Separate names with a comma.
ESMB is now closed to new registrations. Please go to www.exscn2.net and register there.
Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by Gib, Feb 17, 2015.
Here's to you Face, I hope you are doing well:
I made this post on Tony O blog
here's to you Face:
Gib • 34 minutes ago
Great stuff Chris Owen. McMaster eventually realizes he was to be part of "a crowd" known as scientology, but really loyal to LRH. That's what Nibs said too, Hubbard wanted loyalty.
And what is scientology, but composed of writings by LRH, HCOB's, HCO PL's, books and lectures, advices, all are LRH, he must certainly wanted his name smashed into history. Note HCOB and HCO PL is Hubbard and not ScientologyCOB or SCO PL. Do as Ron says in the bottom line.
McMaster said in a lecture after he left, IIRC, something like Ron said he wanted to turn square ball bearings into round ball bearing, or Ronbots.
Interestingly, back in 1949 LRH tells Heinlein of his master plan, not yet fully developed, but Hubbard worked on it thru the years. Here's what he told Heinlien in a letter Mar 31, 1949:
"Your request for the agentes techniques recalls me that this here area is shore revolutionary, pard. They just ain't ferget noth'in about Reconstruction. Down at the library, all the way back in the vault, are four full lengths shelves of books such as THE PSYCHOLOGY OF REVOLUTION, ERRORS MADE BY ROBESPIEPE, THE POWER OF THE RABBLE, LAWS GOVERNING LEVEE EN MASSE, HOME BOMB MANUFACTURE, ASSINATION AS A POLITICAL TECHNIGUE, etc. etc. for about three hundred big, authoritative volumes. And I never before seen a single one of them."
It's in my tread at ESMB: http://www.forum.exscn.net/...
What's important is this book THE PSYCHOLOGY OF REVOLUTION, easier understanding is the first book by Le Bon.
People not involved and not listening to all of Hubbard's lecatures and reading his books won't understand, it's hard to explain. But Hubbard pretty applied Le Bon's works on how a crowd is formed and refined it to forming the crowd known as scientology.
I know people don't believe me but I give it a try. If you listen to the you tube vid, you'll see how Hubbard used idealogy, purposes, etc to entrap. It also explains how in the hell could I get caught up in this group, how in the hell did I do the things I did or not take action against the leader or others. It's mind bending no doubt and unbelievable.
Hubbard read Le Bon as I mentioned in this tread earlier, it's in the Heinlein/Hubbard letters of 1949 where Hubbard tells Heinlein he read Le Bon.
Here's a nice write-up of Le Bon and if you were a member of scientology you'll see how these principles that Le Bon explained how groups or crowds or a scientologist is formed. I have no idea how other cults were formed, but only this so I cannot lump other cults together as a common denominator.
"The main techniques to persuade a crowd are:
but not(!)reasoning or logic"
Any member of scientology can confirm this formula, you as a scientolgist were part of a crowd known as a scientologist.
What is affirmation but success stories.
Repetition - number of times over, repeating the message in promo, and now scientology TV, an endless loop of repetition, Letters out, repetition, etc.
Contagion - happens, is supposed to, because of the above
Exaggeration - every promo piece put out by Hubbard on the state of Clear, and then OT
Symbols - yep, hubbard used lots of those
ill-defined words - yep, look at the tech and admin dictionary
but not reasoning or logic - yep, Hubbard covered that with his logic.
And, of course, there are no clears, there are no OT's, there is no Bridge to Total Freedom.
"Affirmation pure and simple, kept free of all reasoning and all proof, is one of the surest means of making an idea enter the mind of crowds. The conciser an affirmation is, the more destitute of every appearance of proof and demonstration, the more weight it carries. The religious books and the legal codes of all ages have always resorted to simple affirmation. Statesmen called upon to defend a political cause, and commercial men pushing the sale of their products by means of advertising are acquainted with the value of affirmation." — Chapter III, The leaders of crowds and their means of persuasion, Part 2."
My post on Tony O blog:
Gib • 15 minutes ago
yes Tony, it's all part of Hubbard's rhetoric and sublime writing, The rhetoric of achieving clear and the sublime of being clear and OT (or operating thetan, which means cause over MEST, over life itself).
in some parts of Hubbard's lectures and writings he talks about "gung-ho" groups.
That's what he did, create a gung ho group known as "a scientologist" whether it be a public, or a staff member, or a sea org member, or a front group to create a gung-ho following.
My post on Tony O, for what for ever.
Gib • 12 minutes ago
All these success stories by these people in Italy are simply sublime. The wiki provides a good explanation:
That's all what Hubbard did, tap into the sublime. The best write-up of sublime is by Edmund Burke, if you can get your wits around it, and a fascinating read.
Once Born is correct, we were "you are promised specific, objective, verifiable benefits". Science is the motto by Hubbard as rhetoric or persuasion.
But, that didn't happen, what we experienced was sublime thru Hubbard's writing, and he did keep it up.
Many people on planet earth are exposed to sublime writing, ie the great movie, the next stock that will revolutionize the world, the next religion that will save mankind, the next political leader, etc. Some are true, some are not.
Dianetics sublimed the state of "clear" or somebody going thru dianetics procedure would have perfect recall, no diseases, being cancer solved, being pain solved, a perfect human being, etc. .
Hubbard / Scientology sublimed being OT, or cause over life, matter, energy and time, aka MEST in the scientology world.
Every step and EP of the scientology bridge to total freedom is sublime literary. Just think being able to talk to anybody about anything, or being able to solve any problem and recognize the source of the problem, or moving out of fixed conditions, etc. These are all sublime and supposedly solved by Hubbard and dianetics and scientology,
Of course, no clears or OT's exist, none have and none will ever exist, it's all a hoax in the most simplest term."
In listening to the latest Chris Shelton interview with Jefferson Hawkins, a great interview in my opinion, which explains "what did International Management" do at the Int Base, which is actually Shakespeare "much ado about nothing", LOL.
That's all dianetics and scientology are, much ado about nothing, that is no clears, no OT's. LOL
Here's Chris Interview and it's 2 hours long.
In the end, both agree they wished to help people, and that's what kept them in.
That's "sublime literary", google it.
There are a few questions I would have asked Jefferson. one being did you study Hubbard's marketing and PR series on how to create a mystery sandwich in the 1980's Dianetics marketing campaign? And did you apply them?
I'd ask those questions.
But Chris wasn't a marketing guy so he wouldn't ask those questions.
My latest post on Tony O, FWIW:
"Tony Ortega Mod Gflded Kim • 3 hours ago
Cite Marty Rathbun, who said he spent years trying to sift out what was good from what was bad, and in the end found there was nothing left. Everything that appears "good" in Scientology is simply the false hope of self Improvement that ends up taking you deeper into indoctrination and control.
Gib Tony Ortega • 28 minutes ago
That's correct Tony.
I did a lot of TR's and the New Pro TR's at Flag. I forget now the marketing/PR/rhetoric/sublime promo for New Pro TR's but it's something like being able to confront and handle any communication cycle. The sublime part is to get rich! or make more money, and become a crowd member known as a scientologist..
One day I noticed a couple talking, they were having a lovely conversation, looking into each others eyes, a love story and simple communication. They were wogs. I was dumbfounded, they never did the TR's, how can this be?
Simple communication between the two with no hidden agenda. Hubbard's hidden agenda is to become a scientologists, someone who wishes to clear the planet all under his name and policies and HCOB's and advice's.
Hubbard's PRO Area Control is to protect the image and name of LRH.
And just like Mark Headly says, scientology is a magic show, or getting one to imagine to:
"form a mental image or concept of"
What Hubbard did was got us to imagine going clear and then OT, and then a cleared planet, and then target two the universe.
I made this post on Tony O today, if anybody hasn't read HAyakawa review, it's worth reading.
Gib chuckbeattyx75to03 • 4 minutes ago
yep, SI Hayakawa reviewed Dianetics back in 1951. FYI, in the Campbell/Heinlein letters, Campbell mentions to Heinlein that Hayakawa went to a Dianetics center and met Hubbard.
