Dean Wilbur Rhetoric Hubbard dianetics sicientology

[Gib]

I think this post is spot on, over at Mike Rinder blog:

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/twisted-policy/#comments

"[FONT=&amp]Thetaclear[/FONT][FONT=&amp]says[/FONT]June 18, 2017 at 12:51 am

[FONT=&amp]This apparent “conflict” as to whether or not LRH was evil or if he knew was he was doing, etc, etc, etc; can be easily solved and understood with one simple sentence: “The man was DELUSIONAL”; that’s ALL there is to it. Any other analysis is just the result of our own basic goodness trying to confront insanity. Humans – most of them at least – are noble creatures who have a VERY difficult time understanding the very simple truth that some people are just crazy. Sometimes it takes someone with a dark side, or who can at least tune-in to the “dark side” (like me, for example), to understand insanity. Here is all we need to understand about LRH :

http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html
Pretty simple, isn’t it?

Now, delusional people can be stupid (like DM), or they can be quite smart, like LRH was. What makes it a delusion is not their stupidity or intelligence, but their FIXATION on a concept or idea that they believe to be true with an absolute “certainty” with an unwillingness to inspect any other possibilities. If the person is stupid, then not too many people believe him. If the person is quite smart, then he can come up with very “convincing” ways to sell his ideas to others that are on a weakened state of mind or spirit due to losses, painful experiences, low self-esteem, etc, etc.

Most of us came to Scn not in search of “enlightenment”, but to handle something that had been troubling us for a long time. And we were met with someone who could possess a great charisma (at least PUBLICLY so, like on his writings and speeces ) when he wanted to, who was quite smart, had the talent for communication, and thus could sound quite convincing.

I am afraid that it is as simple as that. The most basic trait of any cult leader is DELUSION. So, there you have it, dear Terra Cognita. Anything that opposes that absolute belief is attacked and considered “evil” to others, and thus, it is completely justified (the “Greatest good”) to so attack it. LRH believed in what he was doing, make no mistake about it. All delusional ones believe so.

So it is not really a question of “Did he know?”, or “Was he being intentionally malicious?” when he wrote those policies. He had a delusion called “Scientology”. He had a delusion that he was meant to be the “savior of humanity”. The delusion that ONLY he had all the answers, and that he was smarter than anybody else. He had the delusion that Scientology was man’s ONLY route to salvation, and thus anyone attacking Scientology was attacking humanity itself, so the means (“Fair-gaming”, “Disconnection”, “Attack the critics”, etc) justifed the end (the “salvation of humanity”).

I don’t think that he was in for the money, though he DID wanted to make LOTS of it. But I think it was more directed at having the resources to “defend” himself and Scn against the “evil” government, and to make Scn expand. It wasn’t for personal profit at such, IMHO. At the end he realized that he had failed, and just gave up and died.

When we see it from that perspective – that he was just a sick man – I feel more pity for him than I feel any anger. Who were the ones that let themselves to be fooled, dear friends? We were. Humans fall prey of their OWN naiveness, and then they seek to misplace the blame, instead of taking responsibility for their OWN errors in judgment.

When I was FINALLY able to say to myself : “Listen you dickhead, you were a naive fool who abandoned your own power of choice over data, and who blindly put your whole faith in ONE man; don’t come now and blame a delusional man of your OWN foolishness”, I was THEN able to let go of Scn and any adverse effects that it had had in myself as if it were a piece of hot coal in my hand."

--------------

I might add he Hubbard got us to be delusional thru his power of speech, didn't work on everybody, but worked enough to create a empire.

And I might add, I think Hubbard is evil for doing such as he did. I don't agree with having pity for Hubbard nor do I agree with it was our fault. [/FONT]

 

[Gib]

cross posted from another tread, I think what Karen Schless Pressley wrote is spot on and beautiful writing, I wish I could write like her.

