’s Affirmations as real, and nor have any of his cultic co-ecclesiarchs.

Without Miscavige publishing Hubbard’s handwritten Affirmations for comparison purposes, however, and without considering my knowledge or testimony of the e-Affirmations authenticity, it is still fairly simple to prove them authentic beyond a reasonable doubt. The Scientologists and their colluders will certainly proclaim their doubts, but these are unreasonable. The e-Affirmations are authentic and accurate enough to be relevant for understanding Hubbard’s thought, and to be regarded as a key source for some of his ideas. His thought and his ideas contained in his Affirmations cannot reasonably or honestly be evaded or negated by unreasonably alleging the e-Affirmations to be inauthentic or inaccurate.

Although, as pointed out, the quotes from the Affirmations reported in the trial transcript differ slightly from the corresponding passages in the posted e-Affirmations, the quotes and the many discussions of them in my trial are very helpful in demonstrating the e-Affirmations’ authenticity. The trial transcript shows that the handwritten Affirmations comprised three exhibits: 500-DDDD, which is the e-Affirmations part entitled “Course II,” 500-EEEE, which is the part entitled “Course I,” and 500-FFFF is the part entitled “The Book.” Attorney Litt acknowledged the title “Course II,” although this appears in the transcript as “the document that has a beginning “course two.””

To fabricate the e-Affirmations, such a fabricator would have to be brilliant. He would have to be gifted and clever enough to fool many people; including people who had studied and lived by Hubbard’s words and had even read copies or the original of the Affirmations’ handwritten form.

The e-fabrication could not deviate in any significant way from what was testified or discussed about the Affirmations at my trial and is available in the trial transcripts online. Otherwise the e-fabrication would be exposed. Introvigne has not identified any such deviation.

The phantom fabricator would have to, for example, invent a list of things Hubbard desired to be self-convinced of, and which he commanded himself to be convinced of by hypnosis. This list would have to include and be contextually cohesive for a known item (g): “That my eyes (which I used as an excuse to get out of school) are perfect and do not pain me ever.” That item would have to make sense in the list, and the whole list would have to make sense around (g), and make sense within the rest of the Affirmations. The list would have to be logical and historically accurate, which it certainly is, and express Hubbard’s thought and ideas, which it certainly does.

By hypnosis I must be convinced as follows:

(a) I can write. I need not think commercially about writing.

(b) My mind is still brilliant. My memory unaffected by drugs or
experience.

(c) That masturbation was no sin or crime and did not injure me. That no sexual practice has ever dulled me.

(d) That things sexual thrill me. That I am now returned to the same feelings I had at 16 about sex where excitement is concerned. That naked women and pornography excite me greatly. That Sara excites me greatly and gives me much pleasure.

(e) That I bear no physical aftermath of disease.

(f) That I do not need to have ulcers any more.

(g) That my eyes (which I used as an excuse to get out of school) are perfect and do not pain me ever.

(h) That I love in Sara everything I loved in Polly or Helen and that such love is now transferred to Sara.

(i) That I am fortunate in losing Polly and my parents, for they never meant well by me.

(j) That I never need be jealous of Sara’s past. That she loves me and is utterly faithful. That she thrills me more than Helen ever did.

(k) That life is beautiful to me. That I want to live. That things taste and smell and look and feel wonderful to me.

(l) That I wrote a great book in The One Command and that it removed all my fears even until now, except that my chapters on the mind do not affect my own mind. That I have will power and great mental control. That I need not associate anything unless I wish.

(m) That I have only friendship for Jack Parsons.

(n) That I feel no wish for vengeance toward anyone. That I love people and believe in honor and glory.

(o) That I believe in my gods and spiritual things.

(p) That nothing can halt my ambitions.

(q) That I need not believe the criticism of anyone. That vicious criticism can be forgotten by me at will.

(r) That I tell the truth and must tell the truth. That all past errors and lies are forgotten.

(s) That I have started a new, free life. That the arts and beauties run strong in me and cannot be denied by anyone.

(t) That I am well and that there is no advantage in appearing ill.

(u) That my code is to be all things a “magus” must be, that I am those things. That I burn high and bright and will last as a potent and brilliant force until well after this century has run.

(v) That I am not credulous or absorbent of other people’s opinions.

(w) That this hypnosis will not fade, but will increase in power as time advances.

(x) That my magical work is powerful and effective.

(y) That nothing can tarnish my love of life, my hours, my love of Sara. And I have the power of banishing anything which would seek to do so and that all things will seem wonderful and exciting to me all the rest of my days.

(y1) That the numbers 7, 25 and 16 are not unlucky or evil for me. That no number is any different in its influence upon me than any other number. That the 7th, 16th and 25th are not unlucky or unfortunate days of the month for me. I have no bad connotations with these numbers.

(z) That I need not subscribe to any moral code of sex anywhere. That I am constant to Sara. I have no terrors of sex or sexual conduct. Only pleasure and beauty are contained in it. That I may please myself with the act or be pleased with sexual things. That the sexual matters taught me by Flavia do not apply. My chastity lies in loving Sara.

