Dianetics Revisited.

Gib

Crusader
"There are rules for argument that lead to the building of a theory; they can be condensed to three key, critical points, the sense of which is clear. The problem in application is the subtlety with which violations of those rules can creep in. The critical rules are:

1. Argument by
appeal to authority is of no value whatever.

2. The observation, not the observer's report, are the important data.

3.
No theory, however well-established or long-held, can stand in the face of one relevant, contradictory fact."




3 important things to remember in reading the heinlein letters and becoming involved in dianetics and scientology.

Fast forward from the above statement from 1950 to 1965 KSW, and we have KSW as one BIG appeal to authority, or source or LRH. :melodramatic:
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
correct. The original dianetics had 3 appendix's. One written by Campbell, one by Dr. Winter, and another I forget now. I actually found a scanned copy and posted it here on ESMB, but I can't find it now. The purpose of the 3 appendix's is to add credibility to dianetics from other sources than Hubbard. In rhetoric, this is called ethos. In later scientology under the PR & Marketing series, this is called "positioning". Shoot, for example, all the fad vitamin new formula's on TV use the same ploy, they have an actor or Doctor explaining the wonders to be had, make it sound all so logical.

Here's the appendix by Campbell as I copy it from the tread Caroline started over at OCMB, which kind of dovetails into this tread. Campbell is implying that dianetics is logos, or logic or science, and thus dianetics is a science of the mind..

(what the DM COS doesn't understand is the appendixs purpose, he is in a catch 22 since Winters, Campbell and other big names at the time all left and said it was BS, so they are declared, and DM can not let this be known to the flock, Hubbard realized the same thing, hence PTS/SP/Fair Game, etc.. Hubbard could not let these people talk and had to come up with something sounding logical.

Also of note, Tony O posted today about "The Basics" in which DM restored all the books and lectures to true source. Well, DM did not include the Appendixs from the original dianetics, and we know why now)

http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=39380

John W. Campbell wrote:Appendix II
The Scientific Method


The Scientific Method is based solidly on definite rules, but is none the less, like the American Way of Life, something that must be lived to be fully understood. The United States has a Constitution, but the American Way of Life is far more than that; so the Scientific Method is, while based on certain readily cited rules, far more than those rules.

For one thing, the Scientific Method implies zestfully, gleefully attacking, with every available weapon of logic, every possible logical loophole in—your own structure of logic and theory. It requires that a man tear into his carefully built theory with the vim, vigor and spite of his worst enemy. It implies that a scientist's best friend will review his work starting with the premise that it's all wrong, and do his best to prove it's wrong.

For the intellectual triumph, the warm glow of victory in science, comes not from producing a new theory—but from producing a new theory that stands up, and is useful, even when the most knowing make deliberate attempts to find a flaw.

The Scientific Method is behind the testing of Navy armor plate. The production of a perfect piece of 16-inch armor plate is routine and gives no special satisfaction. But the production of a slab of 16-inch armor plate with a 16-inch armor-piercing projectile with its nose buried in that armor, a plate bulged, distorted, but unpierced and unbroken—that is triumph and satisfaction. We don't test the 16-inch plate ,with machine-gun fire, or with 6-inch projectiles. Test it with the heaviest, deadliest weapons you've got; then, and only then, do you have something to be proud of.

So with a theory.

There are rules for argument that lead to the building of a theory; they can be condensed to three key, critical points, the sense of which is clear. The problem in application is the subtlety with which violations of those rules can creep in. The critical rules are:

1. Argument by appeal to authority is of no value whatever.

2. The observation, not the observer's report, are the important data.

3. No theory, however well-established or long-held, can stand in the face of one relevant, contradictory fact.

The first of those rules is the one that is most often violated, usually quite unintentionally and without realizing it. Everybody knows that appeal to authority is no sound way to argue a case, even if the authority happens to be right. Yet so subtle can appeal to authority be that it is exceedingly easy to miss noticing its insertion; the preceding sentence, for instance, deliberately exemplifies one type of very easily missed "appeal to authority," actually the most common of all such appeals. "Everybody knows," "of course," "naturally" and similar phrases are the slipperiest customers in that respect. "Everybody knew" the world was flat for a long, long time, and "of course" the Sun went around the Earth, as any fool could plainly see. And common clay and the precious ruby have nothing in common—nothing, that is, except the same elements in somewhat different proportions.

But even the less subtle appeal-to-authority that is stamped with the Great Name is a source of immense amounts of trouble. It was not Aristotle's fault that, for nearly a thousand years, science was stopped still by consistent appeal to Aristotle; he didn't claim he knew all the answers—the scholastic arguers did. Even today, in an age which has some understanding of the scientific method, Great Name arguments show up—except, of course, that the Great Name himself has become a Great Name by most carefully refraining from using that method! The sentence, "Einstein says that nothing is faster than the speed of light; it is theoretically impossible," contains two arguments by appeal to authority, and sounds so learnedly scientific that anyone might be taken in by it. Saying a thing is "theoretically impossible" is, actually, appeal to the authority of present theories. But a theory is not a fact—it's an intelligent set of opinions, and no more, as any scientist realizes. So far as the Great Name argument goes, those are easy to spot, and their value comes into focus very quickly if you simply substitute the arbitrary name "Joe Doakes" for the Great Name. The corrected, scientific-method sentence above —so far as argumentative value goes—would read, "Joe Doakes says nothing is faster than the speed of light; in his informed opinion it appears impossible."

