ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at


Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by mockingbird, Sep 27, 2014.

  1. Leon-2

    Leon-2 Patron Meritorious

    Claire, I agree with you fully.

    What you mention about wanting agreement is exactly what makes hypnotism work so well, it's all based on what LRH described as the ARC triangle. And yet even simple and observable phenomena like this are rejected out of hand by some and are condemned as covert attempts at mind-control by Hubbard.

    Where is this all going to lead to? per Mbird's descriptions of what it takes to induce hypnotism - and I accept what he says - it means we have hypnotism all around us in our daily lives and all are in a permanent state of semi- or full hypnotism. And in fact, I do agree with this too.

    His own OP is rife with attempts to induce exactly this type of somnolent acceptance in its readers. It's bizarre.
  2. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    :melodramatic: :violin: :drama2: :confused2: You're grasping at straws again, Leon & Claire. Mockingbird is trying to explain Elcon's cultist indoctrination methods so Ex's can understand what was done to them. Shoe-horning Ex's into undesirable "Opinion Leaders" & Elcon cult-speak definitions defending Elcon's mindfuck is an empty path.

    The Scientological Onion

    (Excerpted from the Addendum section of L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, 2nd and 3rd editions. This is the shortened version that appears in Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology.

    Scientology could be described as a "layers of the onion" operation.

    The outermost layer of the "Scientological Onion" is not identifiable with Scientology at all, being composed of front groups that conceal their connection to -and control by - the Scientology organization. Front groups might be said to constitute Layer Zero: a place where the tentacles of Scientology can grope incognito.

    The first layer of the Scientological Onion is meant to be very visible...

    Layer One includes Scientology's pampered clique of celebrities, and various public relations ploys. It reverberates with noble sounding sentiments about creating a better world. Scientology seeks to equate itself, and its founder, with anything broadly viewed as desirable or good. A little further along, this layer would include introductory courses with the stated aim of "knowing oneself" and "being free."

    Here exist the potentially beneficial aspects of the many masked Scientology operation. The tragedy of Scientology is that the "positives" are used as "window dressing" and "bait on the hook," when they should have been the core and foundation. Thus the Scientology organization reeks of hypocrisy.

    Also, at this much publicized layer, L. Ron Hubbard is presented as an engineer, war hero, nuclear physicist, and the "greatest humanitarian of all time," and the author of "22 best sellers with more to come."

    The "first layer" is what Scientology wishes the outside world to know as Scientology. And it is essentially what new converts to the "movement" believe.

    It includes most of what is good in the subject: The dream of peace on Earth, the desire to help, practical wisdom, civilized communication, and some potentially beneficial counseling procedures. The word freedom is used a great deal at this layer, and a heart felt desire for greater personal freedom, and freedom for all Mankind, is not unusual to new recruits to Scientology.

    (Any inconsistencies or contradictions between the publicly stated aims of the movement, and actual practices or facts, become irrelevant as the individual becomes subject to the Dark Side of Scientology. And the deeper one descends into the "onion" the darker it gets.)

    Descending into the "onion" it is necessary to become a Scientologist. This means thinking like a Scientologist. This is the Second Layer where deception eases into "soft" forms of mind-manipulation. Love of Mankind is modified that the awareness that human beings are mere hapless "Wogs"... The desire to help becomes the desire to recruit. The ideal of practical wisdom, based on logic and science, is superseded by the belief in the unfathomable mystery of the "tech." Indeed one is expected to be in a state of awe regarding the "tech," much in the same manner that a peasant woman might regard piece of bone, said to have belonged to a Saint from centuries past.

    The publicly promoted "policy" of honesty is modified by an awareness that deception is OK, as long as it serves to achieve the desired Scientological end. And the ideals of civility and democracy become a joke - just something that "panty-waists" and wimps fixate on.

    One is slowly being "hatted" as a Scientologist.

    (At this point an - unlucky - new Scientologist may be subjected to heavy handed "hard sell" tactics by a sales person or "registrar." Life savings have been lost, inheritances gobbled up, and lines of credit drained, all in a single arduous evening of "hard sell." This is really a premature taste of Layer Four.)

    The Third Layer down is composed of never ending, expensive, highly advertised, but confidential "upper levels." These go on and on - and on. Scientology has been selling the promise of "Total Freedom" since before most of its current membership were born. It remains the ever elusive "dangling carrot."

    Well known individuals who become involved in Scientology - becoming "Scientology celebrities" - do not go deeper into the Scientological Onion than this.

    They are also spared the abuses that "less valuable" beings may suffer at the hands of Scientology sales people, "Sea Org" recruiters, or "ethics" officers...

    At the upper fringes of the next layer down is local "Org staff," and at the bottom of Layer Four can be found "Sea Org" personnel. This layer employs more pervasive and cruder forms of "persuasion" or "mind control." Here is the "slave labor" supplying Rehabilitation Project Force, the Pavlovian "5 Card System," and the grim but repressed awareness that one is mainly a "post" and a "stat," (i.e. statistic.)

    The Fifth layer down includes intimidation of the mass media, use of lawsuits purely for purposes of harassment, and applications of policies and programs, such as those discovered as a result of the FBI search warrants of July 1977. These materials were made available for public view by Federal court order in 1979 and consist of organized applications of the Fair game Law, and related confidential policies and "tech," designed to illegally gain access to private files, infiltrate, harass, lie about, "sue, trick, lie to, or destroy" anyone perceived as an enemy. At this layer also would be secret bank accounts and financial irregularities.

    Other aspects of this layer would include "blackmail," including threats to publicize personal information obtained during "religious confessionals" (auditing sessions); and the inducement of duress of various kinds - including frivolous lawsuits - to obtain promises of "silence," and to obtain "signed retractions" of earlier statements.

    Here also can be found the handful of individuals who constitute the "Scientology hierarchy": the board of directors of the Religious Technology Center, and its chairman David Miscavige or "DM."

    Layer Number Six appears to be the core of the Onion. It is a very temperamental and secret place.

    Here lie the secrets of L. Ron Hubbard: his bad health, bad habits, undistinguished military service, flunked physics and mathematics classes. Here can be found the actual motivations behind, and sources of, Dianetics and Scientology. Here can be found Mary Sue Hubbard, languishing in prison for crimes committed under her husband's direction, while her husband, in hiding, passes the time writing Science Fiction. Here are all the things you shouldn't know about the founder of the "Science of Knowing How to Know."

    L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, 2nd edition:

    Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology:

    Original Link
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2014
  3. mockingbird

    mockingbird Silver Meritorious Patron

    Okay , Leon 2 I don't know who you are or what you are trying to do .

    I have previously addressed the everything is hypnotism claim - It is nonsense .

    We don't stumble around with the critical factor turned off ALL the time ; or show severe signs of hypnotic induction .

    Otherwise you would believe EVERYTHING you hear EVER . AND have no judgement .

    IT is a SPECTRUM and LRH concentrated lots of hypnotism inducing effects intensely to OVERWHELM people and induce hypnotic mind control - along with other methods of influence.

    I did not " induce " the condition of the general populace not knowing about hypnotism -it existed LONG before I was born.

    If you know about it you can reference Milton Erickson or Dantalion Jones or NLP or Derren Brown or SOMEBODY who wrote or spoke on the subject OR your own research .

    I have not said all arguments are based on illogical false arguments - BUT some ARE .

    If you feel this is overly long and repetitive - I absolve you of any and all obligation to read my posts !

    I will not declare you , practice fair game or force you to disconnect !

    I repeat some things as some of the readers have requested additional info and explanations.

    I quoted several articles by hypnotists so people could SEE that these are NOT my definitions , BUT you see that as " covert hypnosis ".

    Well there is simply no pleasing all of the people all the time .

    I don't think I pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

    I Have not started a religion or defrauded folks or started the SO .

    You are free to reject me and EVERYTHING I write .

    I wonder what is YOUR motivation for attacking me so viciously ?

    If you cannot refrain from using Ad Hominem and similar methods SOON these chats of ours WILL end .
  4. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter

    Nope. I'm cool with it all. It's fine.
  5. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter

    I think there're a couple different ideas being covered here.

    One is the hypnosis thing. I think the idea here may be that indoctrination (or conditioning or brainwashing) is hypnotic or akin to such. I never saw it that way but I think that it's an interesting hypothesis. I guess there are at least similiarities between indoctrination - or even call it brainwashing (I don't mind)- and hypnosis. In each, a person's will is being superceded. So they certain have similar end results. But is the process (non Scn sense of the word) or the mechanism the same? Like I said, I never thought so but I think it's possible and I am not automatically disposed against this idea.

    The other is agreement. I think the pool of spirituality sometimes sees dissent as disharmony. There is something to that, but I also think there're times when somebody or other is just trying to intro a new idea.

    A really good example of dissent causing disharmony is some of the claptrap the Duggars and their ilk like to spout. They sure upset a lot of people. So why would I think that's more disharmonic dissent than just a series of challenging new ideas? Because they are too big on pointing the finger of blame.

    I think that's where organized religion goes wrong. Blaming and hating others. But it's presented as truth.

    And, of course, there're people who may think someone's trying to cause a problem but they're only saying, hey, I don't see it that way and here's why.

    In the long run, the only way to deal with that is to stop having much emotional investment in it and to have a more Buddhist type attitude. Or so it seems to me.
  6. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    Excellent! Then there's no need for you and Leon to tag team Mockingbird. :cheers:
  7. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter

    Lots of people talk to each other and append commentary on posts on this board, replying to each other and such. Including you. Many times.
  8. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    Thanks for stating the profoundly obvious.

    Now can we please return to discussing O.P.'s posts instead of the O.P.'s character? :)
  9. Leon-2

    Leon-2 Patron Meritorious

    I don't think there is anything vicious about my rebuttal of your OP, Mbird. While I agree that hypnotism is real and that people can be covertly hypnotised - and often are - all I pointed out was that your own post "explaining" all this was in itself a clear example of just such methods of covert hypnosis being attempted on your readers. Whether this was deliberate on your part or not or whether it was just an unconscious dramatisation of what you were complaining about in Hubbard - I leave all that open.

    Hypnotism is certainly an interesting subject. So is Scientology. Both can be subject to robust commentary and discussion and no one should shirk from doing that.
  10. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    Pathologizing is an appeal to motive fallacy & a red herring fallacy. Instead of trying to invent imagined personal slights towards Mockingbird let's please discuss hypnotic induction.

    Last edited: Oct 5, 2014
  11. Leon-2

    Leon-2 Patron Meritorious

    OK so back in the years when I had a baby in my arms and was getting him to go to sleep, singing a lullaby of sorts, telling him to sleep, etc etc. At the time I remember thinking is this hypnosis I'm doing or is it ordinary getting him to sleep? Where is the difference? Where do you draw the line?

    Even music - there was a song at one time "Sweet . . . . sweet surrender . . . " Was that hypnosis?

    What about TV advertising? All of these things can be described as hypnotic induction. Also a school teacher teaching you - "This is the way it works" etc etc. No allowance for other viewpoints. Religious instruction too - you'll go to hell if you don't believe it. All hypnotic brainwashing.

    Fact is it is ubiquitous. It is everywhere. And that it should appear in people's writings should not be any sort of a surprise to anyone.

    I don't for a moment believe that Mbird was deliberately and covertly trying to hypnotise us - though the use of language suggesting it was plainly there, it came through regardless of his intentions in what he wrote. But if we allow and forgive him (and others) having this as a "subtext" in their writings and actions then we should cut the same slack with Hubbard and not insist that he was evilly intentioned from the start and in all he did.

    An example with Hubbard: many people have found Objective Processes like Op Pro by Dup to be hypnotic, both on the auditor and the preclear. (yeah, just get over the use of Scio terms, no need to react to them) The constant and repetitive commands can drive anyone loopy and after a few hours of it into a trance-like zombified state. Yet the basic tech (sorry dear) of running Op Pro by Dup was described by Hubbard in a lecture back in Nov or Dec of 1954 and he stressed there to NEVER let your preclear go out of present time on the process. At the first tiny hint of it you break it by questioning him on what he is doing and perceiving. he touches the wal with a finger only and so you get him to place his whole hand on the wall "What does it feel like? describe your tactile perceptions" etc etc. ALWAYS keep him alert and awake throughout the process. Yet . . this tape has never appeared on any checksheet I have ever seen, least of all on checksheets for courses training guys on Objectives. And the data has never been repeated elsewhere. And the results gotten from running the processes as they should be are so vastly hugely better than running it the way academies did teach them.

    So what was Hubbard's intention? To hypnotise ot to wake people up? Actually it doesn't matter what his intentions were. What matters is what YOUR intentions were with what YOU did in the subject. That is what makes the difference. That is what makes ALL the difference.
  12. mockingbird

    mockingbird Silver Meritorious Patron

    All right Leon 2 , I don't know if you are OSA , a Projecting Scientologist or ...something else.

    You are using Ad Hominem almost religiously ( you know like a Scientologist ).

    Look telling someone there is something to learn is NOT hypnosis .

    Quoting a hypnotist's VERY BRIEF definition is NOT hypnosis .

    You reject MY thesis BUT have to keep coming back ? WHY ?

    If I find a post totally off base I may try to use reason - and if not able to get anywhere LEAVE !!

    Not stick around to use logical fallacies to attack the author !

    You say I attempt to induce hypnotism REPEATEDLY BUT I assert that the opposite is true.

    So what ARE you doing with this ATTACK ?

    Arnie Lerma introduced me to this possibility :
    The Reversive Blockade:
    Reversive blockade: Emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between the truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method... Use of this method can be included within the [previously] mentioned special psychological knowledge developed by psychopaths concerning the weaknesses of human nature and the art of leading others into error.
    – Andrew Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology

    Further you introduce the either I am doing this knowingly OR accidentally idea .

    Straight out of LRH policy : HE gave public a " false choice " of two outcomes FAVORABLE to LRH .

    Come in on course in the morning OR afternoon . ( from handling the public individual )

    It is a variation on the black and white FALLACY . ILLUSION of choice where it is NOT.

    I try to PRECISELY break down Scientology indoctrination and its EXACT methods and effects.

    You are clouding the issue with the everything is hypnosis everywhere GENERALITY .

    I discuss EXACT effects NOT this giant incomprehensible mess - that some call influence.

    Then you try to backpedal and STILL assert that I am using hypnosis and then equate me with LRH !

    Well I have done some evil things in my life BUT I am no LRH .

    You keep pushing this personal attack - ALWAYS with fallacious logic .

    I contend that LRH ALWAYS knew he was running a con .

    I also think of hypnosis as mechanistic : intention is IRRELEVANT .

    It functions based on physical laws ultimately - just because we don't understand them as well as gravity does not change that .

    You don't make it good by having GOOD intentions . IF you are fooling and controlling people it is BAD and should be ILLEGAL .

    I don't understand YOUR intention in coming back time and time again to use veiled insults to cause doubt of MY character , then half-way blow it off.

    Then take a middle ground ( another fallacy ) and act like it might be an accident and I am just doing what LRH did!

    That is EXTREMELY inflammatory for an abolitionist and I've made my position quite clear.

    There are OTHER possible motives and methods for YOUR behavior : your method COULD be called gaslighting .

    Projection and gaslighting are also on the list of common sociopath techniques. Sociopaths refuse to be held accountable for their behavior and often assign their own behavior to their victims. For example, a sociopath could accuse a victim of stealing when it is the sociopath himself that steals. Gaslighting is a common practice of abusers who attempt to convince their victims they are defective for any reason such as making the victim more emotional, more needy or dependent. For example, if an abusive person says hurtful things and tries to convince you that you are mentally unstable and starts recommending that you get professional help, you might be in the presence of a gaslilghter.
    I will also add this link for your consideration .



    The empathy trap: therapists and counsellors...

    See I don't want my posts diverted from the main ideas with what I consider far-fetched and UNPROVEN accusations .

    YOU can try to confuse people or MISDIRECT the thread . WHY ?

    Do you HAVE to be protective of something or SOMEONE ?

    If you really just want to talk I strongly suggest you learn how to so without fallacies ; they just reduce threads to accusations and counter-accusations .
  13. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    mockingbird, I think he might be trolling. Could be wrong mind...
  14. Ogsonofgroo

    Ogsonofgroo Crusader

    ~Hubbard's only singular 'intention' was to make money, though he had numerous other intents I'm sure, but that is the basics, take your cash, deliver crap, run away, just like cult still does.

    ~He manipulated people to believe in his line of bullshit.

    ~Actually it certainly does matter what his intentions were, how in the world you could even come up with that sort of statement is beyond my imagination atm.

    ~The rest is blitheringly cultish, ala shuffle the utter failure of the under-lying philosophy of a giant con, started by a rather abstracted individual, onto the shoulders of those who got sucked into it much? Sure people have their own minds, most of the time, but when you are totally manipulated, both mentally and physically, then the 'choices' kind of get narowed down I'd say.
    Once again its the old and tired 'If it didn't work you did it wrong.' thing, boring and silly imho... WTF if the system is fucked to start with?!?

    Oh yah, its scientology, it doesn't have to make sense, thanks L Ron Hubbard you conniving, lying, abusive, sack of left-over bad ideas...
  15. Leon-2

    Leon-2 Patron Meritorious

    You are the only one who believes I "attacked" you. Fact is I never have. Nor have I "equated" you with LRH.

    It is you who is playing the victim game here. It doesn't work. So cool it.
  16. regardless of what anyone else does...

    hypnosis is clearly and simply prohibited in SOS and i have never used hypnontized anyone for any purpose
  17. Veda

    Veda Sponsor


    You made these same arguments when on the topic of brainwashing.

    Unfortunately, for you, those arguments were sidestepped and became irrelevant with the presentation of what was recognized, by the 1960s Australian Anderson Report, as the blueprint for Scientology.

    In 1955, Hubbard, deviously, concocted a black propaganda device meant to taint his critics, dissenters, and psychologists and psychiatrists, as communists and communist sympathizers.

    By the mid 1960s, Hubbard had placed into use, and had incorporated into Scientology doctrine, enough of this blueprint for it to be noticed, and the Anderson Report did notice it.

    It was later noticed again in the mid 1980s by the book 'Messiah or Madman?'

    A more thorough examination, 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels', finally appeared around 2001.

    It was Hubbard who used the word "brainwashing" in the title of the booklet that became his own secret blueprint for Scientology.

    He described what he was doing: "Using mental healing... to assert and maintain dominion over thoughts and loyalties..."

    As for the matter of hypnosis, obviously parts of Scientology employ hypnotic methods, overriding the person's critical faculties and placing content into the person's mind.

    IMO, not everything in Scientology - not every piece of Scientology - involves hypnosis.

    There are other ingredients used in the Scientological trap, the foremost being deception, and also the manipulative and exploitative use of "help," "truth," and the relief a person experiences when he "gets something off his chest" also known a catharsis.

    So, Scientology is not all hypnosis, nor is it all brainwashing, but it uses these things, and they are essential parts of the "package" of Scientology.

    Of course, most basically, "hypnosis" is a word, and there can be debates over what that word means.

    The same with "brainwashing." There can be debates over its meaning.

    With the matter of "brainwashing," as mentioned above, the debate re. "brainwashing" can be placed to one side, as Hubbard, himself, used the term to describe what he was, primarily, doing to his followers.

    According to Hana Eltringham - former deputy Commodore and Hubbard confidant - while on the Flagship, she was told, by Hubbard, that what he was doing to the crew was hypnosis. It wasn't everything he was doing, but it was a recurring thread woven through his instructions and actions. A key ingredient.

    This is why, if anyone has an idea of salvaging any benign aspects of Scientology, he or she had better take a thorough look, and keep in mind Hubbard's hidden agenda, as revealed in his 1938 'Excalibur' letter, in other correspondence, and in his late 1940s 'Affirmations'.

    And of course, there's the "blueprint" he inadvertently revealed, in 1955, when he couldn't resist an opportunity to smear his perceived enemies, with his description of "enemy tactics," in a 64 page black propaganda booklet.

    In 1969, Hubbard, confidentially instructed that Scientologists "use enemy tactics."

    What the wide-eyed trusting Scientologists - some opened up and receptive after having their "minds blown" in a cathartic session - didn't realize, is that the man they saw as the "Source" of their "Total Freedom" was using those same "enemy tactics" on them.
  18. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

  19. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter

    Leon's been here for years. Has no use for CofS, either. He just has a different pov. It happens.
  20. Leon-2

    Leon-2 Patron Meritorious

    Veda, yes, you are right in all of what you say - I have no argument about it.

    But what I have said time and again is that Hubbard is a sideshow in all of this. What matters is what each individual person did as an individual in Scientology. I did and got what I did and got. Not what Hubbard did or didn't do.

    I knowingly used the best of what I could find in Scio for the betterment of others. Most of the people I knew in the Orgs were the same. Now and then only did I come across a bad egg who used the subject for unethical purposes.

    Any person who got a bad deal out of Scio - and there are many of them - should look at the own causation in that bad experience and not sit and bellyache and whine about what others did nor about what a shithouse Hubbard was. Sure he was bad - so what? What each person got from the subject is truly the result of what they themselves did. No one else.