ROBOTISM in Scientology

Page last updated: Apr 17, 2017 @ 5:54 pm

As was already mentioned on page FREE WILL AND ROBOTISM, an individual has to be able to Observe, Evaluate, Decide and Act in order to be truly self-determined, and that by inhibiting any of these abilities an individual can be effectively pushed toward a state of ROBOTISM – a state of operating according to orders or some form of programming.

Under a close inspection of Scientology methods, it becomes quite evident that these abilities DO in fact get selectively inhibited in Scientology to induce a state of ROBOTISM in its staff and parishioners.


LOOKING is effectively inhibited by prohibiting contact and communication with any source of critical (or even alternative) information as well as indoctrinating people into the idea that being exposed to something in itself is a potentially dangerous and “harmful” act such as looking at “entheta” (critical, derogatory, or otherwise disturbing information) would be “enturbulating” one’s mind and so worsening one’s case (mental condition); or being “connected” to a “suppressive source” would result in a “PTS Condition” and that could mean failure, sickness, and “no training and processing.” The principle of ARC is brought into this to suggest that if you simply communicated with someone or something then you would inevitably go into agreement with it; therefore, the solution is to “shut down” one’s perception (communication channels) and ignore any “critical” sources so as not to get “infected” with “agreement.”


EVALUATING (ability of) could be inhibited by motivating people to adopt false evaluations. Someone is not likely to evaluate if they feel like they already have a “valid explanation” for something. In Scientology this would include indoctrination into false or misleading principles connected to the subject of Overt-Motivator Sequence and PTS/SP technology. If someone looks like they may be criticizing, an indoctrinated Scientologist ASSUMES right away that it is due to “hidden crimes,” “missed withholds,” or a connection to an SP or in fact being an SP. The rationale of FALSE DATA also comes into this as well. Someone’s “criticism” of Scientology may just be dismissed as a result of “false data.” These “logics” not only make Scientologists unable to evaluate someone else’s scrutiny of Scientology, but also make them unable to scrutinize Scientology on their own (due to not wanting to be associated with being an SP or get into “ethics trouble” having to go through the “exercise” of admitting to one’s “crimes.”)

The ability to evaluate can also be inhibited by simply overwhelming a person with large amounts of apparently complex and confusing information such as what happened during Scientology events under the leadership of David Miscavige. Overwhelming people with a large volume of materials to study is also a part of this.

As far as Hubbard’s delivery style is concerned it could be best described as THOUGHT ENTRAPMENT into narrow definitions with exclusion of any alternative explanation or attempt. The examples of this are abundant all throughout Hubbard’s materials:

Disclaimer at the beginning of every book in Dianetics and Scientology lineup:

The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is that he or she has gone past a word or phrase that was not understood.

What if someone simply wrote nonsense that doesn’t make any logical sense or that can be seen to be flawed?

(May 1950) Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

The first law of dianetics is a statement of the dynamic principle of existence.
No behavior or activity has been found to exist without this principle. It is not new that life is surviving. It is new that life has as its entire dynamic urge only survival.

This is obviously false or not completely true – that’s why under Scientology Hubbard himself changed the dynamic principle of existence to CREATE instead of SURVIVE.

(June 1951) Science of Survival

Theta could be considered to have as one of its missions, and its only mission where MEST is concerned, the conquest of the physical universe.

Life creates, not just conquers.

[14 OCTOBER 1965] 6510C14 SHSBC-431 Briefing of Review Auditors

Postulate versus postulate. That is the definition and the anatomy of a problem. And there is no other definition to a problem.

Yes, there is – provided elsewhere on this website.

Further search through the transcripts of Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lectures provides plenty more examples. Here are some of them:

[26 MAY 1961] SHSBC: On Auditing

The only reason you don’t remember your past track 100 percent is that you’re withholding it from you. Forget – withhold, you understand?

What about a preclear simply being unable to handle the energies dormant in the incidents as was the logic in Dianetics? But of course in Scientology there are no actual existences, only considerations which supposedly create them… so a memory recording is no longer looked at as a “unit of existence” that can impinge itself and overwhelm a person’s mind. Instead, it is something that a person does all by himself as clearly stated in the quote below:


It tends to indicate, as we have discovered long since, that the only reason you can make a pc well is because he’s doing it all himself. He isn’t getting any help from anyplace.

Spiritual beings can genuinely struggle with forces contained in memory recordings or in present time situations, and when that being can get some help to overcome them, of course he or she can then feel better off. It is not a good idea to press on the “weight” and shift the blame onto a pc for struggling or having difficulty overcoming something. This was clearly understood in Dianetics; hence, the need for an auditor.


Because the only reason you can get through the engram is because you have an idea that the auditor is right there with you helping you out and so you can confront it. That’s it.

One’s considerations is reality and there is no reality outside of considerations… You only can’t because you think you can’t, not that there is an actual existence that could be overwhelming to deal with or confront. Hubbard asserts this again and again in various forms and from different angles.


Do you realize that the only reason anybody has a victimish, motivatorish attitude is just an effort to make somebody guilty. But remember, it’s only an effort to make somebody guilty. It is not successfully having done so.

Yep, since there is no actual existence to reality, it is impossible for someone to genuinely feel overwhelmed by the actions of another and so talking about them must be borne out of some reason other than a person seeking relief from overwhelm. Good bye Dianetics. Good bye common sense and freedom of thought. In comes the “certainty” based on authoritarian dictates and endless invalidation of any alternative.


And do you know the only reason the pc gets upset is because a withhold has been missed on him. You search it out sometime.

More of the same here…


HCO PL 27 Sept. 66 The Antisocial Personality The Anti-Scientologist

The antisocial personality has the following attributes:

1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities…

2. … It is notable that there is no good news or complimentary remark passed on by such a person…

3. … Good news is stopped and only bad news, often embellished, is passed along…

7. The antisocial cannot finish a cycle of action.

9. The antisocial personality supports only destructive groups and rages against and attacks any constructive or betterment group.

10. This type of personality approves only of destructive actions and fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities.

Self-criticism is a luxury the antisocial cannot afford.

Such absolutist and unfounded assertions from Hubbard can actually prevent people from identifying suppressive influences in their lives since they will be conditioned to “only” look for narrow characteristics outlined by Hubbard that may not even be true. See PTS/SP page for further discussion of this subject.

HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS Handling

all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.

HCOB 24 Nov. 65 Search and Discovery


Of course Scientology’s own destructive techniques and misleading assertions can never be suspected…


DECISION MAKING is inhibited by using an idea of having a “reactive mind” (case, bank) that generates erroneous data and conclusions to suggest that you cannot trust yourself to make rational decisions until you are up the Bridge through Clear and OT. How many times have you heard in Scientology – “oh, that’s case” especially if you are not in agreement with reges or recruiters? All of your evaluations and decisions are continuously invalidated as “case,” “having overts,” being connected to an SP,” being “unwilling to take responsibility,” or whatever else. The only “right” decision in Scientology is to “decide” what has already been decided for you by somebody else at the Church.

Now, obviously, there may be an actual, valid phenomenon of the “reactive mind,” but using an idea of that phenomenon to suppress an individual’s analytical and decision making abilities is something else.


Your ability to TAKE ACTION is inhibited by indoctrinating you into the idea that OVERT ACTS are virtually the sole cause of your decline from the state of true OT. Overt acts are emphasized all throughout Red Volumes as almost the cause of all that may be wrong with you including the state of ROBOTISM itself. Having been indoctrinated into the idea of the “dangers” of OVERT ACTS, people become UNWILLING TO CREATE “overt acts.” When you become UNWILLING TO BE THE CAUSE of overt acts, that’s when you begin to WITHHOLD yourself from action in general. You also become unable to confront and duplicate experiences of similar actions created by others and so become easily overwhelmed. When someone becomes afraid or unwilling to create “overt acts,” they will yearn for guidance from some authority to tell them what acts they could and should engage in that are “safe.”

Ron sort of confirms this in his HCOB on ROBOTISM if you take an expanded view of his communication:



Why would someone need to withhold themselves and what does “taking responsibility” really mean? In real terms, taking responsibility means assumption of cause over something or more specifically assumption of the power of creation of determination over something so in this case taking responsibility would mean assumption of cause over “doing destructive things.” If you are at cause over doing destructive things, then you have no need to struggle with an effort to “withhold” anything since, theoretically, an act of withholding comes about due to an unwillingness to cause something while having some impulse to do so [subject to additional discussion]. For example: “I SHOULD NOT criticize Ron” would be withholding oneself from criticizing Ron. “I COULD criticize Ron” would be a willingness to criticize Ron at one’s own discretion.

But obviously, ACTION is only one factor of self-determinism. Outside of taking action, one should be able to look, evaluate, and make decisions as to what actions to take. All of those can be inhibited to induce a state of ROBOTISM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *