Repost: Procedure R2-45

Does Scientology have a procedure called R2-45 which means to shoot someone in the head with a Colt-45 revolver?

This question or variations of it came up on the blog several times.  Some knuckleheads seem to watch too much TV (it weakens the “brain”, you know). Here is the story of “R2-45”:

In Scientology there is a system of techniques which are numbered, like R2-1, R2-2 etc (no, there is no R2D2 in Scientology…). In a lecture in 1959 Hubbard was talking about how people experienced exteriorization when they reached Clear (a Scientology conscience level) in the past, or during meditation or so. At the end of this section of the lecture he makes a joke, inventing “R2-45″:

“And even the cops or gangsters could make a Clear out of anybody over these circumstances by taking a Webley .38 or a Smith and Wesson or Colt or something like that, and doing R2-45. That exteriorizes most anybody! Now, the way the Lamas got there was to sit and meditate. We’ve had somebody sitting and meditating, I guarantee you, our research has included it.” (Lecture 19 of “Rationale of Create” Series, 20 November 1959, Melbourne Congress)

It was a joke and the audience got it (you hear them laugh). Scientology is not teaching or applying processes which leaves people dead in the end. All literature and processes I ever saw are 100% directed in making people more alive and more self-determined. So such “process” would be very much out of alignment with the rest of Scientology technology.

Source: ScientologyMyths.info

49 Comments

  1. Pat- I don’t know. I don’t know him. But clearly you have not known many ESL folks- grammar can change depending on emotional state or speed.
    Anyways, what does it matter? You’re concentrating on one specific issue and ignoring the point. Ignoring EVERY point. It doesn’t matter if he’s fluent, ESL, boy, girl or other. It doesn’t change what he’s saying.
    Why do you care so much about his language preferences? Are you fixating?
    _FR

  2. @ Comment by bigdaddy on August 4, 2009 12:39 am

    “put in context:

    “Gee, trolls all over the place. Guess I need to -shoot some people who oppose me in the face- here.”

    I know u don’t plan to, although may want to, but sure u can see why peple are so concerned about this.”

    Fallroot, take note of the grammar of this and his other posts. Sometimes he forgets that he’s pretending to be a English as a Second language person.

    Pat

  3. Shall we, dear?

    The term derives from “trolling”, a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a question that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.
    -Such as, for instance, calling groups of people trolls? Or any of the other many times that you, yourself, have engaged in ad hominim attacks against people?

    No Imagination – Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses’ groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.
    -“what are your crimes?” “You have crimes”, etc etc. Or, multiple rapid message calling people trolls, a technique used by Louannie long before in the nolanchart incident.

    False Identity – Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!
    -Pat? Pat who? Louanne? I don’t know- those are just their ID’s!! They hide behind them.

    Crossposting – Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?
    -Dunno, ask Louanne. Or, do a google search for “louanne scientology” and see how many different groups and sites she posts to. As a hobby, right?

    Off-topic posting – Often genuine errors, but, if from an ‘outsider’ they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it’s a troll post, you have denied it its reward.
    -well, this troll book is off topic, isn’t it?

    Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll – or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.
    -“what are your crimes?” “You have crimes”, etc etc

    Missing The Point – Trolls rarely answer a direct question – they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle – so they develop a fine line in missing the point.
    – yeah… read back a bit. Pat especially will not answer questions.

    Thick or Sad – Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web there must be an Intelligence Test for Trolls – rigged to always say “above 150″
    -wait- isn’t scientology claiming to be able to raise IQ’s to at least 150? I see a pattern here.

    so, okay Pats- used your own definitions, and the shoe fits.

  4. sad, applies to both pat and louanne.
    odd they both show up again at same time frame, posting same off topic info. like trolls, hide behind their fake names and avoid the issue, preferring to insult. pot…kettle…
    they, sadly, will not answer, safe behind masks.

  5. Good one, L

    I found a great description for a troll.

    “What Is A Troll?

    The term derives from “trolling”, a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a question that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.

    Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.

    Why do trolls do it?

    I believe that most trolls are sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.

    Disrupting a stable newsgroup gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.

    For trolls, any response is ‘recognition’; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response.

