Volume 5, Issue 9, page 5

NE OF THE MOST unfortunate
things that occurred in
the early days of Dianetics was that most persons
who found "The Modern Science
of Mental Health" a stimulating challenge were still bound
by traditions of looking to
"authority" for a final word.
True, they tried it out, found
that many of Hubbard's scintillating discoveries could be
demonstrated, even by amateurs
tip-toeing along with cautious
steps. Some even hit a small
jackpot on their first experiments, as physical ailments in
the classification of "contrasurvival" actions triggered
and were gone after being set
up for one-shot treatments by
the simple action of reading
the book and getting the basic

But, even after having tried it out and
found that it worked, just like the book
said, most persons still had to cast around
frantically for corroboration, looking for
some "expert " to reassure them that they
really "had something" -- not realizing that
at that stage of the game, they themselves
constituted the only "expert" in their
acquaintance. Many ran straight to their
doctors for advice, showing that they had
failed to pick up one of Hubbard's most
important pieces of information -- that we
are all motivated, for better or worse, to
justify our professions and positions. As
many of these "visits with the doctor"
were made in the nature of a challenge,
and all of them basically invalidated his
entire background and all his years of
training and heartache and frustration,
it is little wonder that the response was
almost universally negative. This was true
also in the professional and respected
fields of mental health and research,
where tradition was strong, and a touchy
situation had been made worse by Hubbard's
complete break with all traditions of
orthodoxy, including that of diplomacy --
which is probably his weakest point.

Many went to friends and relatives,
explaining their interests in this new
and challenging line of thought, and met
with rebuffs that ranged from mild discouragements to forceful and violent oppositions, with an entire family siding
against the poor soul who had only hoped
to get a bit of encouragement.
If Mama was included, and the
theory of pre-natal "memory"
(as they mistakenly thought of
it) came to light, there was
most apt to be no end of opposition. (There was good reason
for this opposition, too, as
anyone soon learned who did
much auditing.)
However, all over the country, groups got together and
sponsored "hearings" on Dianetics -- lectures, discussions,
etc., but too often these aimed
at getting an "authority" to
pass judgment, not to discuss
the theories. Naturally, the
judgments were invariably adverse, based on prejudice and
the fact Hubbard s stuff was
radically new and primarily
based on the pre-natal cellular level recordings he called
engrams. Many experts today
say it wasn't new, but in 1950, wherever
possible, these "authorities" went to
great length to refute Hubbard's data, and
to discourage its use in any form. Later,
as evidence piled up in favor of the theories, the same "authorities" switched to
an opposite tangent: It was all self-evident; many had said the same thing long
before Hubbard came along and "stole " them .

These attacks, formally organized in
many places, scored against the burgeoning
new science with telling effect, making
it difficult for most persons to override
their background and training and put
their own data and discoveries ahead of
denigrating dissertations aimed at destroying their own self-confidence. Just
such an experience has been chronicled
succinctly by Ellen X. Carder, D.Scn., of
Berkeley, Calif. This chapter, in this
"Sort of History of Dianetics", therefore
is being presented by her:
In 1950, when the book " Dianetics: The
Modern Science of Mental Health", appeared
in San Francisco, my son handed me a copy
and said: "Here, Mother. Will you read
this? We want your opinion." I read, and
expressed amazement. "It fits all that we
know," I said. "It just goes a lot further. The question is, can it be done?"
"We're doing it," was his response.
One young man,had run his birth and phoned
his mother to verify it. Would I let these
young physicists continue their processing in my apartment? I was asked. And thus
BD. NOfi' -- Dianettics is still a baby,
years wise, ye t in
less than a decade, it
has stirred up a lot
of contention, picked
up zany followers, and
at the same tiae, made
a any foes, some of
whom were "stars" in
the early days of the
movement. Why? Phis
series of articles is
one auditor's opinion
of what happened to
Dianetics, mostly before it became Scientology, but if anyone
wishes to add their
ota, views on the subject, they are invited
to do so. All we ask
is: fry to keep it as
historical and "factual" as human aberration will permit.