(a1) That I will not forget these things but will enjoin them with all related ideas as more powerful than any other ideas in my head.

(b1) That all ideas to destroy myself are false, for I love life and I am a free and exuberant spirit in it.

(c1) That I cannot associate any of my lacking libido with Sara. The blame lies elsewhere. Sara has enormous powers to thrill me. Hormones and fears, now gone, were at fault.

(d1) Sexually I am as I was at 16, without any of the fears, with all of the powers, with all the knowledge I now possess turned to wonderful things.

(d1) That I see and hear Raon clearly.

(e) That anything which impedes my zest for living is small and puny and will dwindle before the power of these statements. That nothing in me which is evil can have heard these statements and commands without disappearing.

(f1) That I am not bad to look upon. That my posture is straight and excellent. That Sara likes my looks.

(g1) That my endurance in any climate is wonderful and any “fact” otherwise is completely false.

(h1) That I am not susceptible to colds.

(i1) That I believe in myself and am poised and dignified whenever I wish to be.

(j1) That I am not worn out in any way and never will be. That life is ever new, that I am strong.

(k1) That Sara is always beautiful to me.

(l1) That these words and commands are like fire and will sear themselves into every corner of my being, making me happy and well and confident forever!

The phantom fabricator would have to fabricate not just this list but the entirety of the e-Affirmations to be logical, consistent, contextually appropriate, faithful to known history, and congruous with the rest of Hubbard’s writings, which they are. The writing would have to be in Hubbard’s styles, which they are. The words would all have to be what he would use, and would have to sound just like him, which they do. None of the words or names he used were unknown or unintelligible to me, except for perhaps “Raon.”

As far as I know “Raon” has not been pinned down, but I’m going with a variation on the name “Ra,” the ancient Egyptian sun god, creator god, or king of gods. This aligns with Hubbard’s “Blood Ritual,” which he wrote around the time he wrote the Affirmations, and in which he invoked Hathor, Ra’s consort.

Ancient Egyptian dieties or entities are also indisputable and important in Crowley’s thought and ideas. I’ve communicated a number of times about the Crowley-Hubbard-Ancient-Egyptian-or-Otherwise-Occult overlap; for example in this 2015 article “On Monique Yingling, Alex Gibney, Scientology and the IRS deal:”

Any doubt about Hubbard and his religion’s Luciferian nature was dispelled after his death when the Scientologists published his scriptural “technical bulletin” he called “OT VIII Confidential Student Briefing,” in which he as much as confessed he was the “Antichrist,” representing “the forces of Lucifer.” Aleister Crowley claimed that Aiwass, whom he also identified as Lucifer, was his “Holy Guardian Angel,” who had dictated to Crowley his most famous writing The Book of the Law. Hubbard wrote in “OT VIII:”

No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where various events are predicted. Also mentioned is a brief period of time in which an archenemy of Christ, referred to as the Antichrist, will reign and his opinions will have sway. All this makes for very fantastic, entertaining reading but there is truth in it. This Antichrist represents the forces of Lucifer (literally, the “light bearer” or “light bring”), Lucifer being a mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment, the Galactic Confederacy. My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise represented by this brief Antichrist period.

Hubbard dated the bulletin May 5, 1980, a time when he was on the lam in southern California, postulating his own death, and evading government and private parties who were suing him or seeking his testimony in ongoing legal cases. In this scripture, based on what he implied was impeccable evidence, he blasphemed Jesus of the Christian Bible as an unsaintly, raging pederast. The ideal of Christ, Hubbard claimed, is part of an “ongoing implant” the Marcabians laid in on humans seventy-five million years ago “by carefully controlled genetic mutation.” He wrote that this race of entities, who were outside the physical universe, periodically reinforced the implant “by controlled historic events,” to make it impossible for humans to become free, except by his great work and divination.⁹

To be able to compose, or fabricate or forge, Hubbard’s Affirmations, and fake so many people out, the writer would have to possess intimate, detailed knowledge of Hubbard’s history, occult interests, writings, thought and ideas. The fabricator would have to apply that intimate knowledge to produce words, phrases and concepts in Hubbard’s styles. The fabricator would have to know what Hubbard was having problems with and what his fixes would be. Consequently, even if Hubbard’s e-Affirmations were fabrications or forgeries – on another planet for example – they are undeniably relevant for his thought, they are an extraordinarily key source for his ideas.

For the e-Affirmations to be fabrications or forgeries, the fabricator might have to have known Hubbard’s thought and ideas even more fully and deeply than Hubbard himself. The fabricator might have to be able to write and sound more like Hubbard than Hubbard himself. If the e-Affirmations were fabricated, one would think that in all these years the genius fabricator who can do all this, perhaps even better than Hubbard, would come forward, take a bow and tell the world how on earth he did it.

No such forger has confessed for the simple reason that the e-Affirmations are authentic and accurate. I imagine there could be some fake forgers with fake confessions coming forward now to fool a few of the foolable; but really it’s too late. Hubbard is the Affirmations’ source, and they are a great source for his thought and ideas.

Notes