    Trolls, rather surprisingly, dispute this, claiming that it’s a game or joke; this merely confirms the diagnosis; how sad do you have to be to find such mind-numbingly trivial timewasting to be funny?

    Remember that trolls are cowards; they’ll usually post just enough to get an argument going, then sit back and count the responses (Yes, that’s what they do!).

    How can troll posts be recognised?

    No Imagination – Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses’ groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.

    Pedantic in the Extreme – Many trolls’ preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail – the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.

    False Identity – Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!

    Crossposting – Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?

    Off-topic posting – Often genuine errors, but, if from an ‘outsider’ they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it’s a troll post, you have denied it its reward.

    Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll – or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.

    Missing The Point – Trolls rarely answer a direct question – they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle – so they develop a fine line in missing the point.

    Thick or Sad – Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web there must be an Intelligence Test for Trolls – rigged to always say “above 150″

    Who is at risk?
    Any newsgroup, bulletin board, forum or chatroom can attract trolls, but they don’t have the brains to attack nuclear physicists, and they are drawn to the quick response where sex, religion and race are found; politics is easy prey.

    One troll famously tried to infiltrate a mensa group; the results read like 100 trolls and one regular, it didn’t have a chance – but it was stupid enough to persist until removed.

    When Should You Be Concerned?
    Usually, not, though fractured funny bones and occasional waves of nausea have been reported.

    When a troll becomes persistent and personal, you may need to consider the possibility that it has fermented into an Internet Stalker – equally pathetic, if not more so – but sometimes requiring weedkiller.

    Trolls – if they had brains, they just might be dangerous!”

    http://www.flayme.com/troll/

    Pat

  6. put in context:

    “Gee, trolls all over the place. Guess I need to -shoot some people who oppose me in the face- here.”

    I know u don’t plan to, although may want to, but sure u can see why peple are so concerned about this.

  7. maybe joke to u. is that proof, or just off topic? not sure which.
    I dunno, to me, murder jokes just not funny. maybe u have diff sense of humor?

  8. Gee, trolls all over the place. Guess I need to apply a little R2-45 here.

    – L

    PS: Let see if you get the joke.

  9. Pat,
    How can you know this? I see that he has always had trouble with the language, and that he apparently have more trouble organizing his thoughts as he, perhaps, gets excited or upset in any way.
    I, however, was able to understand him, but I will not fault you for being unable.

    You said analyze here:

    Comment by Pat on July 24, 2009 6:59 am
    Exactly what do you do when you analyze?
    Pat

    You asked how he analyzed, and he answered you. Then you started talking about understanding. I know it can be a confusing concept, and hope that it has been fully addressed.

    _FR

  10. By the way, FallRoot and BigDaddy. Where did I say analyse (or analyze)?

    Pat

  11. @ Comment by Fallroot on July 24, 2009 9:43 pm

    “Pat,
    That’s not nice. I know you understand both comments, but clearly, this is not a native english speaker. Yes, he doesn’t use the same pretty speech as you do.”

    False. BigDaddy is not a first time poster. Look for his earlier posts. Notice anything different?

    Pat

  12. tank u fall, I know my english is poor but I taught myslef english by watching youtube vids, lol!

    u r very smart and thank you for helping her understand my speech.

  13. I do so hate to nitpick, but for the sake of historical accuracy, please note that the thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad is most often attributed to the German philosopher Hegel.
    The Socratic Method is “a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate rational thinking and to illuminate ideas”, which is a method which you had previously discounted.
    Essentially, the TES triad is generally introspective, while the socratic method, which is reflected in most of his writings, is generally acceptable in open and equitable debate.
    just fyi.

  14. Pat,
    That’s not nice. I know you understand both comments, but clearly, this is not a native english speaker. Yes, he doesn’t use the same pretty speech as you do.
    However, I am able to understand what he is saying, and will help you. (this is my point: either you are not able to understand but I am able, which raise additional questions about hubbard tech vs. public school system :), or you do understand it, as do I, in which case you are teasing him. Either answer is not flattering, to be honest)
    To assist:
    You said “analyze”. That is different than “understand”. Please clarify which you want to know. You may need to look up the words “analyze” and “understand” to not ethe difference. He answered your simple question, you changed the context. Please do not derail, it (the conversation) is finally being productive.”
    How is it that his comment was not understood? Basically, you asked Gill to explain how he analyzed things, and then completely changed the context to how he understands things! Do you know the difference between analyze and understand? Because you just equated the two…
    As analyze has already been defined, please note that the definition of “understand” is as follows: “know and comprehend the nature or meaning of; “She did not understand her husband”; “I understand what she means” ”
    Now, hopefully we can get back to the subject at hand, rather than bandy semantics.