I have no proof Hubbard read the links I will post, but Hubbard sure as hell taped into the sublime, as well as other cults you might say. While what Karen writes applies to Celebrity Center, it also applies to all staff members & public, regardless of their auditing level, but most importantly reading or listening to what Hubbard said and what staff member persuaded. It can be powerful and worked on some of us, but also enough to create a empire. Of course those that didn't agree, were labeled "open minded", PTS, SP's, etc.

Mike Rinder in his weekly Thursdays funnies actually exposes the "sublime" created by the COS/Hubbard/DM
( http://www.mikerindersblog.org/thursday-funnies-132/ )

What Karen wrote:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-held-back&p=1145572&viewfull=1#post1145572

"Our journey had escalated within the bubble of celebrity spirituality at Scientology’s temple of the gods—the Celebrity Centre, or CC as we called it. CC’s purpose is to help artists achieve greatness, to command influence and change world conditions. We found CC to be a fortress of safety in the competitive Hollywood environment, where artists are protected, understood, gratified, and revered simply for showing up. In the early 1980s, fewer seats were taken by A-list celebrities in Scientology’s course rooms and counseling chairs than by artists like Peter and me. We were not household names, but we had achieved some success in our careers. As a designer, I had a few celebrity clients and was actively building my portfolio. Our greatest achievements in music publishing at that time were our hit song, “On the Wings of Love” composed by Peter Schless, with lyrics and recording by Jeffery Osborne; and “Peace in Our Life,” the theme song to “Rambo: First Blood Part II.”

It was easy for us, and I believe for some of our friends, to become drunk with self-importance from CC’s signature cocktail: A mix of ego-boosting words from Hubbard that elevate the artist, described as a special breed of human, the most valuable in earth’s social strata, the dreamer of dreams who alone can elevate the tone of a society above all others. Add the luxury Celebrity Centre oasis with an array of celebrity followers, garnished with the attitudes, values, beliefs and lofty promises embedded in its spiritual pursuit system, and we have intoxication from daily engagement in celebrity spirituality."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy)

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Contexts/sublime.html

[FONT=&amp]"The sublime, a notion in aesthetic and literary theory, is a striking grandeur of thought and emotion."

[/FONT]I know I was sublimed thinking I would be "clear" with perfect memory, and later on thinking I would be "total cause".

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15043/15043-h/15043-h.htm#PART_II

 

[Gib]

I think this a good rhetorical analysis of scientology by a wog, not completely true, but close enough of the bullshit of Hubbard:

https://leoniekijewski.weebly.com/rhetorical-analysis.html

 

[Gib]

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricdefinitions.htm

Scholarly Definitions of Rhetoric

Plato: [Rhetoric] is the "art of enchanting the soul." (The art of winning the soul by discourse.)

Aristotle: Rhetoric is "the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion."

Cicero: "Rhetoric is one great art comprised of five lesser arts: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronunciatio." Rhetoric is "speech designed to persuade."

Quintilian: "Rhetoric is the art of speaking well" or "...good man speaking well."

Francis Bacon: The duty and office of rhetoric is to apply reason to imagination for the better moving of the will.

George Campbell: "[Rhetoric] is that art or talent by which discourse is adapted to its end. The four ends of discourse are to enlighten the understanding, please the imagination, move the passion, and influence the will."

Henry Ward Beecher: “Not until human nature is other than what it is, will the function of the living voice-the greatest force on earth among men-cease...I advocate, therefore, in its full extent, and for every reason of humanity, of patriotism, and of religion, a more thorough culture of oratory and I define oratory to be the art of influencing conduct with the truth set home by all the resources of the living man.”

I. A. Richards: Rhetoric is the study of misunderstandings and their remedies.

Richard Weaver: Rhetoric is that "which creates an informed appetition for the good."

Erika Lindemann: "Rhetoric is a form of reasoning about probabilities, based on assumptions people share as members of a community."

Philip Johnson: "Rhetoric is the art of framing an argument so that it can be appreciated by an audience."

Andrea Lunsford: "Rhetoric is the art, practice, and study of human communication."

Kenneth Burke: "The most characteristic concern of rhetoric [is] the manipulation of men's beliefs for political ends....the basic function of rhetoric [is] the use of words by human agents to form attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents."

George Kennedy: Rhetoric in the most general sense may perhaps be identified with the energy inherent in communication: the emotional energy that impels the speaker to speak, the physical energy expanded in the utterance, the energy level coded in the message, and the energy experienced by the recipient in decoding the message.

Lloyd Bitzer: "...rhetoric is a mode of altering reality, not by the direct application of energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action."

Douglas Ehninger: "[Rhetoric is] that discipline which studies all of the ways in which men may influence each other's thinking and behavior through the strategic use of symbols."

Gerard A. Hauser: "Rhetoric is an instrumental use of language. One person engages another person in an exchange of symbols to accomplish some goal. It is not communication for communication's sake. Rhetoric is communication that attempts to coordinate social action. For this reason, rhetorical communication is explicitly pragmatic. Its goal is to influence human choices on specific matters that require immediate attention."

C. H. Knoblauch: "...rhetoric is the process of using language to organize experience and communicate it to others. It is also the study of how people use language to organize and communicate experience. The word denotes both distinctive human activity and the "science" concerned with understanding that activity."

John Locke: "[Rhetoric,] that powerful instrument of error and deceit."

Charles Bazerman: "The study of how people use language and other symbols to realize human goals and carry out human activities...ultimately a practical study offering people great control over their symbolic activity."

Michael Hyde and Craig Smith: "The primordial function of rhetoric is to 'make-known' meaning both to oneself and to others. Meaning is derived by a human being in and through the interpretive understanding of reality. Rhetoric is the process of making known that meaning. Is not rhetoric defined as pragmatic communication, more concerned with the contemporary audiences and specific questions than with universal audiences and general questions?"

Alfred North Whitehead: "The creation of the world -- said Plato -- is the victory of persuasion over force. The worth of men consists in their liability to persuasion."

Samuel M. Edelman: "Rhetoric can be defined as the art or method of reconciling...individual and systemic goals and constraints." (JCR Sept 2003)
Andrew King and Jim Kuypers: "The strategic use of communication, oral or written, to achieve specifiable goals." (The Art of Rhetorical Criticism, 2004)

Thomas B. Farrell: Rhetoric is an acquired competency, a manner of thinking that invents possibilities for persuasion, conviction, action, and judgments." (The Norms of Rhetorical Culture, 1993)

Richard E. Vatz: "This [is the] sine qua non of rhetoric: the art of linguistically or symbolically creating salience. After salience is created, the situation must be translated into meaning.“ (Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1973)

Michael E. Eidenmuller: "Rhetoric is a rational study and artful practice of human symbol use (especially if not exclusively with words) when and where those symbols target identifiable communities of interest to create, enhance, undermine, or otherwise influence human belief, attitude, emotion, judgment, behavior." (Voice of AmericaInterview, 2011, and modified for print)

 

[Gib]

cliff notes on what Hubbard that he implemented:

Hubbard wrote a letter to his Dean Wilbur in which he stated something like “you are right, it’s a rhetoric world”.
In a policy letter Hubbard wrote “It’s a PR World”. Hubbard also loved a book by Al Ries and Jack Trout called ” Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.”
There’s also another book called Battle for the mind, a physiology of conversion and brainwashing by Sargant.

 

[Gib]

Brian over at Mike Rinder blog made this post:

https://www.mikerindersblog.org/l-ron-hubbard-and-adolf-hitler/

A comparison of quotes by Hilter and Hubbard. I'm pretty sure Hubbard read Mein Kamph, he did mention it in one of his lectures, and speaking of lectures on how Hubbard repeated the ideas of Hilter,

How many recorded lectures, or speeches did Hubbard do? There are thousands of of them. And we paid money to listen to them and people still do.

This Business Insider artcle is spot on:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-hitler-was-such-a-successful-orator-2015-5

some excerpts from it and also explains Hubbards use of rhetoric:

""I know that men are won over less by the written than by the spoken word, that every great movement on this earth owes its growth to great orators and not to great writers." —Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf," 1925"

"In more than 5,000 persuasive speeches, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler bewitched his audiences and promised them that his empire would reign for a thousand years." (per Hubbard, his empire was "clear" the planet)

People, wogs, wonder, why did we get trapped in scientology.

 

[Gib]

an example of Hubbard's rhetoric and sublime writing to entrap into his hoax, a post I made to Alanzos blog:

yes Eileen, Hubbard thought of Scientology Auditors as great people or therapists as you state and even people joining staff and the Sea Org.

Through Hubbard’s rhetoric he accomplished two things. One was saying pysch’s or psychologists are evil people, and two, thru his rhetoric and sublime created people who thought they were masters of the mind applying scientology technology, and psych’s should be eliminated from society.

Here is the reference of Hubbard’s “What Do I Think OF Auditors”:

(this similar rhetoric and sublime statement by Hubbard is given to anybody to join staff or the Sea Org via Policy Letters or Lectures or speeches by Hubbard)

http://internationalfreezone.net/lrh-auditors.shtml

“WHAT DO I THINK OF AUDITORS?

“Every now and again somebody tries to get me to say what I think of auditors. They want me to become hypercritical, I guess, so as to match the asker’s tone. Well, I better make a public utterance after all this time.

“I think of auditors in a rather intense way. As I know more auditors than anybody else and have a better basis for judgment, on this subject I can be for once an authority.

“My opinion of auditors in general is fairly well known to several people.

“I think of an Auditor as a person with enough guts to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. This quality is rare and this quality is courageous in the extreme.

“It is my opinion and knowledge that auditors are amongst the upper tenth of the upper twentieth of intelligent human beings. Their will to do, their motives, their ability to grasp and to use are superior to that of any other profession. I think of an auditor as having INITIATIVE. He is able to grasp or make a mockup and put it into action.

“Auditors survive better than other people.

“If this world has any faintest chance of surviving it will be not because I write, but because auditors can and will think and do.

“I think our auditors came from beings lately arrived on Earth who, seeing where it was going, decided to band together to send it elsewhere.”

 

[Lone Star]

Good stuff Gib. But are there any Clears or OTs?

 

[Gib]

Good stuff Gib. But are there any Clears or OTs?

laughing,

I can't help it, repeater technique. I have to bite my tongue sometimes. Whenever it gets too involved in the very theory of the "tech", I always think the big picture which is no Clears or OT's, LOL

 

[Gib]

my latest post on Alanzo's blog:

https://alanzosblog.com/anti-scientologist-pete-griffiths-tried-assault-battery-scientologists/

"sorry, I just have to say this, again!

regardless of religious beliefs or ACM or NRM or ACS or anti or ex,

when it comes to dianetics or scientology,

are there any “clears” or “OT’s”?

That is the question anybody who has ever gotten involved in Dianetics and/or Scientology should ask themselves.

That is the the question the media should be asking.

That is the question any lawyer should be asking.

That is the question the IRS should asking.

That is the question any Government should be asking."

 

[Gib]

My latest post to miraldi on Alanzos blog. This tread is sort of my thoughts and history, laughing, and just in case Alanzo doesn't allow my comments to go thru, laughing.

"I’ll voice my opinion.

The lower bridge from intro auditing all the way up to grade IV (the lower bridge) doesn’t produce the stated EP’s. Although I would probably state something like one can get an improvement in such abilities to be had in each step.

