mockingbird
Silver Meritorious Patron
This thread is to address a question that I have been asked .
Gib gave me a clue on this and so have several others.
Some have given a few stories of hub claiming OT powers in small meetings but never as a significant part of official doctrine and wondered , why ?
Well I think I know the answer.
Gib pointed out that hub studied rhetoric in college under Dean William Allen Wilbur .
William Allen Wilbur (1864-1945) had a major impact on the George Washington University in the early 1900s. He served as Dean of the Columbian Academy (which had been the Preparatory Department of the university since 1821) from 1895-1897, was Professor of English from 1897-1935, Dean of the Columbian College from 1904-28, and Provost of the university from 1928-35, when he retired. His students carried away with them knowledge of his philosophy of tolerance and selflessness as well as a knowledge of rhetoric and literature.
His lectures for freshmen were based on a text he wrote himself, "English Rhetoric." The prior two paragraphs are from George Washington University's own website.
Further proof is found at L Ron Hubbard Humanitarian ( of all places ) :http://education.lronhubbard.org/page17.htm
That site has a letter claimed to be written by Hub himself TO the Dean .
Okay , so hopefully it is established that Hub studied rhetoric in college and knew how it worked BEFORE the creation of Dianetics and Scientology.
From Rhetoric I would like to introduce some ideas. From the website Literary Devices Definitions and Examples:
Evidence is a type of literary device that appears in different categories of essays and theses in the form of paraphrase and quotations. It is presented to persuade the readers and used with powerful arguments in the texts or essays. It is factual information that helps the reader reach a conclusion and form an opinion about something. Evidence is given in research work or is quoted in essays and thesis statements but is paraphrased by the writer. If it is given as it is, then it is quoted properly within quotation marks.
In rhetoric, when a person makes a claim or presents an argument, he needs to present evidence in support of his claim and argument in order to establish the veracity and authenticity of his claim or argument. If there is no evidence, the claim stands quashed. The same is true with a case in law where a case or litigation is quashed, if there is no evidence to support the claim. However, literary evidence is only used in literature, essays and research papers for persuasion and convincing purposes.
Inference is a literary device used commonly in literature and in daily life where logical deductions are made based on premises assumed to be true. Another definition of inference suggests that it is rational but non-logical, which means that through the observation of facts presented in a particular pattern, one ultimately sees different or new interpretations and perspectives.
Induction is known as a conclusion reached through reasoning. An inductive statement is derived using facts and instances which lead to the formation of a general opinion. Though all the facts upon which the conclusion is based are true, there is still a chance of the conclusion reached being false. This type of reasoning goes from specific facts to a general statement.
An inductive statement is of two types; a strong inductive statement or a weak inductive statement. It depends on its authenticity. A strong statement has the possibility of being false, but it is very unlikely. There is a very high probability that it is true. When it comes to weak statements, they have conclusions which are very unlikely to be true and the reasons are weak enough showing that the conclusion is not probable. It is not possible to measure the strength of a statement, but it is possible to measure it in degrees. For a statement to be strong, it should be more probable when compared to being improbable and should have a strong factual ground on which it is based.End quotes.
Now , keeping this in mind I want to take a quote from Scientological Critical Information Directory:
With his book, Dianetics, a best-seller, Ron Hubbard was America's new guru. In August 1950, at a lecture hall in Los Angeles he presented to a crowd of 6,000 the first person to be what he called a 'clear'. She was a student called Sonya Bianca. As a clear, she was supposed to have total recall.
JEAN COX: "Various members of the audience called questions at her. Could she remember what was said on page 217 of her physics textbook? She couldn't. Could she remember what she had for breakfast on the morning of August 17, 1946? She couldn't. Then various people called out for Hubbard to turn his back on her and see if she could remember the colour of his tie. She couldn't. At that moment, the whole business sort of collapsed. People started leaving the auditorium."
Suddenly Hubbard was in trouble. He was accused of being a con-man and Dianetics a form of hypnotism., a technique at which he was so expert. End quote.
See , he TRIED proving a claim and found out as many con men before him that it is very , very hard to put out a bold claim to OUTSIDERS you do not control and let them examine it directly.
He could hypnotize Dianeticists and Scientologists and knew the unconvinced kind of remove themselves - they stop paying if nothing else.
So , for those IN he had safeguards.
But , after the Sonya Bianca disaster and people abandoning him he combined that with his knowledge from rhetoric to learn an important lesson : NEVER make a direct claim IN WRITNG as to HIS OWN OT abilities !
It would be discovered by outsiders and used to discredit him when he could not on command reproduce it !
He would violate his OWN first rule as he did with Sonya Bianca : never get caught !
So , he used his rhetorical skill to find a way around it : IMPLICATION .
Simply believers would by implication REASON that Hub had astounding powers and more importantly inhuman sanity, intelligence and judgement.