  15. What?

    Pat

  16. u sed analyse. is different than understand. pleas claify which u want to know. may need to look up words analze and understand to note difference.
    he %swered ur simple question, you changed context. pls do not derail, it is finally being productive.

  17. So, correct me if I’m wrong .. In order to understand a sentence from a book, you need to gather an aggregation of all available information? Why not just apply the principles of Socrates? (Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis). “How could it be that way?” “How could it not be that way?”

    Analysis is good for determining causes or why something occured. I have no question about that. I don’t get why you would use this particular method while reading a book on Procedures from an applied philosophy, that stresses that the only barrier to full duplication of something is to use the 3 barriers to study that I referenced earlier.

    Pat

  18. Analyze: consider in detail and subject to an analysis in order to discover essential features or meaning, examined carefully and methodically; broken down for consideration of constituent parts.

    In my line of work, it is very critical that the decisions that I reach are based on an aggregation of all available information and an accurate analysis. This is a skill that I was required to fine tune in the Military as an analyst. When I left the Military, I continued in a capacity that required me to analyze certain pieces of information and sources, and complete accuracy is a requirement. Failure is both not an option and easily detected.

    So, essentially, I must approach a subject without a preconceived conclusion (different, of course, than a theory, as I had mentioned on 23 July) and weigh the available evidence. What’s more, I must use the techniques that have been considered to be accepted by multiple professional communities, which are no less than “second nature”.

    Thank you for the interesting question. May I ask what it is that you, yourself do?

  19. Exactly what do you do when you analyze?

    Pat

  20. Yes, Pat- it would seem that we have each analyzed the data, and each of us began with the same preconceived notion (that it was, indeed, a joke).
    However, after analysis, we had reached different conclusions. I, myself, would call it inconclusive, as we cannot apply Hubbard’s direction towards analysis, and we certainly can’t make assumptions without supporting evidence.
    Unfortunately, it would appear that there’s more to it than we are aware of, we can call this one an “unsolved mystery”.

  21. well, someone has to!
    KIDDING! I couldn’t pass up the opportunity :)
    No, seriously, we’re all in the same boat here. None of us- not one- can point to any conclusive proof, and Hubabrd cautions against making assumptions and interpretations based solely on what one hears, and even reads.
    So, like Gill said- we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, with respect.

  22. The only one who can make it clear is you.

    Pat

  23. Pat, you misunderstood mine and _FR’s intention. You may seem to believe that the only point of this forum is to argue, based on your reply. It’s my understanding that it was a place to discuss and ask about myths related to scientology. It’s also my understanding that people are able to take different sides to an issue, depending on their beliefs; that no one is forced to take a particular side. In this case, we started with the same idea, but when Louanne started a thread about it, we all began to discuss it with the same “no problem”.
    However, as the conversation wore on, it became clear that all that ANYONE had to go on was assumption and interpretation- that it was never made clear. And, of course, everyone’s assumptions are colored solely by their personal beliefs as to the intent.
    So the condescending tone really isn’t necessary. It seems that we all can respectfully disagree on this issue, as _FR said, as there will never be a “smoking gun” either way.
    Perhaps, someday, these loose ends will be tied, and will find that Hubbard, knowing what was being said in his lifetime the world over, will have written or said something to correct that misunderstanding. But, until then, we’re still all making guesses.

  24. Alright, you got me. What he really means is that way back in the Galactic Confederation days when someone wanted to go exterior to the body, they’d just shoot them. Very effective way to get people operating outside of their bodies, right?

    Anything else that you had no problem with, but asked anyway?