But ultimately, sorry Atomical, I’m repeating myself, there are no clears or OT’s so such auditing actions are bullshit with that in mind. While I’m glad folks got wins or an improvement, I did myself, ultimately it’s a pipe dream the clear and OT, hence dianetics and scientology are bullshit, a false religion of hope, science, philosophy."

https://alanzosblog.com/5-toxic-corrosive-things-ex-scientologist/#comments

 

[Gib]

https://tonyortega.org/2017/11/27/d...fining-qualities-its-arrogance/#disqus_thread

"
Gib • 33 minutes ago
that statement Tony points out by the Scientology is rhetoric or an appeal to pathos, logos and ethos. That's all Hubbard ever did and he reached some like me and others.
Hubbard appealed to logic, emotions and character.
Scientology is defined as the science of knowing how to know. In the end, all we did as members was study Hubbard's rhetoric or Hubbardology.
All members whether public, staff or Sea Org follow "what would Ron do?" and thus look it up in his endless lectures, books, Flag Orders, OOD's, etc. for a solution."

I forgot to mention the most important being HCO PL and HCOB's, the ulimate in Hubbardology, deception, LOL

Every scientology member, as I once was, follows Hubbard Communication Policy Letter's and Hubbard Communication Bulletin's, these are not Scientology Communication Policy Letter's or Scientology Communication Bulletin's.

Here are examples of:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-ethos-logos-and-pathos.html

Hubbard did them all. LOL

Exposing scientology/hubbardology is to do the same.

ie, I was a member for 27 years and never saw a "clear" or "OT" as defined by Hubbard.

 

[Gib]

My post on Alanzos blog, if he allows it:

"I really don't get it!
Why people discuss or argue dianetics and scientology w/o the end goal to be had or lack of in the discussion?

per you alanzo:

"Getting out of a 'cult' is not something that you recover from, it is something you are strengthened by." -- Alanzo"

Well, I got out of the cult of dianetics and then later scientology, and I am strengthened by it. So I speak my mind and am strengthened by it.

What is my mind that I speak of?

Simply, I first thought that when I first got involved in Dianetics I could achieve a status written by Hubbard as "Clear" and if I followed his procedures I would be Clear , and then when I was further involved I thought I could achieve a state of religious awareness and philosophy of life known as "Operating Thetan".

Turns out Hubbard died and said he failed. And it turns out no clears have ever been produced by Hubbard's tech, nor has any OT's been produced.

In my eyes, that is the recovery, and that's all it is to it.

If one wishs to recover from dianetics and scientology, simply realize there are no clears or OT's.

I wish it were true that we could go clear and OT. I no longer have faith in scientology, LOL "

 

[Gib]

"Here you go Alanzo, my answers:

Why did I make so many decisions that did not work out in scientology?

1. I was overcome by the POWER of rhetoric.
I'd say yes, but I'd say I was duped by Hubbard's rhetoric.

2. I liked being a scientologist and going to course and studying new things.
For me no not really, I didn't like being a scientologist and specifically a staff member. I didn't like going to course, it was a pain in the ass following the "rules". I did enjoy in the very beginning learning some new things by having read POW, A New Slant on Life, etc prior to being on staff.

3. I was a brainwashed zombie who did whatever I was told.
When being a staff member, that's pretty much true provided it was per Policy or L Ron Hubbard, so I quess I was a zombie to him. As a public somewhat true but difficult to say "NO".

Here's a theory, why is it some scientologists never got that much auditing but became true believers? It's a theory about rhetoric and it's power and explains it somewhat, also explains other cults you might say. And you couple in Le Bon's works on "The Crowd" (which Hubbard read), it kind of gives a big picture, the outer layer of the onion is the analogy used by others.

Interesting that Le Bon is French and studied the French Revolution and France does not like scientology/Hubbard as well as many European Countries.
Here's something, off topic, and I don't know for sure, but the Star Trek TV series. Here we have Captain Kirk's character as Ethos, or character, Bones is pathos or emotions, and Spock is logos, or logic.

Captain America is ethos, so is Superman, etc. Hubbard claimed hisself to be man's best friend, a nuclear physicists, a doctor, etc, that is his use of trying to create ethos and that is why he lied because he thought nobody would listen to him if he told the truth about his past credentials or ethos, so he made it up!

The Power of rhetoric, if one examines any blockbuster movie, and if one knows the ethos, pathos and logos, one can see those in the movies, or books, etc. It's quite fun, that's the secret!

Heinlein called out John Campbell for using rhetoric on him to convince him about Dianetics while Hubbard & Campbell were preparing to release "the book", this being 1949 in the Heinlein/Campbell letters available on the Heinlein Archive site.

I cross reference my post here to my tread on ESMB to preserve my thoughts. Not that it matters, it's my research notes I guess."

 

[Gib]

My thoughts, before I forget them.

Hubbard said, as a writer of stories, to write a good story, a story is everybody is after the "weenie", the thing everybody is after.

Hubbard creates the story Dianetics, going "clear", that is the thing you should be going after. And he gives arguments why you should in his book dianetics.

At the same time, Hubbard creates the story that the Russians, the Communists, were after his secret, the weenie of Homo Novus. The Brainwashing Manual.

And then Hubbard, recreates the story with scientology and OT. And then we have a Bridge to Total Freedom, with all it's steps to have the "weenie". And so it goes, step by step, and we have to listen to all these stories and do the steps, by Hubbard, the Writer, and pay money at each step. And some join this movement, of Ron's story telling.

 

[Gib]

latest post on Alanzo:

Hubbards quack science with examples, LOL

"
I can't believe you have fall'in for this OSA you tube video. Or are you being a wise crack?

You make this post the same time Marty posted on his blog a new video.

Here's how to increase your internet speed for free:

And another, How to get free cable TV:

I also want you to buy the latest Mark 8 E-Meter, it's sensitivity is much greater than the Mark V which Hubbard used to develop clear and OT, LOL

 

[Gib]

sorry, I just can't help it, my latest post on who you know who, if he will allow me to post it?:

"Alanzo, first of all, I am not betrayed by your lack of loyalty to the anti scientology Cause.

And I too remain loyal to the truth, which is the scientology so called religion is supposed to produce a "clear" and then the "OT", none of which happened or will ever happen with scientology religion. I am loyal to that Cause, which is stating no clears or OT's.

Isn't that the truth? Or do you believe otherwise?"

 

[Gib]

What will Alanzo do with my post?

1. Allow it to go through and he will response.

2. Not allow it to go through.

If number 1, what will he say? Will he answer the question of no clears and OT's as the truth? It's either yes or no. Or will he double speak on Tony O and tribal thinking or moving on?

If number 2, silence is golden, or silence is admission of the truth.

 

[Gib]

my post to Alanzo:

I think the main theme that should be promoted by EX's and Anti's is that there are no "clear"s and "OT's", I think that should be discussed in the media as opposed to getting all into people's lives and the religious aspect of scientology. I think it should be exposed not that scientology is a religion under the Constitution but that it says it is a religion and the purpose of this religion is to produce a Clear and then OT. So I think the media should discuss this idea of Clear and then OT. Afterall, isn't the purpose of dianetics and sceintology is to go Clear and then OT?

I think all discussion about dianetics and scientology should examine Hubbard's ideas about "clear" and then "OT".

And I think current members of the Dianetics or scientology should be allowed to counteract this claim that, I make, there are no clears or OT's.
Leah Remini and the Aftermath and A&E have said several times the COS will not respond or discuss. LOL

What do you think? Isn't what we should be discussing here on your blog Alanzo or in the media? As far as scientology being a religion? Or can it produce a "clear" and then "OT"?
Shouldn't we be discussing that in the wider range of things?

 

[Tanchi]

If you don't mind me commenting...? I agree that there should be more relevant discussions re: religious claims, claims of being a religion, saving mankind blablablech.. And that there aren't clears. Imo, all other discussion muddies the waters, and distracts from important discussions. The distractors may not realise it, but they trivialize themselves in the distracting. Sad.