Hayakawa nails it:
"I have long felt that there are dangers to the writer as well as to the reader in pulp fiction. It did not occur to me until I read Dianetics to try to analyze the special dangers entailed in the profession of science-fiction writing. The art consists in concealing from the reader, for novelistic purposes, the distinctions between established scientific facts, almost-established scientific hypotheses, scientific conjectures, and imaginative extrapolations far beyond what has even been conjectured. The danger of this technique lies in the fact that, if the writer of science-fiction writes too much of it too fast and too glibly and is not endowed from the beginning with a high degree of semantic self-insight (consciousness of abstracting), he may eventually succeed in concealing the distinction between his facts and his imaginings from himself. In other words, the space-ships and the men of Mars and the atomic disintegrator pistols acquire so vivid a verbal existence that they may begin to have, in the writer's evaluations, 'actual' existence. Like Willy Loman in The Death of a Salesman, he may eventually fall for his own, pitch."
Note he says the writer and the reader. Bingo
The rest of the review is quite a great read, some excerpts:
"BUT in the book Dianetics, Hubbard does not write as a novelist. He is, he says, a scientist. He has discovered - nay, created - a new science of the human mind which, in one swell foop, renders obsolete the psychological gropings of Wundt, James, Pavlov, Kraepelin, Charcot, Janet, Freud, Jung," ------------LOL
"The expository technique of Dianetics is straight out of science-fiction. First, there is the elementary device of taking for granted the existence of things which do not exist, and then making assertions about them ('As we approached the planet Venus, Captain Wolf throttled down his space-ship to a leisurely 8,000 m.p.h.'): 'The reactive mind is the entire source of aberration. It can be proved and has been repeatedly proven that there is no other, for when that engram bank is discharged, all undesirable symptoms vanish and a man begins to operate on his optimum pattern' (p. 52). There are innumerable references to 'research' and 'tests' which 'have been' performed: 'A series of severely controlled dianetic experiments over a much longer period demonstrated that the law of affinity, as applicable to psychosomatic illness, was more powerful than fear and antagonism by a very wide margin. So great is this margin that it could be compared as the strength of a steel girder to a straw' (p. 106). There are, of course, the vivid narratives (i.e., the 'case-histories') by means of which that which is assumed to be so is transmuted - and that is the function of the art of fiction - into that which is felt to be so. (Of these 'case-histories,' more later.) In addition, Hubbard has practically all the other science-fiction devices- references to unspecified 'laboratories' and 'clinics,' where zealous (and unnamed) teams of 'dianeticists' are busy refining the 'techniques' and the 'basic postulates.' Occasionally, he goes through the motions of distinguishing between 'fact' and 'theory' and abstemiously denying himself, as a scientist, the self-indulgence of proceeding on mere theories: 'It may well have been - and elsewhere some dianetic computations have been made about this - that the brain is the absorber for overcharges of power resulting from injury, the power itself being generated by the injured cells in the area of injury. "
" But all this computing-machine mumbo-jumbo is only a small part of the incredible nonsense to be found in dianetics" -----------------LOL
"HUBBARD'S Book, especially his 'case-histories,' is so rich in absurdity, so preposterously and awkwardly obscene (especially in the accounts of engrams acquired during parental coition), that one is tempted to quote on and on"
"The fact that language can be used to adumbrate two (or more) areas of meaning at once is not in itself dangerous; indeed, it is this fact which gives language its richness and its power of creative suggestion. In Norbert Wiener's Cybernetics, the simultaneously electrical and psychological connotations of terms is peculiarly stimulating to the imagination. (It will be remembered that this book, too, enjoyed sales far beyond initial expectations.) But in Cybernetics the double-edged vocabulary is used with full consciousness of abstracting; in other words, Wiener never forgets - nor lets the reader forget - that the analogy is an analogy and that the genera to which mark III and Mark Antony belong are distinct and separate."
"BUT EVEN the limited good that dianetics may do by introducing a single, narrowly-defined role-playing technique into interpersonal relations is probably more than offset by the damage it can do with its accompanying pretentious and nonsensical doctrines. I am not thinking here of the standard medical argument, that it may keep people away from better and more legitimate therapies, although this is no doubt true. (So many things keep people away from legitimate therapies anyway that I am not sure that one more patent medicine can matter much.) I am thinking rather of the fact that those who are helped by dianetics will necessarily be kept at a low level of intellectual and emotional maturity by the nonsense they have absorbed in order to be helped. The lure of the pseudoscientific vocabulary and promises of dianetics cannot but condemn thousands who are beginning to emerge from scientific illiteracy to a continuation of their susceptibility to word-magic and semantic hash."
I wish I would have read Hayakawa review after I first read Dianetics, it may have put me straight.
Yes, having read Hayakawa might of helped. But... I do suspect El Con did read Norbert Wiener's Cybernetics which came out in 1948. Of course Norbert Wiener was just a dilettante who graduated school at age 11 and obtained a real BA in real mathematics at age 14 and a PhD at the age of 16 from Harvard. Soooo Hubbard was the 'man' lol.
latest post on tony O:
I don't know if this has been mentioned downstream?
The motto of the Hubbard Sea Org is "we come back".
Hubbard told Sarge he wasn't coming back. He was going to circle a star or galaxy, I forget which one. But he said he wasn't coming back.
Hubbard was a sophist.
"a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning."
Oh yah, Hubbard was paid alright, and talk about specious reasoning?
laughing. Oh yah, that was Hubbard alright, and his useful idiots.
great write-up by Stephen Kent:
However he still doesn't get it. He never mentions in the write-up about clear and OT. That is supposed to be the purpose of world domination by Hubbard, that one could go clear and then OT, and thus achieving those states why a world would be free of insanity.
Any dianetics auditing or scientology auditing or even the released OT levels, do not produce a clear or OT.
so it's a false religion, "For Pete's Sake".
Respectfully Gib, I do think that Stephen Kent got it exactly right in his "International Society Control by the Church of Scientology"article. It is all about control.
Clear and OT were illusions seeded and or imagined that are quite common indicators that often predispose individuals to being easier marks to a con. Crafty con men in their sociopathic devolution start with their desire to Control, focus on spotting the susceptibility traits, and then employ methods to harness the imagination with the contemplation of plausible aspirations, and with various methodologies steer the attention and interest until the shyster acquires his greater and greater control.
The goal is not freedom from insanity nor greater ability of the targeted persons but an aggrandizement or usurping of the will and minds of individuals, groups and nations and the constant manufacturing of slaves to a Hubbardian concentric 'universe'. Kent discusses this at length with many examples of evidence of social programs and focuses more on the social realms than on the individuals. It is after all appropriate in an article by a sociologist.
dude, he never mentions clear or OT. We know they are illusions, but Kent never mentions that! In his write-up.
Reread the link and tell me how many times a "clear" or OT" are mentioned as that is what people involved in scientology are supposed to achieve.
Here's the link:
This tread is dedicated to afaceinthecrowd
of course, andy is LRH.
Lots of people have mentioned Hubbard's Report Card from George Washingtion U that he attended and failed nuclear science. And have even shown his report card.
But here's what's interesting, nobody has mentioned that Hubbard took Dean Wilbur's course on English Rhetoric. And he got a b and a c in grades.
Here is a great interview by Steve, but yet he never notices or has come to realize Hubbard's rhetoric grade in his report card. Nor mentions Hubbard took rhetoric as a course.
Don't you see?
Hubbard always said he was a writer, and that would be a rhetoric writer.
If one were to go thru all of the OEC's volumes 0-7, why one would find it is mostly persuasion to keep the show on the road.
Even the HCOB's.
Most of the HCO PL's and HCOB's are lacking complete verification, but Hubbard makes it sound true thru his rhetoric writing.
Yeah, looks like he got a good grade in Rhetoric.
It would be my unconfirmed suspicion that Rhetoric is known to sociopaths, either through their development or through other 'study' as it can be a very useful tool in persuasion. That is not to say anyone who understands and is skilled in rhetoric is a sociopath. Some use it for the benefit of others, but a sociopathic has learned and is using it to the detriment of others and to the perceived or actual benefit of the sociopath, who by definition has destructive motives added to the rhetoric.
Hubbard did so and so does David Miscavige and his OSA staff who are well trained in it. Heber Jentzsch did it, Mike Rinder did it Robert Vaughn Young did it, and definitely the scoundrel lawyers who protect it all.
Thankfully Robert Vaughn Young and, Mike Rinder more recently, had been able to shed that trained in sociopathic mindset and came around to using rhetoric for good.
The following is a good read by Robert Vaughn Young to expose some of the tactics used by sociopaths.