What's new

Scientology, Ron Hubbard and Hypnosis

Gib

Crusader
Ancient Greece was polytheistic:
and those mythical gods supposedly argued with each other on Mount Olympus.

https://www.ancient.eu/Greek_Religion/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology

I don't want to derail this thread topic further on this particular item.
but it wasn't religion, the first link you posted has it mixed up. Key word is mythology. The old time greeks before plato and aristole, used the god concept as words since they lacked words back then and even a dictionary, it was in picture or art form or poetry, such as Homer, to try to convey concepts. The concept of god was not religion back then, nor was Jesus Christ, or Christianity, he and them came much later.

Timeline:

http://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/archive/aristotle/times.html

The second link, I like this 1st paragraph :

"Greek mythology is the body of myths originally told by the ancient Greeks. These stories concern the origin and the nature of the world, the lives and activities of deities, heroes, and mythological creatures, and the origins and significance of the ancient Greeks' own cult and ritual practices. Modern scholars study the myths in an attempt to shed light on the religious and political institutions of ancient Greece and its civilization, and to gain understanding of the nature of myth-making itself."

Why we could rewrite it as:

Scientology mythology is the body of myths told by L Ron Hubbard. These stories concern the origin and nature of the world, the lives and activities of thetans, of people, of souls, of clears, of OT's. As taught in the mythical words in Hubbards writings and mythical words in lectures of L Ron Hubbard in the PDC's, Pheonix Lectures, HCOB's, HCO PL's, Advice's, books and everything else he spoke or wrote. Modern exscientologists and scholars study the myths to shed light on the so called religious and political institutions, or organizations, of L Ron Hubbard and it's crowd known as a Scientologists, and to gain understanding of the nature of the myth-making itself.

Aren't we all just trying to do that?

Myself, he used a lot of rhetoric.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Returning to thread topic:

Here is an example video of how one hypnotist does trance induction.
(Did any posters here ever do anything closely like this while you were a PC on the e-meter?)


Responses? (Just conversation)
 
Last edited:

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Science of Survival has the tone scale as its central theme.

Let's LOOK at what Hubbard said about the tone scale. Here are several quotes from Hubbard

Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture tape numbered 39 The games maker tape 1952

"The MEST universe would have you believe this is the only game there is anyplace in the whole of anything. That’s not true! Not even vaguely true."

"Games are going on with all kinds of rules, terrific interest levels and so forth. All right, I’m going to read off for you this paper just so we’ve got it on the tape. How many minutes we got? – five minutes. That’s plenty."

"Now we get The rules of games are as follows: Limitations on self and others, obedience to rules, unconsciousness of rules to add reality – we pretend the rules are real."

"ARC with others to play. Pain as a penalty which will be obeyed – you have to have a penalty that will be obeyed. Otherwise, nobody will stick with the rules."

"Agreement to rules and penalties is necessary to continue a game. And boy, are they!
Deterioration of a game until no game – cycle of action shows you the whole game is an object with no action."

"You know, the… the… the wienie finally becomes everything there is, and there is no action even to get the wienie."

"Work is admission of inability to play – if you have to work, you can’t play, obvious. They really yap about that here."

"A game of complexity and levels – the Tone Scale is such a game. It’s just a map of MEST universe games."

"Peculiarity or liability of a maker of game, people attempting to play the game of Maker of Games– it’s a game itself. Your big capitalista or commissar will do that."

"The game called Maker of Games results in No Game. And the game called Unmaking Games results in a game. 8008.“

"There’s a game called freedom, which is what you’re playing right at this minute.
And Games contain trickery and misdirection to win – your 180 degree vector of Have and Agree."

"The prize of winning is making a new game– what do you know? Or permitting a new game to be made or making it possible for a new game to be played. Those are all prizes, and that’s all the prizes there are. "

"The necessity – oh, of course, there’s these gimmicks, these wienies and so forth. But everybody just knows that they’re spurious as hell. Uh… The necessity to have a new game coded before one ends the old game.“ Otherwise, everyone becomes a maker of games with no game."

"Now, The value of pieces. Ownership of pieces may be also the ownership of players. And the difference between players and pieces, and the difficulty of pieces becoming players“

"boy, when a piece becomes a player, there’s really a hell of an upset in the game; it’ll just blow. Oh, the quarterback walks out of the football game and all of a sudden starts to run the whole football game, and nobody can tell him No. That football game’s dead."

"Now… so you’ve got to hide the rules from the pieces, otherwise this is going to happen."

"Now the caste system of game consist of this: The Maker of Games, he has no rules, he runs by no rules."

"The player of the games, rules known but he obeys them. And the assistant players merely obey the players. And the pieces obey rules as dictated by players, but they don’t know the rules.“

"And then, what do you know. There’s broken pieces, and they aren’t even in the game, but they’re still in the game."

"And they’re in a terrible maybe: Am I in the game or am I not in the game? Now, How to make a piece. This is how to make a piece: First, deny there is a game. Second, hide the rules from them. Three, give them all penalties and no wins. Four, remove all goals–. Enforce them… their playing. Inhibit their enjoying. Make them look like but forbid their being like players“

"– look like God but uh… you can’t be God."

"To make a piece continue to be a piece, permit it to associate only with pieces and deny the existence of players.“

"Never let the pieces find out that there are players. Now out of these you’re going to get games."

"Now here’s a process that has to do with the making of games, and all this process adds up to, is you just address to those factors which I just gave you, oh, run and change postulates and any creative process that you can think of and shift postulates around, you get a whole process."

"But remember, that up at the top of it there is a big postulate, There must be a game.
Therefore if you want to regain the Spirit of Play, people have got to unmake postulates they’ve made all along, saying, There mustn’t be a game. There mustn’t be a game. It can’t be a game. Don’t play with me. I mustn’t be played with. Life is serious. This isn’t a game. We’re playing for keeps. I’ll never get out of this,“

"and so forth. In other words, the postulates which they’ve made to convince themselves that these are the rules and the only rules that can be played, and these that I’ve just read off to you.
I’m going to have this typed and you can figure it out more or less as you want to. I could, of course, give you even further rundown on this, if you wanted me to, but it takes… takes a little while to do so. It’s actually the backbone of what we are doing. But let’s take a break." (TAPE ENDS) PDC tape 39 The games maker Ron Hubbard

Let's really look at what Hubbard told us. (Words bolded by me for emphasis)

"A game of complexity and levels – the Tone Scale is such a game. It’s just a map of MEST universe games."PDC tape 39 The games maker Ron Hubbard

Hubbard told us THE TONE SCALE IS SUCH A GAME.

"There’s a game called freedom, which is what you’re playing right at this minute.
And Games contain trickery and misdirection to win – your 180 degree vector of Have and Agree."PDC tape 39 The games maker Ron Hubbard

Hubbard told us several things here, all important.

Hubbard told us THERE'S A GAME CALLED FREEDOM, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE PLAYING RIGHT AT THIS MINUTE.

Hubbard told us GAMES CONTAIN TRICKERY AND MISDIRECTION TO WIN - YOUR 180 DEGREE VECTOR OF HAVE AND AGREE.

"Now, How to make a piece. This is how to make a piece: First, deny there is a game. Second, hide the rules from them. Three, give them all penalties and no wins. Four, remove all goals"

"Enforce them… their playing. Inhibit their enjoying. Make them look like but forbid their being like players“

"– look like God but uh… you can’t be God."

"To make a piece continue to be a piece, permit it to associate only with pieces and deny the existence of players.“

"Never let the pieces find out that there are players. Now out of these you’re going to get games."

"It’s actually the backbone of what we are doing. "

Hubbard told us FIRST, DENY THERE IS A GAME.

Hubbard told us SECOND, HIDE THE RULES FROM THEM.

Hubbard told us THREE, GIVE THEM ALL PENALTIES AND NO WINS.

Hubbard told us FOUR, REMOVE ALL GOALS.

Hubbard told us ENFORCE THEM...THEIR PLAYING.

Hubbard told us INHIBIT THEIR ENJOYING.

Hubbard told us MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE BUT FORBID THEIR BEING LIKE PLAYERS.

Hubbard told us LOOK LIKE GOD BUT UH...YOU CAN'T BE GOD.

Hubbard told us TO MAKE A PIECE CONTINUE TO BE A PIECE, PERMIT IT ONLY TO ASSOCIATE WITH PIECES AND DENY THE EXISTENCE OF PLAYERS.

Hubbard told us NEVER LET THE PIECES FIND OUT THERE ARE PLAYERS.

Hubbard told us IT'S ACTUALLY THE BACKBONE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING.

Scientology is now the game that has David Miscavige as the player.

Ron Hubbard was the games maker.

Here Hubbard laid it out - HIS game is built on TRICKERY and MISDIRECTION. He lied to people to put them into his caste system of pieces and broken pieces. He acted like God but knew he couldn't openly claim to be God because people who come right out and say that they literally are God aren't accepted or even worse are accepted as believing it without it being true.

Hubbard made many of his intentions clear here. He wanted to change the goals of people and to use processes (Scientology auditing) to do this.

Scientology has the records of this but we don't normally ever see the truth about Scientology separated from the lies.

Hubbard made it perfectly clear, but you have to do a lot of digging.

"Now here’s a process that has to do with the making of games, and all this process adds up to, is you just address to those factors which I just gave you, oh, run and change postulates and any creative process that you can think of and shift postulates around, you get a whole process." End quote

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.
Lecture: "Off the Time Track" (June 1952) as quoted in Journal of Scientology issue 18-G, reprinted in Technical Volumes of Dianetics & Scientology Vol. 1, p. 418. Ron Hubbard

From a tape on the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures in 1952 entitled Structure/Function we get this:

RON THE HYPNOTIST
Structure/Function: 11 December 1952 page 1
"All processes are based upon the original observation
that an individual could have implanted in him by hypnosis
and removed at will any obsession or aberration,
compulsion, desire, inhibition which you could think of – by hypnosis.“
"Hypnosis, then, was the wild variable;
sometimes it worked,
sometimes it didn’t work.
It worked on some people; it didn’t work on other people.
Any time you have a variable that is as wild as this, study it.
Well, I had a high certainty already –
I had survival. Got that in 1938 or before that. And uh…"Ron Hubbard

From the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lectures we have a couple extremely relevant quotes. The tapes are listed by their number:
SHSBC-402
"Of course, we go on a tradition "if you learn anything about man that will help him,
you help him with it." ...
"If you learn anything about man that you can manipulate him
You're going to manipulate men,
you've got to change their definitions
and change their goals
and enslave them and do this and do that."
SHSBC-447
"Now, brainwashing simply is the trick of mixing up certainties.
All you have to do if you want to know and develop the entire field
of brainwashing as developed by Pavlov,
is simply to make somebody ..... into a confused or hypnotic state in which he can believe anything." Ron Hubbard



"’Psychiatry’ and ‘psychiatrist’ are easily redefined to mean ‘an anti-social enemy of the people‘. This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of professions...The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended...Scientologists are redefining ‘doctor‘, ‘Psychiatry’ and ‘psychology’ to mean ‘undesirable antisocial elements‘...The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda."
- Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words"

Hubbard keeps talking about changing the goals, certainties and definitions of people to control them and of course to use trickery, misdirection and hiding information from people to control them, to enslave them with lying and that things could be done with hypnosis but it had the wild variable of sometimes working and sometimes not, of working on some people but not others.
"There are conditions worse than being unable to see, and that is imagining one sees."
Lecture, Scientology and Effective Knowledge (15 July 1957).Ron Hubbard
 
Last edited:

pineapple

Silver Meritorious Patron
Returning to thread topic:

Here is an example video of how one hypnotist does trance induction.
(Did any posters here ever do anything closely like this while you were a PC on the e-meter?)


Responses? (Just conversation)
No, not like that. I did do like this, though. (The meter was smaller and the pc usually sitting up.)

17362982-large.png


And like this ...
16153-1.jpg


Note what the hypnotist in the video says beginning around 5:12. People are usually skeptical of their ability to be hypnotized; hypnosis doesn't turn you into a zombie; the feeling of being hypnotized isn't much different from lying in bed half-awake/half-asleep in the morning.

Because we didn't experience hypnotic induction like what's shown here or possibly didn't achieve a trance like what's shown here doesn't mean we weren't hypnotized. As the hypnotist points out around 3:19, hypnosis is not a "flatline state." Depth of trance varies. It's possible to be hypnotized and not appear to be in a trance at all.
 
Last edited:

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Here are a few quotes to help show Hubbard always knew he was in fact using hypnosis in auditing :"you are putting in positive suggestion whether you want to or not, no matter how careful you are (R&D1, p.336)Ron Hubbard


"positive suggestion means in hypnosis a suggestion which is given to a hypnotized subject which will result in some change in the manifestations and actions of that patient (R&D 1, p.48); "It is a suggestion by the operator to a hypnotized subject with the sole end of creating a changed mental condition in the subject by implantation of the suggestion alone. It is a transplantation of something in the hypnotist's mind into the patient's mind. The patient is then to believe it and take it as part of himself.(R&D 1, p.237; see also R&D 1, p.33) Ron Hubbard


Hypnotism "reduces self-determinism by interposing the commands of another below the analytical level of an individual's mind ... It is the sort of control mechanism in which an authoritarian individual, cult, or ideology delight. People who indulge in hypnotism may, only very occasionally, be interested in experimentation upon the human mind ... Genuine experimental hypnotism, strictly in the laboratory and never in the parlour, and done wholly in the knowledge that one is reducing the efficiency of the human being on whom one is experimenting and may do him permanent damage, and the use of hypnotism by a surgeon ... should end the extension of hypnotism into the society. Submission to being hypnotized is analagous to being raped, with the exception that the individual can, generally, recover from being raped. To any clear-thinking human who believes in the value of people as human beings, there is something gruesomely obscene about hypnotism. The interjection of unseen controls below the level of consciousness cannot benefit but can only pervert the mind ... The individual who would permit himself to be hypnotized is, frankly, a fool ... It was thought by hypnotists that the mere remembering of ... suggestions would relieve them, and that the power of the suggestion died out with time. These two ideas do not happen to be true (SOSII, p.220f; see also pp.225f) Ron Hubbard

Sources research and discovery series and Science of Survival

Next the term audit - in Scientology one is taught the auditor only listens and does not influence the victim - but that is false . COMPLETELY .


The auditor is in truth a hypnotist covertly hypnotizing and then encouraging and coaxing via repetitive questioning . Repetitive questioning and the framework of reality created by Hubbard's language and doctrine entirely interpret the auditing experience . They tell the victim what their mind is , how the parts interact and how to evaluate all the sensations and mental phenomena in the auditing session . They pull a bait and switch wherein hypnotic phenomena such as age regression , hallucination and dissociations are redefined as "moving on the time track " and " perceiving mental image pictures " and "exteriorization " . Being sleepy in session is defined as "running off unconsciousness" while the exact same phenomena in indoctrination where the "MU" is seen as the culprit is labeled "dope off" and blamed on not knowing the definitions of words. Curious how the mind changes by walking from one room to another to function differently for everyone ever.


The auditor is defined as not influencing the victim by Hubbard but this is entirely a deception to lower the guard of both the auditor and the victim .


I will present a few brief quotes from Wikipedia to introduce the idea of questions holding influence . I believe questions often influence more strongly than direct statements by controlling the attention and conversation more so and by having the ideas the question presents be in a form less obvious as assertion.


A suggestive question is one that implies that a certain answer should be given in response, or falsely presents a presupposition in the question as accepted fact.Such a question distorts the memory thereby tricking the person into answering in a specific way that might or might not be true or consistent with their actual feelings, and can be deliberate or unintentional. For example, the phrasing "Don't you think this was wrong?" is more suggestive than "Do you think this was wrong?" despite the difference of only one word. The former may subtly pressure the respondent into responding "yes," whereas the latter is far more direct. Repeated questions can make people think their first answer is wrong and lead them to change their answer, or it can cause people to continuously answer until the interrogator gets the exact response that they desire. The diction used by the interviewer can also be an influencing factor to the response given by the interrogated individual.


Experimental research by psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has established that trying to answer such questions can create confabulation in eyewitnesses.For example, participants in an experiment may all view the same video clip of a car crash. Participants are assigned at random in one of two groups. The participants in the first group are asked "How fast was the car moving when it passed by the stop sign?" The participants in the other group are asked a similar question that does not refer to a stop sign. Later, the participants from the first group are more likely to remember seeing a stop sign in the video clip, even though there was in fact no such sign. Such findings have been replicated and raise serious questions about the validity of information elicited through poorly phrased questions during eyewitness testimony.


Direct questions
Direct questions lead to one word answers when explanations are sometimes needed. This could include questions like “Do you get it?” and “Where did it happen?” According to Dr. Kathy Kellermann, an expert in persuasion and communication, direct questions force exact responses through carefully worded questions.


Repeated questions
Repeated questions elicit certain types of answers. Repeated questions make people think their first answer was wrong, lead them to change their answer, or cause people to keep answering until the interrogator gets the exact response that they desire. Elizabeth Loftus states that errors in answers are dramatically reduced if a question is only asked once
Forced choice questions
Yes/no or forced choice questions like “is this yellow or green?” force people to choose between two choices when the answer could be neither of the choices or needs more explanation. This generates more “interviewer-talks” moments, where the interviewer is talking and controlling most of the interview. This type of question is also known as a false dilemma.

Presumptuous questions
Presumptuous questions can either be balanced or unbalanced. Unbalanced questions ask questions only from the point of view of one side of an argument. For example, an interrogator might ask “’Do you favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?”’ This question assumes that the person’s only point of view in the situation is that a person who is convicted must either get the death penalty or not. The second type of presumptuous question is balanced question. This is when the interrogator uses opposite questions to make the witness believe that the question is balanced when the reality is that it is not. For example, the interrogator would ask, “’Do you favor life in prison, without the possibility of parole?”’ This type of question may seem balanced when in reality it is still influencing the person to discuss life in prison and no other choice.

Confirmatory questions
Confirmatory questioning leads to answers that can only support a certain point. Here, the interviewer forces the person to make sure his or her answers make them out to be extroverted or introverted. If they want them to look extroverted they would ask questions like “How do you make a party more fun?” and “When are you talkative?” If they want the person to look introverted they ask questions like “Have you ever been left out of a group?” or “Can you be more hyper sometimes?”.



Considerable attention has been devoted to suggestive questions and its effects. Experimental research by Elizabeth F. Loftus, an American psychologist and an expert on human memory, has established that trying to answer such questions can create confabulation in eyewitnesses. Loftus conducted and experiment where participants all viewed the same video clip of a car crash. Participants were then assigned at random in one of two groups. Group one was asked, "How fast was the car moving when it passed by the stop sign?" The participants in the other group are asked a similar question that does not refer to a stop sign. The results showed participants from the first group are more likely to remember seeing a stop sign in the video clip, even though there was in fact no such sign. Elizabeth Loftus stated that everyone is affected by suggestive questioning, and it comes from environmental factors instead of innate factors, meaning that everyone is affected by suggestive questioning.


Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer developed the Misinformation Effect. It describes participants witnessing an accident whose responses changed if questions were worded differently. They found out that people tend to exaggerate what they really saw.Twenty five percent of the participants claimed they saw broken glass because the word “smashed” instead of “hit” was used.


Some therapists are at risk of using suggestive questions on clients while discussing the matter of past traumatic events. Sigmund Freud’s definition of repressed memory is the mind’s conscious and unconscious avoidance of unpleasant wishes, thoughts, and memories.However, there has been very little evidence of this type of memory. Some therapists claim that repression causes people to forget frightful events of sexual or physical abuse as a psychological defense Through improperly phrased interviewing questions, a therapist can convince their client to agree that there is such a thing as repressed memory, and therefore abuse had to have occurred, but the patient just does not remember it. Repetitive questions change clients’ answers from a reluctant perhaps to a definite for sure. The use of suggestive questioning by therapists changes perceptions and can cause entire memories to be created.
According to the psychologist Philip Zimbardo, Misinformed individuals can come to believe the misinformation in which they feel confidence.
Above from Wikipedia

This is most famously depicted in the McMartin child abuse cases where children where questioned over and over about abuse and rewarded when they confirmed and told extensive details about abuse. Unfortunately their tales where found to conflict with extensive evidence including some assertions of massive graves, the murders of hundreds of children and underground chambers for Satanic sacrifices that could not be found . The investigators realized only after quite some time that the physical evidence entirely contradicted the claims . The children's bodies showed no signs of abuse despite allegations of thousands and thousands of instances of abuse by many individuals . Only after closely looking at the methods used to gather the allegations was the extensive grueling questioning used to create the claims focused on and discovered as the cause of the claims .
 

pineapple

Silver Meritorious Patron
From a tape on the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures in 1952 entitled Structure/Function we get this:

RON THE HYPNOTIST
Structure/Function: 11 December 1952 page 1
"All processes are based upon the original observation
that an individual could have implanted in him by hypnosis
and removed at will any obsession or aberration,
compulsion, desire, inhibition which you could think of – by hypnosis.“
On the subject of the above "original observation," this is from G. H. Estabrooks "Hypnotism," originally published in 1943:

"... the kleptomaniac and the pyromaniac are really working under a posthypnotic suggestion -- minus the hypnotist. They act in exactly the same way as if they had been hypnotized and given their instructions in the trance. As a matter of fact we will see that they have been hypnotized at some time in their life and given the suggestion in question. The fact that no hypnotist was involved, that they may never have seen a hypnotist in all their life, we will see, has no bearing on the question." -- page 95.

"We will see that emotional shock produces exactly the same results as hypnotism, that hypnotism may in reality be a form of emotional shock. We are not clear on this point, but we do know that shock gives us the phenomena of hypnotism and vice versa." -- page 110.

Hubbard's description in DMSMH of how engrams work is very close to what Estabrooks is saying here.

752106.jpg
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
@mockingbird.

It really doesn't matter what hubbard tried to do, did or didn't do, said or didn't say, or whether it was done via the spoken word, tapes or in writing. At some stage each of us made a decision regarding him, his cult and scientology in general unless dragged into it as an unwilling participant (as many children sadly were) or were mentally deficient/traumatised in some way and susceptible to the will of others from the start.

Some people apparently chose to believe every word hubbard uttered and did whatever hubbard (via his tek) told them to do, perhaps some of those people were already obsessive.


BUT ...
many more

of us
didn't and weren't.

As far as I know nobody here has tried to convince you that you were not hypnotised ... is it not enough for you to believe that you were hypnotised and leave everyone else to decide for themselves now regardless of whether they have or have not studied the subject in detail as you apparently have?

This has been going on for years ... you (and Arnie before you) have given many people food for thought on this subject but you don't have to prove anything here or try to force your belief onto others.





:faceslap:
 

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
On the subject of the above "original observation," this is from G. H. Estabrooks "Hypnotism," originally published in 1943:

"... the kleptomaniac and the pyromaniac are really working under a posthypnotic suggestion -- minus the hypnotist. They act in exactly the same way as if they had been hypnotized and given their instructions in the trance. As a matter of fact we will see that they have been hypnotized at some time in their life and given the suggestion in question. The fact that no hypnotist was involved, that they may never have seen a hypnotist in all their life, we will see, has no bearing on the question." -- page 95.

"We will see that emotional shock produces exactly the same results as hypnotism, that hypnotism may in reality be a form of emotional shock. We are not clear on this point, but we do know that shock gives us the phenomena of hypnotism and vice versa." -- page 110.

Hubbard's description in DMSMH of how engrams work is very close to what Estabrooks is saying here.

752106.jpg
This is extremely important information in my opinion.

Arnie Lerma and Jon Atack both collected a significant amount of evidence that Hubbard plagiarized ideas from hypnosis and techniques and I think presenting the highly detailed and lengthy individual pieces of information is necessary for several reasons. For many Scientologists and ex Scientologists seeing a lot of evidence that Hubbard lied used hypnosis etc are all necessary for the idea to even get slight consideration. Hypnosis is generally misunderstood in society and not accepted though it should be studied to be understood, not stigmatized and rejected. Many people who were never in Scientology reject hypnosis as well.

Some people are willing to consider hypnosis in the TRs and some auditing but not anywhere near as much as it actually is in Scientology. Even cobbling together bits and pieces of Scientology doctrine that are from hypnosis helps this effort.

Jon Atack pointed out in several articles that there may be two thousand ways to hypnotize people and Hubbard tried to incorporate all of them in Scientology. Steve Hassan has said Hubbard read books from the twenties and thirties on hypnosis to create Scientology.

Unfortunately a lot of people just don't get what hypnosis is and the fundamental ideas like trance induction, trance logic, the induction methods and other fundamentals so they are not well equipped to recognize hypnosis in Scientology because they don't understand it well as itself.

So giving example after example is necessary.
 

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Remember what Hubbard said.

Cleared Theta Clear
Beyond even the powerful Operating Thetan levels comes "Cleared Theta Clear," a state which Hubbard describes this way:

A thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move MEST and control others from a distance, or create his own universe; a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in the MEST universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence.
— L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology 8-8008, p. 114 (1st ed), p. 151 (1990 ed.)

Focus on this part "or, living in the MEST universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, " Hubbard told us a hypnotist could control what someone sees.


From the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures 1952

PDC-05 pg 7 SCALES OF HANDLING 2.12.52
"Well, that’s… that’s very interesting because we have hypnotism which can be demonstrated as a phenomenon,
and we show that the greater and greater agreement,
all you do to hypnotize somebody is just make him agree… agree… agree
and after that he’ll see anything.
He’ll do anything,
he’ll see anything.
He agrees, agrees, agrees." Ron Hubbard

Also from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures 1952

PDC-15 pg 4 THE LOGICS:

"he has volunteered.
And the next thing you know, you’ll find out he has agreed.
How is all this done?
It’s done by hypnosis; it’s done in various other ways.
Hypnosis is just a sudden agreement.
And uh… it’s done in various ways
and then he comes down this whole long scale of agreement
and things get more and more in agreement
and they are probably more and more actually to his personal discredit
and uh…
antipathetic to his best beingness, habit he’s still going down the line,
and goes down the line further, ...and further, ...and further, ...and further.
And this fellow goes into apathy and he goes further and further
and further. And of course, he goes more and more under control." Ron Hubbard

PDC-14 METHODS pg11
"You can even get a psychotic over, ....
or you can get him into an agreement with you.
Get him over, 'mock' him up an illusion,
say “Do you see this little man, no, no, do you see this little man here?”
The guy will mock up a little man there for you, see?
Maybe he’ll look at the one you’re mocking up and uh… he’s liable to say,
“Yeah, yeah, I see that little man.”
Now you’d think you were leading him right straight off into hallucination and delusion;

that wouldn’t be the case at all. [denial]
You say, “All right, do you see the little man jump?”
“Sure.” Yeah, he’ll agree with you yeah.,
You’ve got a point of agreement." Ron Hubbard

"
Dec 1952 Philadelphia 'D' Course
There’s nothing every very weird about hypnotism.
It is the easiest thing in the world. ..That’s all there is to that.
He… he just agrees little by little,
the next thing you know the hypnotist says, „
Now you see that kangaroo on your right knee?“
„Yes.“ He sees the kangaroo on his right knee.
Now take it on your right knee.
“Now let’s see it jump over to the left knee.
Now you got that? All right,
now let’s put… let’s put a… uh… a bonnet on this kangaroo. Got the bonnet on it?
Now have the kangaroo sing a song
.“ And the hypnotized person is very happy to sit there and watch this. " Ron Hubbard

Hubbard made it clear that getting people to go into hallucination and delusion is possible with hypnosis and the highest level in Scientology above operating thetan can create illusions perceivable by others at will.

Remember "There are conditions worse than being unable to see, and that is imagining one sees."
Lecture, Scientology and Effective Knowledge (15 July 1957).Ron Hubbard
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
They are not related to my statements at all.
Of course not, he has his own agenda and is not interested in following up any particular thread of conversation. That's why many people (including myself) think he is simply trolling. As I said a couple of days ago, you are just wasting your time IMO.
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
@mockingbird.

Why do you keep posting hubbards ranting rubbish here as if it means something?

There is little (to no) doubt that hubbard was completely mad. He was diagnosed as being mental well before he started working on his cult and he eventually killed himself in a motorhome ... what he did (or tried to do ) prior to that adds to the picture that most people can already see very clearly ... which is that he was a nutter!


He may well have tried to hypnotise the world and his dog ... but who really cares?

:tobed:
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
It's a long time since I did TRs but I seem to remember the whole point of OT TR0 and TR0 was to remain "in present time". So I don't understand why some people keep referring to them as examples of how we were hypnotised.

Also, I spent 15 years in the cult, had thousands of hours of auditing, TRs, courseroom study etc and I was constantly being told that joining staff/sea org was my duty. Yet I never did sign a contract. In my opinion that is because I wasn't hypnotised, I was just conned.

That's my 2 cents worth.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is extremely important information in my opinion.

<snip>
So giving example after example is necessary.
Why?

I understand that you think you were hypnotized by Hubbard's "tech". I got it. I'm sure everyone here got it. GOT IT.

So why do you keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it?

I'm totally convinced that you think you were hypnotized by Hubbard's "tech". I wasn't. A lot of people weren't. That's just the way it is.

So my question is: Why do you think you MUST convince everyone that they were hypnotized?
 

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Why?

I understand that you think you were hypnotized by Hubbard's "tech". I got it. I'm sure everyone here got it. GOT IT.

So why do you keep going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it?

I'm totally convinced that you think you were hypnotized by Hubbard's "tech". I wasn't. A lot of people weren't. That's just the way it is.

So my question is: Why do you think you MUST convince everyone that they were hypnotized?
I don't think I must convince anyone of anything. Anyone who doesn't like my posts is absolutely free to NOT READ THEM. I think it is odd how some people act like they have no responsibility for reading posts they don't like. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.

I don't go to the posts by other people and pretend to know their thoughts and feelings to discourage them, because I know I cannot read their minds and if I act like I can they have no way to prove that I am wrong. So...
 
Last edited:

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't think I just convince anyone of anything. Anyone who doesn't like my posts is absolutely free to NOT READ THEM. I think it is odd how some people act like they have no responsibility for reading posts they don't like. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.

I don't go to the posts by other people and pretend to know their thoughts and feelings to discourage them, because I know I cannot read their minds and if I act like I can they have no way to prove that I am wrong. So...
OK, so if your intention isn't to convert everyone to believing they were all hypnotized by Hubbard, what is your aim? You've made your point many, many times -- you seriously believe Scientology was hypnotism. Point made. You have accomplished your goal, you've made your point.

But you keep making the point, over and over and over and over. I don't mind you having that viewpoint, but you spend so much time still trying to make that point. It is weird: Do you think you haven't made your point? Are you looking for total agreement? Is someone arguing with you that you must convince?

I'm just curious.
 

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
OK, so if your intention isn't to convert everyone to believing they were all hypnotized by Hubbard, what is your aim? You've made your point many, many times -- you seriously believe Scientology was hypnotism. Point made. You have accomplished your goal, you've made your point.

But you keep making the point, over and over and over and over. I don't mind you having that viewpoint, but you spend so much time still trying to make that point. It is weird: Do you think you haven't made your point? Are you looking for total agreement? Is someone arguing with you that you must convince?

I'm just curious.
That is actually a good question.

There are several reasons to keep on making my point for me.

I try to address the question how could Scientology have been an attempt by Hubbard to use a hypnosis based covert manipulation to mentally enslave humanity and what proof is therein his own words to work it out as best I can for myself. I try to address legitimate questions on the topic because they should be looked into.

I have been trying to gain "concision " the quality of explaining a complex idea or ideas in a short time and there are a few other reasons.

Tory Christman told me that whatever I have to say about Scientology - it is always the right time because there is always someone at that level of reality. In other words it can be a lurker or someone thinking about leaving Scientology or an independent Scientologist with confusion about Scientology.

She made it clear that there is always someone who can use anything you can say about Scientology.

Lots of lurkers and UTR folks read ESMB. So someone who started looking outside Scientology a week ago might see a new post here and start to question whether Hubbard was honest or not.

Those folks are always there. So it is always the right time to say anything about Scientology that might help them, even if it has been said a thousand times before. They often don't know even what to look for or they would have left Scientology years ago.
 

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
OK, so if your intention isn't to convert everyone to believing they were all hypnotized by Hubbard, what is your aim? You've made your point many, many times -- you seriously believe Scientology was hypnotism. Point made. You have accomplished your goal, you've made your point.

But you keep making the point, over and over and over and over. I don't mind you having that viewpoint, but you spend so much time still trying to make that point. It is weird: Do you think you haven't made your point? Are you looking for total agreement? Is someone arguing with you that you must convince?

I'm just curious.
Plenty of people will never have the same beliefs as me, but some will throw off Hubbard's influence if they see something that clicks for them. That is something I hope for and occassionally get.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Plenty of people will never have the same beliefs as me, but some will throw off Hubbard's influence if they see something that clicks for them. That is something I hope for and occassionally get.
So ... you will keep posting threads and comments advocating the "Hubbard's tech is hypnotism" theory to save Scientology believers who, you believe, were all hypnotized?

OK. That's a noble quest. It might annoy those who were not hypnotized, but it's still a noble quest.
 
Top