And non-believers would not get the implication , as they did not buy the foundation you must agree with to be led to the conclusion .
I will tell you it is a way he used to present info WITHOUT it being inspected directly.
For example as he talks on tapes of " researching " OT levels Scientologists ASSUME he regained OT powers WITHOUT PROOF !
They use THEIR OWN MINDS to " reach " that conclusion ! Not realizing they are guided the whole time .
Another great one is that you quickly learn a series of " facts " in Dianetics .
First that hub cleared himself.
Second that a clear is superior to any preclear or abberrated person .
Third that a preclear is lessened in many , many ways by abberation both from their apparent status AND in comparison to the superior clear.
Okay , so what you are reading BY IMPLICATION EVERY time you read about a preclear or abberration is that Hub is SUPERIOR to EVERYONE else in EVERY possible way !
AND if you found a new philosophy or science that was based on some guy you never heard of coming right out and saying over and over - I am smarter , saner , more aware and capable and deserve more and far better rights than EVERYONE else you would walk away !
See , that is what Hub does - plant the seed for YOU to conclude that HE is better , saner , smarter by buying into his fake claims as a CONCLUSION that is inescapable ONLY once you believe the parts that make the whole.
He knew the whole lie was unpalatable at first so he PERSUADES you to take on a kind of puzzle that leads YOU to put the parts together HIS way and think it is your own conclusion when you get there !
See , after Sonya's disaster he just stuck with the tried and true method of having complex circular logic - Dianetics works because it cured his blindness and injuries and you know it cured his injuries since he was able to come up with it since it works he can clear people and since he can clear people his claims about the reactive mind must be true and his claims about clear and so he as a clear must be smarter and saner than the rest of us and we must be far crazier than we thought and have poorer judgement and on and on it goes !
It comes back to Tommy Davis famous quote from the New Yorker story : if it was true that Hubbard had not been injured, then “the injuries that he handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie. End quote .
See , Hub KNEW he could INDUCE circular logic BIT BY BIT to support ludicrous or offensive claims and acts .
See , Tommy could not FATHOM Dianetics and Scientology as fraud so any needed " facts " to support them HAVE to be " true " !
Talk about cognitive dissonance being used against someone to trap their own mind !
That is why in my opinion Hub learned he simply had to use implication to have the minds of his victims do the convincing FOR him !
It makes a person SLOWLY on a subconscious level work out as conclusions the IMPLANTS Hub needs swallowed and makes the victim CERTAIN they are not being persuaded - after all they KNOW these are their own conclusions !
It also uses a trick that writers have long used. Stephen king is one of the very most successful writers of all time with a reported three hundred fifty million copies of his works sold ! That is a lot of books !
He has had trouble with many works being adapted and found to lack the feel of the books.
It was explored and found that for many key characters he would only use less than a dozen words to describe their appearance and have the AUDIENCE create the rest with the AUDIENCE"S imagination !
For Carrie he had two sentences describing her ! For Randall Flag he barely mentions him - and has the reader create him in their own mind - making the reader a co-creator of the ideas and more invested than if King thoroughly describes him .
It is also used by director's to induce HORROR - by NOT showing gruesome killings - just IMPLYING them with cutting away when the axeor knife or gun is used to MAKE the audience crete the terror for themself.
It was used in old films to heighten fear and some audiences find this more frightening than being shown ANYTHING .
Hitchcock used it at times . It also has an application in ...other types of stimulating an...audience .
Sometimes a man will swear a woman he has only seen clothed is more desirable than any he sees naked - I believe it is due to IMPLICATION being stronger than reality . ( at least in SOME cases in some minds )
There is ANOTHER benefit to hub's method that I will try to explain with another example of Hub using implication and KNOWING it .
The famous tape in which hub discusses a person claiming in a session to be the anti-Christ : Hub says well then ask him who does he think I am ?
Well , this has different implications to different people and is intended to : to a new raw person it means the PC must be whacked out to think he is the anti-Christ okay .
To a more experienced Scientologist they might think Hub deserves a higher status than a regular person - not man not YET god , okay .
To a fully devoted Scientologist they in awe may " KNOW " Hub is indeed God ! ( Yikes !!! )
And for an occultist or Satanist they will know Hub wants the crown for himself !
Now, I heard the tape AFTER exit counseling for about two hundred hours and realized that hub " secretly" was claiming the title for himself AND to Scientologists was claiming to be a benevolent demigod or god or God AND to non-Scientologists was claiming the PC claiming to be the antiChrist was off his rocker ALL with rhetoric turned to manipulate the audience ! It was a TRIPLE entendre !
I hope to have satisfactorily answered why hub never made the big claim due to a combination of factors and his methods of manipulation .
And to have pulled back another layer for you to examine how and why the influence persists so well : it was put in to be and stay hidden .
Gib gave me a clue on this and so have several others.
Some have given a few stories of hub claiming OT powers in small meetings but never as a significant part of official doctrine and wondered , why ?
Well I think I know the answer.
Gib pointed out that hub studied rhetoric in college under Dean William Allen Wilbur .
William Allen Wilbur (1864-1945) had a major impact on the George Washington University in the early 1900s. He served as Dean of the Columbian Academy (which had been the Preparatory Department of the university since 1821) from 1895-1897, was Professor of English from 1897-1935, Dean of the Columbian College from 1904-28, and Provost of the university from 1928-35, when he retired. His students carried away with them knowledge of his philosophy of tolerance and selflessness as well as a knowledge of rhetoric and literature.
His lectures for freshmen were based on a text he wrote himself, "English Rhetoric." The prior two paragraphs are from George Washington University's own website.
Further proof is found at L Ron Hubbard Humanitarian ( of all places ) :http://education.lronhubbard.org/page17.htm
That site has a letter claimed to be written by Hub himself TO the Dean .
Okay , so hopefully it is established that Hub studied rhetoric in college and knew how it worked BEFORE the creation of Dianetics and Scientology.
From Rhetoric I would like to introduce some ideas. From the website Literary Devices Definitions and Examples:
Evidence is a type of literary device that appears in different categories of essays and theses in the form of paraphrase and quotations. It is presented to persuade the readers and used with powerful arguments in the texts or essays. It is factual information that helps the reader reach a conclusion and form an opinion about something. Evidence is given in research work or is quoted in essays and thesis statements but is paraphrased by the writer. If it is given as it is, then it is quoted properly within quotation marks.
In rhetoric, when a person makes a claim or presents an argument, he needs to present evidence in support of his claim and argument in order to establish the veracity and authenticity of his claim or argument. If there is no evidence, the claim stands quashed. The same is true with a case in law where a case or litigation is quashed, if there is no evidence to support the claim. However, literary evidence is only used in literature, essays and research papers for persuasion and convincing purposes.
Inference is a literary device used commonly in literature and in daily life where logical deductions are made based on premises assumed to be true. Another definition of inference suggests that it is rational but non-logical, which means that through the observation of facts presented in a particular pattern, one ultimately sees different or new interpretations and perspectives.
Induction is known as a conclusion reached through reasoning. An inductive statement is derived using facts and instances which lead to the formation of a general opinion. Though all the facts upon which the conclusion is based are true, there is still a chance of the conclusion reached being false. This type of reasoning goes from specific facts to a general statement.
An inductive statement is of two types; a strong inductive statement or a weak inductive statement. It depends on its authenticity. A strong statement has the possibility of being false, but it is very unlikely. There is a very high probability that it is true. When it comes to weak statements, they have conclusions which are very unlikely to be true and the reasons are weak enough showing that the conclusion is not probable. It is not possible to measure the strength of a statement, but it is possible to measure it in degrees. For a statement to be strong, it should be more probable when compared to being improbable and should have a strong factual ground on which it is based.End quotes.
Now , keeping this in mind I want to take a quote from Scientological Critical Information Directory:
With his book, Dianetics, a best-seller, Ron Hubbard was America's new guru. In August 1950, at a lecture hall in Los Angeles he presented to a crowd of 6,000 the first person to be what he called a 'clear'. She was a student called Sonya Bianca. As a clear, she was supposed to have total recall.
JEAN COX: "Various members of the audience called questions at her. Could she remember what was said on page 217 of her physics textbook? She couldn't. Could she remember what she had for breakfast on the morning of August 17, 1946? She couldn't. Then various people called out for Hubbard to turn his back on her and see if she could remember the colour of his tie. She couldn't. At that moment, the whole business sort of collapsed. People started leaving the auditorium."
Suddenly Hubbard was in trouble. He was accused of being a con-man and Dianetics a form of hypnotism., a technique at which he was so expert. End quote.
See , he TRIED proving a claim and found out as many con men before him that it is very , very hard to put out a bold claim to OUTSIDERS you do not control and let them examine it directly.
He could hypnotize Dianeticists and Scientologists and knew the unconvinced kind of remove themselves - they stop paying if nothing else.
So , for those IN he had safeguards.
But , after the Sonya Bianca disaster and people abandoning him he combined that with his knowledge from rhetoric to learn an important lesson : NEVER make a direct claim IN WRITNG as to HIS OWN OT abilities !
It would be discovered by outsiders and used to discredit him when he could not on command reproduce it !
He would violate his OWN first rule as he did with Sonya Bianca : never get caught !
So , he used his rhetorical skill to find a way around it : IMPLICATION .
Simply believers would by implication REASON that Hub had astounding powers and more importantly inhuman sanity, intelligence and judgement.
And non-believers would not get the implication , as they did not buy the foundation you must agree with to be led to the conclusion .
I will tell you it is a way he used to present info WITHOUT it being inspected directly.
For example as he talks on tapes of " researching " OT levels Scientologists ASSUME he regained OT powers WITHOUT PROOF !
They use THEIR OWN MINDS to " reach " that conclusion ! Not realizing they are guided the whole time .
Another great one is that you quickly learn a series of " facts " in Dianetics .
First that hub cleared himself.
Second that a clear is superior to any preclear or abberrated person .
Third that a preclear is lessened in many , many ways by abberation both from their apparent status AND in comparison to the superior clear.
Okay , so what you are reading BY IMPLICATION EVERY time you read about a preclear or abberration is that Hub is SUPERIOR to EVERYONE else in EVERY possible way !
AND if you found a new philosophy or science that was based on some guy you never heard of coming right out and saying over and over - I am smarter , saner , more aware and capable and deserve more and far better rights than EVERYONE else you would walk away !
See , that is what Hub does - plant the seed for YOU to conclude that HE is better , saner , smarter by buying into his fake claims as a CONCLUSION that is inescapable ONLY once you believe the parts that make the whole.
He knew the whole lie was unpalatable at first so he PERSUADES you to take on a kind of puzzle that leads YOU to put the parts together HIS way and think it is your own conclusion when you get there !
See , after Sonya's disaster he just stuck with the tried and true method of having complex circular logic - Dianetics works because it cured his blindness and injuries and you know it cured his injuries since he was able to come up with it since it works he can clear people and since he can clear people his claims about the reactive mind must be true and his claims about clear and so he as a clear must be smarter and saner than the rest of us and we must be far crazier than we thought and have poorer judgement and on and on it goes !
It comes back to Tommy Davis famous quote from the New Yorker story : if it was true that Hubbard had not been injured, then “the injuries that he handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie. End quote .
See , Hub KNEW he could INDUCE circular logic BIT BY BIT to support ludicrous or offensive claims and acts .
See , Tommy could not FATHOM Dianetics and Scientology as fraud so any needed " facts " to support them HAVE to be " true " !
Talk about cognitive dissonance being used against someone to trap their own mind !
That is why in my opinion Hub learned he simply had to use implication to have the minds of his victims do the convincing FOR him !
It makes a person SLOWLY on a subconscious level work out as conclusions the IMPLANTS Hub needs swallowed and makes the victim CERTAIN they are not being persuaded - after all they KNOW these are their own conclusions !
It also uses a trick that writers have long used. Stephen king is one of the very most successful writers of all time with a reported three hundred fifty million copies of his works sold ! That is a lot of books !
He has had trouble with many works being adapted and found to lack the feel of the books.
It was explored and found that for many key characters he would only use less than a dozen words to describe their appearance and have the AUDIENCE create the rest with the AUDIENCE"S imagination !
For Carrie he had two sentences describing her ! For Randall Flag he barely mentions him - and has the reader create him in their own mind - making the reader a co-creator of the ideas and more invested than if King thoroughly describes him .
It is also used by director's to induce HORROR - by NOT showing gruesome killings - just IMPLYING them with cutting away when the axeor knife or gun is used to MAKE the audience crete the terror for themself.
It was used in old films to heighten fear and some audiences find this more frightening than being shown ANYTHING .
Hitchcock used it at times . It also has an application in ...other types of stimulating an...audience .
Sometimes a man will swear a woman he has only seen clothed is more desirable than any he sees naked - I believe it is due to IMPLICATION being stronger than reality . ( at least in SOME cases in some minds )
There is ANOTHER benefit to hub's method that I will try to explain with another example of Hub using implication and KNOWING it .
The famous tape in which hub discusses a person claiming in a session to be the anti-Christ : Hub says well then ask him who does he think I am ?
Well , this has different implications to different people and is intended to : to a new raw person it means the PC must be whacked out to think he is the anti-Christ okay .
To a more experienced Scientologist they might think Hub deserves a higher status than a regular person - not man not YET god , okay .
To a fully devoted Scientologist they in awe may " KNOW " Hub is indeed God ! ( Yikes !!! )
And for an occultist or Satanist they will know Hub wants the crown for himself !
Now, I heard the tape AFTER exit counseling for about two hundred hours and realized that hub " secretly" was claiming the title for himself AND to Scientologists was claiming to be a benevolent demigod or god or God AND to non-Scientologists was claiming the PC claiming to be the antiChrist was off his rocker ALL with rhetoric turned to manipulate the audience ! It was a TRIPLE entendre !
I hope to have satisfactorily answered why hub never made the big claim due to a combination of factors and his methods of manipulation .
And to have pulled back another layer for you to examine how and why the influence persists so well : it was put in to be and stay hidden .
Last edited:
Amen!