    Pat

  25. With all due respect, Pat, your elitism and evasion are a fancy way of saying that you don’t know the answer. I wouldn’t expect you to admit that to me, but you and I both know it to be true. Else you could answer. You claim that you “won’t” answer- but it is fact that you cannot. Of course, we can pretend, but what’s the use?

    What is there to wordclear in the book? I understand each and every word in that sentence. I understand that Hubbard said that that R was unacceptable to society. I understand that he made references to it, later.

    We’re all in the same boat here, ironically.

    Funny thing is that we all agreed previously, and were hear for “scientology answers” to help prove your point. All that’s been proven is that’s it’s questionable, and you are looking down on me for interpreting his comments while you do the same, while pretending that your understanding is better because you believe that you can interpret what he had said.

    Frankly, I don’t need you to feel that you’re better than me- I’m married. (kidding)

    So, you claim that my only barriers to understanding (and by that, you mean “seeing things your way because you’re right”) are the three barriers to understanding. So, pretending like hubbard invented these concepts, and not Montessori and many others, let’s run the list.

    I have the mass- I have the transcripts printed out, I’ve had the book in my hand. Now, granted “the printed page and spoken word are no substitute for the object itself”, but short of necromancy and an 8 day waiting period, that’s not really an option.

    Second is about having “Too steep a study gradient”. Now, it is said that “A student who has skipped a gradient may feel a sort of confusion or a feeling of reeling (i.e. moving or swaying like you might fall)” and that “These are two reactions a person will have when they have missed a step or hit too steep a gradient in the subject they’re studying.” As I do not feel confused or a reeling sensation, and as I have a very thorough understanding, I am confident in this step. Now, again, we are in the process of interpreting an audio recording made 40+ years ago, we are all at the same disadvantage and would have to “grey” barrier one and hubbard’s instructions about interpreting verbal statements.

    Lastly, Hubbard called the third step the most important: “A word not understood or wrongly understood”. Hubbard said, “R2-45: AN ENORMOUSLY EFFECTIVE PROCESS FOR EXTERIORIZATION BUT ITS USE IS FROWNED UPON BY THIS SOCIETY AT THIS TIME.”- what about that cannot be understood?

    Anyways, it’s clear that we both have different beliefs. (mine, sadly, have changed due to this thread) So we may have to agree to disagree on this one. Lets be honest- none of us here knew Hubbard, none of us were there- all we have is assumptions. So, I respect your conclusion and respectfully disagree.

  26. Now you see why “interpretations” of LRH works never helps. Whether you agree or not, the only thing between you and comprehension are the 3 barriers to study. We can explain and change references til the cows come home and it still won’t change the fact that you didn’t handle your confusion with the original reference, or you bought in to false data on what it meant.

    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH1_1.HTM

    There is also false data when one has received such interpretations from those who also didn’t understand it.

    For any interpretations, you could use this: (An excerpt from an HCOB called How to Defeat Verbal Tech Checklist)

    1. If it isn’t written it isn’t true
    2. If it’s written clarify it

    You could also use “how could it be that way?” and “how could it not be that way?” (From the study tapes by LRH)

    Pat

  27. Invented can have more than one definition. It would probably be wise for you to see which definition she was using there.

    The book is plenty of source. If you don’t get it, then clear the words, like any other subject you would study. This hogwash about proof and “clarify it for me” is just another way of saying “I don’t get whether it’s literal or figurative”. That’s a personal issue with comprehension and ability to see differences. Work on that. You’re back to statements again, Gil.

    Pat

  28. Hey, Louanne- recall that I started out convinced. It was research, and your changing story that casts doubt on it. I was on your side, remember?
    I mean, you’ve offered nothing more substantive than an analysis of their laugh and a date when it was invented, which seems to have been changed. so maybe we can agree to disagree on this one, but if you have anywhere else that I can “research”, I’m eager to see it. I’ve listened to the lecture, I’ve read the transcript, I’ve seen the book, I’ve seen the ethics orders and magazine, I’ve seen the court records, I’ve seen the documentary (which was, again, not contested as nonfactual), I’ve seen the report by the clearwater commission. The only source that claims that it was a joke- the only one- comes from practicing scientologists. You surely would agree that this is not an unbiased source for the only argument against.
    recall that I was asking for help finding proof. None came. I was asking for anything- anything at all- aside from “they laughed” that would indicate that it was a joke. In all my research, I have found nothing like that.
    weighing evidence, one option seems most likely, and I am surprised.

  29. Tired, rather, in the sense of “I enjoy spending my time with things that make sense”.

    But feel free to contribute something, like a little research as I just lined out.

    – L

  30. Louanne-
    listen, you’re obviously upset. We can shelf this. We dont’ need to discuss it further, if you’d prefer.

  31. Gill,

    “Creation of Human Ability” is a compilation. Did you ever read it?

    Anyway, the Routes (R1-…, R2-…) were developed during the first seven ACCs. The first seven ACCs where done before 1954, obviously. I am getting tired of this “discussion”, so I leave it up to you to find out during at which ACC R2-45 was “developed” and how it was presented there.

    – Louanne

  32. I must say that I am surprised at our discussion. I had thought that, as we all had the same belief, that my hypothesis would only be confirmed. However, this discussion and lack of the demonstrated evidence demanded by no less than Mr. Hubbard himself, has caused me to rethink my previous notion.

    Let us then apply Occam’s Razor, the modern equivalent of which states, ““Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable, provided that it takes all circumstances into account.””

    So, we have two possible, acceptable explanations for the phenomenon of R2-45.

    1. R2-45 was invented on 20 November 1959 in a lecture and intended as a joke. En Masse, the scientologists in attendance were not familiar with the concept, but immediately understood it to be a reference to murder, but meant to be taken figuratively and humorously. This same joke was repeated at other times, including ethics orders and an issue of the Auditor. This was, of course, the same year that a BBC documentary made the claim that this order advocated murder, which was not at any time, refuted on film, in speech or in writing. It is to be assumed, in this theory, that all scientologists who subscribe to the auditor would immediately understand the joke, regardless of their awareness of the lecture. Furthermore, in this theory, the laughter present in the lecture tapes indicates that each person there immediately understood the joke as such, which could be explained by the shared belief system and communications training, which may assist in conveying ideas.

    2. R2-45 was invented in the 1954 printing of the ‘human ability’ book, and alludes to a technique which is not acceptable by society. Theory 2 is that this advocates murder, which is supported by the lack of a direct definition. In this theory, the ethics orders and ability magazine do reflect this definition, which would be (in either case) defined and passed along as intangible oral history. The laughter is explained by this theory as a knowing laughter, such as in “I’ll kill him”, which still references the pre-existing concept of “kill”.

    Option 1 does not take the 1954 printing of the ‘human ability’ book into account. Similarly. option 1 has many variables (as in is a very complicated way to explain the incident) that do not fully address the issue at hand and leaves the distinct possibility that many would misunderstand the orders published the same year, without additional guidance explaining that jokes are used in ethics orders.

    Option 2 explains all variables in a simple manner that requires little apologetics.

    Like I said, I came into this convinced that R2-45 either did not exist, or was a joke. Without any evidence to support this, I cannot blindly accept these opinions. That’s not science.

  33. FR,

    I guess you’ll have to figure it out for yourself. Is there a word or symbol there that you didn’t fully understand?

    Pat

  34. It’s completely irrelelvant what Hubbard meant by R2-45, because Hubbard himself is completely irrelevant .
    There are thousands of great thinkers, scientists, philosophers and other authors, who have something substantial to say and are a million times more worth to think about than Hubbard. Hubbard’s only real talent was improvised storytelling and it is a waste of time to read or listen to anything what this psychotic rambled about.

  35. Well, Pat, reflecting on your post in another thread, saying that “There is actually policy (Verbal Tech) that is very specific about not giving “interpretations” or opinions about what LRH meant when he wrote or said something”, represents a certain problem! How can we interpret or give an opinion about what it is that he meant without any clarification? It is a very confusing issue, as we would need to interpret his words without taking them at face value.
    Now, you could be right, that it was figurative, but I would wonder how that would fit in to the ethics orders and to the books.
    Please do not mininterpret my intentions. I believe you, but I do also believe that one should aggressively pursue truth.

  36. @ Comment by Fallroot on July 19, 2009 6:54 pm

    Perhaps, Louanne, if the other tapes make it more clear that R2-45 is never meant to be practiced, it would help to address the matter?
    And, what may be more of Pat’s lane, I’ve read the source of R2-45, but it never really says exactly what it is, other than that it is not accepted by society.
    What was “it”, or at least where can I find more information?
    Likewise, how is it that it the same term was used as a joke five years later?
    I really want to know- I called up a few people that I know presonally that are “in”, but none of them could answer it.
    Li’l help?
    _FR

    I would venture a guess that your problem is whether or not something is literal or figurative. That’s something you’ll have to figure out on your own. He would occasionally repeat something in lectures when it was funny. You could go to the org and ask to hear the lecture you referenced so you can hear how he says it. Beyond that, it’s kinda tied up in your ability to recognize the difference between literal and figurative speech.

    Pat

  37. Perhaps, Louanne, if the other tapes make it more clear that R2-45 is never meant to be practiced, it would help to address the matter?
    And, what may be more of Pat’s lane, I’ve read the source of R2-45, but it never really says exactly what it is, other than that it is not accepted by society.
    What was “it”, or at least where can I find more information?
    Likewise, how is it that it the same term was used as a joke five years later?
    I really want to know- I called up a few people that I know presonally that are “in”, but none of them could answer it.
    Li’l help?
    _FR

  38. Louanne, you seem to be getting upset. I’m not trying to upset you.
    He may repeat it, it may get laughs, but I was wondering if he had ever said that it was a joke, in a way that would not depend on us to make assumptions. And, of course, it was referenced in the documents above.
    Louanne, if there was no case of Mr. Hubbard explaining or confirming that it is a joke, I can accept that. But listening to a tape and making assumptions about what was meant cannot be considered source, and it relies on our assumptions and is not explicit and may not be verified. If that were accepted, then we could consider inflection to be a part of source, and you can see the problems with that!!
    If such confirmation does not exist, then I suppose that’s that. Remember that I was on your side on this one, and I eager to find such a thing- something that cannot be colored by our own beliefs or assumptions.
    For instance, you and I believe it to be a joke- so when we hear them laugh, we believe that they’re laughing at a funny joke (about shooting people- maybe a dark joke, lol)
    But if one believes that it is serious, they will feel that the crowd is laughing because they understand the reference, and while it may be a joke in context, the humor is that it references a real thing (for instance “I’ll kill him!” could be a joke, because it’s in a different context, but killing does still occur)
    So, if there is no other context, and if the above questions have no answer (such as when R2-45 was invented, etc), then we’ll have to still call this case “open”. But i will keep looking, because I have the hypothesis- not enough data….

  39. “Are there any other references to R2-45 that would support what WE BOTH believe?”

    He repeats the joke in two other tapes. But as you cannot consider the actual source as “proof” because it would end our “conversation” right there it would do no good to post those as well. Anything else I can do for you?

    – L

  40. I had thought that this would be an easy one to answer, but I can see that it is proving difficult.
    In the tape, all we have is our analysis- our beliefs of an event that was recorded 50 years ago.
    Surely there is something more concrete. Hubbard was still alive when these concerns were first raised- did he ever address this in any verifiable way?
    Help me, Louanne- I’m trying to prove this point with you. Believe me, I’ve defended scientology as much as I’ve criticized it- I just like to dig and find the truth. It’s a passion, to get down to it.
    So, where can I find more data about this?

  41. Louanne…
    I HAVE listened to the tape. Yes, they do indeed laugh. Is that enough proof for you? I wasn’t there- I don’t know if they laughed because they understood the reference, or if that what the first time that they heard about R2-45 and they all quickly made the connection, as in your analysis.
    I wasn’t borne yet. I don’t think you were either. So based on laughter, we really can’t judge. There are many different kinds of laughter, and it can’t generally be considered to be proof.
    Are there any other references to R2-45 that would support what WE BOTH believe?
    _FR

  42. Louanne,
    I don’t know how I can explain this. I believe you. I’m on your side on this one.
    I’ve read the book, or at least that portion of it. I’ve seen the tape. It is not enough data. I am only asking you for more data.
    Most of the guiding documents and source was written almost 50 years ago, and that is all relevant.
    I am not trolling, that’s very offensive to me. I am asking for data- nothing more. I believe that the data will support my hypothesis, which agrees with your own.
    So, if I may ask pretty please, how can I find more data from source on this?
    _FR

    • “I’ve seen the tape.”

      Very good. Now, listen to it.

      – L

  43. FR,

    very nice trolling. I might repeat myself but who cares:

    “The source text is obvious (book and tape) and what happens in 2009 is what counts”

    I don’t assume that you need help thinking this one through. So all I can see is pointless posting of statements and links.

    – L

  44. Gill, Louanne,
    One small question, just so I can understand the timeline.
    Lou says here that Hubbard “invented” R2-45 as a joke meant to be taken in the context of the speech given 20 November 1959 in Australia.
    However, R2-45 was defined and addressed in “Creation of Human Ability”, published in 1954, five years prior.
    This would leave five years in which the context could be defined and disseminated before the joke was made in 1959, which would explain why most or all seemed to understand this order placed in the context of handguns.
    Is this timeline correct?
    Thanks in advance,
    _FR

  45. Well, now your stepping on my lines here, FR! :)
    But my message was apparently not approved. I had two links- I had no intention of posting too many!
    I would agree that this is most likely something taken out of context. However, I am asking for help to correct the context.
    See for example this Ethics Order entered into evidence in NY courts in 1972. (http://www.gerryarmstrong. org/50grand/cult/hco-ethics-order-30.html). While listing Supressive Persons, the order orders R2-45 to be used by any Sea Org member.
    Are there other examples of Hubbard using jokes in the middle of such a serious order? Such a thing would help to silence unwarranted criticism.
    I’m a big believer in criticism, and hold myself to that same standard. Failing to explore one’s beliefs results in either fanaticism or a lack of true faith.
    So I will defend truth, in whatever capacity, and like FR, I’m on your side on this one. (who would have expected us to all be on the same side??) :)

  46. Louanne-
    I’m not trying to trick or to trap you.
    I’m sure that you would agree that this issue is one of the most important that faces scientology even today! It opens to the allegation that Mr. Hubbard encourages murder!
    Do I believe that to be true? No, I do not. But that’s really based solely on what I’ve been told, not experienced. So I really can’t say that for sure.
    I’m actually interested in putting this one to rest once and for all, and if we pretend like it’s not an issue, it will just continue to be fodder for critics.
    This is because, largely, the city of clearwater issued a final report saying:

    “N. The Church of Scientology has created a policy which orders the commission of homicide.

    1. R2-45 means that you shoot the person in the head. (1-78)
    2. R2-45 is shooting a person in the head. (1-96)
    3. R2-45 is a Scientology policy created by Hubbard. (2-32, 33)”

    I would expect that this is in error.

    The only reference that I could find is this, in the book, “”R2-45 – an enormously effective process for exteriorization, but its use is frowned upon by this society at this time.”

    I’m on your side with this one, Louanne. I seek out truth, and I believe that this truth needs to be brought to light. However, just calling it a joke doesn’t make it so. Surely, somewhere, there’s something from Hubbard explaining the joke, or making it clear to followers that this is not to be taken seriously. I mean, while the movie is 40 years old, the book and tape is 50 years old, so I would imagine that after the movie was released that Mr. Hubbard would have addressed it at some point.

    Like I said, I think that we can get to the bottom of it, putting our heads together, and I believe that we can prove that it is not a practice that is in place. But I do need your help, because I can’t seem to find that on my own.

    Thanks,
    _FR

  47. _FR,

    no, we won’t discuss it and I won’t “shed a little bit of light” on an unrelated, 40 year old movie. The source text is obvious (book and tape) and what happens in 2009 is what counts.

    – Louanne

  48. Louanne,
    Thank you for addressing this issue, and I hope we may discuss it.
    Previously, Pat said:
    “R2-45 is defined in the book “Creation of Human Ability” on page 179. Find out for yourself what he means :) – It’s in libraries all over the world in at least 15 languages.”
    This was, of course, in response to this link, posted by Gilljoer:
    http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI#t=10m00s
    Could you please shed a little bit of light on that?
    I’m not assuming that this means anything at all- just wondering how we can put this one to bed.
    _FR


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos