What's new
By:
Filters

Dean Wilbur Rhetoric Hubbard dianetics sicientology

Tanchi said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Tanchi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks, and comment away! Of course I don't mind.

I would love it if the media, mainstream, and not particularly Tony O, Mike Rinder blog, Marty's blog, ESMB and any other scientology blog pro or against, discussed what you have said. That has been discussed a lot in the those outlets and truely worthy and worth repeating. The Aftermath has discussed it and mainstream sort of, yay.

I wish what you said would go mainstream. I wish Fox News, ABC, NBC, etc, would ask those questions and discussions to be had.

I wish all the major media outlets would say something like scientology says you can go "clear"? What does that mean and is it true? Lets ask the David Miscavige, lets ask Hubbard. Why is it a religion? Who are the experts, who have experience it? Who can prove the claims of clear and then OT.

How come people that have done it all, or been involved now reject dianetics and scientology? Those are the questions the mainstream outlets need to ask and research.

OMG, it's so roundabout, trying to explain the scam of hubbard/dianetics/scientology which is what Hubbard/dianetics/scientology is, LOL

Round and round it goes, LOL

My days of posting on Alanzo's blog are done.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, maybe YOU should be in Aftermath S3? :cool:

I've been blog watching for almost 2 years now, and I even prowl around the old blogs for history. I think your decision not to post again on his blog is wise. He screens posts, controlling info, hm. And the boobs of Karen C? Seriously. :eek: possible to discuss the tactic without resorting to it himself. That was smeary creepiness. Ha! I had to work in one Ness word.
 
Tanchi said:
Hmm, maybe YOU should be in Aftermath S3? :cool:

I've been blog watching for almost 2 years now, and I even prowl around the old blogs for history. I think your decision not to post again on his blog is wise. He screens posts, controlling info, hm. And the boobs of Karen C? Seriously. :eek: possible to discuss the tactic without resorting to it himself. That was smeary creepiness. Ha! I had to work in one Ness word.
Click to expand...
not me in AM3, there are many before me that should be on that show, it could go on forever and should!

It appears Alanzo has deleted the post about Karen, he must have received a lot of comments about it. I too was appalled by it.

Alanzo has also closed his blog to comments.
 
Hmm his blog closed. Again? He did that like about 6 months ago, right about the time Rathbutt started his smear videos.

Hey did you notice the flurry of activity on Mike's blog? Also, the supporter and fans of FB pages are slightly more contentious in the last few days.
 
Tanchi said:
Hmm his blog closed. Again? He did that like about 6 months ago, right about the time Rathbutt started his smear videos.

Hey did you notice the flurry of activity on Mike's blog? Also, the supporter and fans of FB pages are slightly more contentious in the last few days.
Click to expand...
don't know, I'm not on facebook or tweeter.
 
Tanchi said:
Hmm, maybe YOU should be in Aftermath S3? :cool:

I've been blog watching for almost 2 years now, and I even prowl around the old blogs for history. I think your decision not to post again on his blog is wise. He screens posts, controlling info, hm. And the boobs of Karen C? Seriously. :eek: possible to discuss the tactic without resorting to it himself. That was smeary creepiness. Ha! I had to work in one Ness word.
Click to expand...
regarding the Ness word, I suspect Hubbard got -ness from Dean Wilbur. Here is Dean Wilburs book available as a pdf to view & read:

https://ia600801.us.archive.org/23/items/englishrhetoric00wilb/englishrhetoric00wilb.pdf

It takes a few to fully download, depending on the computer & Operating system one has.
 
Dianetics (clear) and Scientology (OT) are but abstract, Dean Wilbur mentions abstract:

ab·stract
adjective
abˈstrakt,ˈabˌstrakt/Submit
1.
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"
synonyms: theoretical, conceptual, notional, intellectual, metaphysical, ideal, philosophical, academic; rareideational
"abstract concepts"

no clears or OT's or abstract thinking, that's the bottom line.
 
Last edited:
here's my post on Tony Ortega, I feel I have to give equal time to Alanzo:

Gib • 13 minutes ago

Valeska makes note in the interview that when she was young, and other kids would call her brainwashed. Obviously that that no effect on her to leave, it was not till later at the breaking point.

Saying one is brainwashed doesn't do it to get one to leave.

I contend one was rhetoric-zed. Or being subject to Hubbard's rhetoric thru his teachings, after all as a young kid Valeska did not get that much auditing. Nor was she exposed to going "clear" or maybe she was?

People like me and Jason Beghe and Bob Duggan and a host of others, surely as public thought we could go "clear" and the "OT".

https://tonyortega.org/2017/12/18/w...e-of-new-york-for-the-holidays/#disqus_thread
 
Here's my post to Tony Ortega latest blog,

I copy them here as Notes on The Lecture, LOL

https://tonyortega.org/2018/01/02/s...ard-and-his-doting-mom-and-dad/#disqus_thread

"I'm still waiting to hear of two people who read the original 1950 Dianetics book and audited themselves to "clear", that is what Hubbard said would happen.
In the Heinlein/Campbell letters, as far as I can tell, Campbell was the first Dianetics auditor who audited friends and family. And yet, in the end, Campbell told Heinlein that Hubbard had it wrong, LOL Yah think? LOL
Amazing how the con keeps going. It's not black magic or magic, it's rhetoric. The art of persuasion,
Shermanspeak is right up there, LOL
Here's Hubbard rhetoric and how he explains how the Dianetics didn't "clear" a person, LOL
Conclusion: Hubbard lied from the very beginning and kept his con going thru rhetoric and the art of language.
I would say the major discovery of the engram, secondary and lock,are but fake news, LOL
It's about 2 minutes into it:



"
 
My postings here are my thoughts and research and involvement and having read lots of Hubbard materials. My above comment was from the book Hubbard wrote or was maybe even complied, it was called "Notes on the Lectures", it jogged my memory and then I did a google search for the book "Notes on the Lectures".

Some old timers may or may not have read this book long ago, I did. I'm certain new members probably have not, plus it's rhetoric.

After google search, lo and behold, Caroline did talk about it:

http://carolineletkeman.org/dsp/1951/01/01/book-notes-on-the-lectures-1/

Here's what's interesting,

in the book "Notes on the Lectures" Hubbard said this:


"The Third Dynamic
The group can be treated from several slants: one is the evolutionary, another is the mystic."

Oh, if we go back above on Le Bon's works of Crowds, he said there is crowd forming aspect called mystic logic.

Yep, that's clear and most definitely OT, mystic.

LOL

Ron the writer, mankinds greatest friend, I think not!

Don't worry, some my think I'm nuts for checking this shit, no worries, it's no effort really, just notes on my lectures, LOL
 
One of my postings on another blog, just my thoughts on the scam of Hubbard:

"
oh you think OT8 could be extended to lower levels?
Have you done OT8?
If yes, why do you think so?
If no, why do you think so?
Why do you think there is such thing as a “case”?
Do you think “clear” and then “OT” can be achieved, and why do you think this is possible?"

Oh, the rhetoric.

To answer the question "Why do you think there is such thing as a “case”?

The answer is because L R Hubbard said so, LOL

To answer the question "Do you think “clear” and then “OT” can be achieved, and why do you think this is possible?"

The answer of course is because L R Hubbard said so, LOL

When I got confirmation bias from ex members of scientology on what a scam scientology is, namely those deeply involved in the inner circle of hubbard and scientology and Dianetics, and that includes the recent outs as well as the long ago outs of Campbell and Heinlien why that convinced me and thru my own observations of those who had atained OT8, why confirmation bias is a good thing in this case.

Thank You!

No clears or OT's, just rhetoric or PR on how to achieve,
 
Last edited:
Gib,

I've followed this Thread since your OP and have made a few of comments here and there a couple of years back. My apologies that I don't comment often or click emogies.

You've done original, valuable, yeoman's work here and the time, research and thought you've put in has been beneficial and helpful to me.

Before you started this Thread I had read the Heinlein/Hubbard correspondence and Gustave Le Bon's works on Crowd Psychology.

Having personally known, observed and interacted with the CommodeDoor on the Apollo and afterwards--and having read all of the Red Volumes, Green Volumes, all the books (including 'Notes on the Lectures and the books that are no longer in publication), most of the FO's, LRHED's, COLRHED's, CBO's, etc., and listened to well over 1,000 tapes (some of which only a small percentage of Flag Crew were authorized access to)--I found the Heinlein/Hubbard correspondence and Le Bon's works to be illuminating, helpful and consistent with the El Ron I personally knew, served and :faceslap::duh: :eyeroll: once upon a time (in a Galaxy far, far away-LMAO!) revered.

I had also read El Ron's letter to Dean William Wilbur but--although I had College Classes in Greek History, Philosophy and Rhetoric and competed in Collegiate Forensics Tournaments--I'm most embarrassed to say that I never "connected all the dots" in this Thread. :redface:

With Gratitude,:yes:

Face:)
 
Last edited:
When referring to the writings and lectures of Hubbard I prefer to use the term "pseudo-science talk" rather than the more general term "rhetoric". Then I think this point is more easily understood.
 
afaceinthecrowd said:
Gib,

I've followed this Thread since your OP and have made a few of comments here and there a couple of years back. My apologies that I don't comment often or click emogies.

You've done original, valuable, yeoman's work here and the time, research and thought you've put in has been beneficial and helpful to me.

Before you started this Thread I had read the Heinlein/Hubbard correspondence and Gustave Le Bon's works on Crowd Psychology.

Having personally known, observed and interacted with the CommodeDoor on the Apollo and afterwards--and having read all of the Red Volumes, Green Volumes, all the books (including 'Notes on the Lectures and the books that are no longer in publication), most of the FO's, LRHED's, COLRHED's, CBO's, etc., and listened to well over 1,000 tapes (some of which only a small percentage of Flag Crew were authorized access to)--I found the Heinlein/Hubbard correspondence and Le Bon's works to be illuminating, helpful and consistent with the El Ron I personally knew, served and :faceslap::duh: :eyeroll: once upon a time (in a Galaxy far, far away-LMAO!) revered.

I had also read El Ron's letter to Dean William Wilbur but--although I had College Classes in Greek History, Philosophy and Rhetoric and competed in Collegiate Forensics Tournaments--I'm most embarrassed to say that I never "connected all the dots" in this Thread. :redface:

With Gratitude,:yes:

Face:)
Click to expand...
Thanks Face, I appreciate that.

I'm afraid I'm a english 101 dropout and never learned rhetoric or the fine art of language, ask me to write a term paper and I'll call in sick. When I read that Dean Wilbur letter, Hubbard mentioned Rhetoric several times, so I went what the hell is rhetoric, ok, persuasion, but how? It's been a fun journey researching and comparing since I too read a lot of Hubbard and listened to a lot of his lectures, not as much as you. You might say I finally got a college education in rhetoric only when I'm retired, laughing, but from a different viewpoint than yours or a reverse viewpoint. In that I mean I studied a lot of Hubbard with a lack of education, while you had a education. I think the saying is you can't teach an old dog new tricks, and young never listen, or something like that.

Of course I mean no disrespect, I have read your treads with awe and your saying several times read the heinlien/hubbard letters which I finally did, so I give gratitude as well my friend. My bucket wish is to have drinks with those that have posted here on ESMB and I'd do it in Aussie land since those folks are just down right cool.

Regarding my lack of education in English writing and rhetoric, why when I first got involved with dianetics and scientology, why one of the things that appealed, persuaded, to me emotionally, logically, and character wise, was indeed the student hat, method 1 and the superliterate course, I forget the name of it now. I thought I would get a college education, and even more, that I missed out on and I bought into hubbard's rhetoric of being homo novus and then OT. I'm laughing now as I write because I don't recall Hubbard using the word rhetoric in anything he wrote or spoke and yet he thanks Dean Wilbur for his rhetoric. LOL, that dirty rat Hubbard. Why didn't he teach us rhetoric?
 
programmer_guy said:
When referring to the writings and lectures of Hubbard I prefer to use the term "pseudo-science talk" rather than the more general term "rhetoric". Then I think this point is more easily understood.
Click to expand...
I think the two needs to be combined. I did a google search using the question "using rhetoric in pseudoscience"

I found this which I think is apt:

"May 30, 2001 - Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist). Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars and have invented some new ones of their own."

link:

https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

I think we must'in forget in Dean Wilbur letter Hubbard said you are right it's a rhetoric world, and later in a PL Hubbard said it's a PR World. The two are synonymous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top