Scientifically, there is no difference whatever between the two statements, so far as evidential value goes. The evidence-statement on the subject would read, "Einstein suggested, and physical experiment appears to prove, that nothing is faster than the speed of light; current physical theory, which seems to fit most of the observed data, indicates it is impossible."

That is, admittedly, a much less solidly satisfying sort of statement. It sounds weak, uncertain of itself or anything else. And it is the sort of statement—the sort of thinking—that went from the first small scientific evidence of the atomic theory in 1800 to atomic fission in less than a century and a half. It is the scientist—who operates on the principle that he doesn't already know all the answers—who is out looking for new and better answers. A man who thinks in terms of "This is the answer. I know this is true. That is impossible, because it disagrees with what I know," does not have to do research. He already knows the answers. He is in no danger of making new and disturbing discoveries that might upset his certainty of mind. The scientist, on the other hand, operates with the certain knowledge that he is uncertain; he is never disappointed, for new data is constantly being found—he's looking for it—that shows that he was, indeed, a bit mistaken.

The non-scientist, who likes to work with Truths and Certainties and think in Absolutes, the method of uncertainties and probabilities seems stifling, an impossible method of operation. It is so impossible that it produces, in a single century, electric light and power, radio, television, atomics, the entire science of organic chemistry ranging from dyes to synthetic drugs, automobiles, airplanes—practically an entirely new civilization.

By realizing that no theory is final, complete, or perfect, a new concept is admitted: a theory is good so long as it is useful. It is, naturally, a very pleasant thing if the theory also happens to be true, but that (shocking though the thought may be to the layman) is not at all necessary. The really important question is not, "Is it true?" but "Does it work?" If it works, we can use it and pretend it's true; if it is true, that's an added bonus.

This reasoning, which seems to some specious and downright dishonest, is the only method so far found that produces results. Look about you: every product that has been touched by machines in its production is a demonstration of the observed fact that, by provisionally assuming a theory is true, concrete, useful results can be obtained. And that by maintaining a willingness to discard or modify that theory at the first sign of failure, progress is made.

For if a theory is good only when it works, then the first time it fails to work—the first fact it encounters which does not fit—the theory must be discarded, and a new and better one found. Only someone who insists that a theory is Truth would hesitate to discard a theory that didn't work. And a scientist never insists that a theory is Truth; only that it is useful.

When an apparent contradiction appears, however, the most careful checking must be instituted. First: check the interpretation of the theory. The basic concepts of the theory might be right, and the application of those concepts wrong. The reinterpretation of the theory may explain the new fact. Second, and actually simultaneously, remember that the observation, not the observer's report, is the datum, and repeat the observations. The observer may have been wrong. Men can't see beyond the violet or below the red; quinine makes a man's ears ring, so he hears sounds that aren't there, and no man can hear sounds above 20,000 cycles when they are there. Under ultraviolet light, the human eyeball glows slightly, so that one sees a mist of light that isn't there, but since we can't see ultraviolet light itself, an observer will not see the source of ultraviolet that is there. Always check the observations; the observer may be wrong. But actual observations, facts, are never wrong.

One source of a lot of misunderstanding is the difference between theoretical impossibility and factual impossibility. That is best illustrated, perhaps, by the old story of the man who telephoned his lawyer, explained a legal contretemps, and was told, "Don't worry about it; they can't put you in jail for that!" The client replied, "I'm calling from the jail."

A slight change on that might demonstrate reverse aspect. Make the troubled caller a circus owner; this time we'll say the lawyer replies, "That's serious. I'm afraid they can put your elephant in jail for that."
In each case, theory is in conflict with physical fact; in each case, as it invariably must by the very nature of things, theory, not fact, breaks down.

But all of this is, in essence, a discussion of the scientific method of argument, of thought. There is, at the root of it all, the scientific technique, the final test and proving ground of all scientific thinking. Ideally, the scientific method follows seven steps:

1. Make a series of careful Observations.

A. These observations must be repeated, and are acceptable as observations only if many people following the prescribed techniques can duplicate the results.

B. Variations of the prescribed techniques must be tried to eliminate the possibility that the observed results might be due to a factor other than that intended. As a gross example, suppose it is reported that a magnet will attract objects. Demonstrations show it does attract and lift iron balls; that is Step A above. Now variations of the experiment show that the magnet attracts iron but not copper, silver, etc. The observed effect—attraction—is real. Variation of the original experiment is needed to show the actual limits of the effect.

2. Combining all relevant data, from all relevant experiments, formulate a hypothesis.

A. The hypothesis must explain all observed data.

B. It must not demand as a consequence of its logical development, the existence of phenomena that do not, in fact, exist.

C. But it should indicate the existence of real, hitherto unobserved facts.

3. Using the hypothesis, predict new facts.

A. A logical structure broad enough to explain all observed, relevant phenomena will necessarily imply further phenomena that have not yet been observed. Use this mechanism to predict the existence of something which, under previous theories, would not exist.

4. Perform an experiment and make observations on these predictions.

5. As a result of the experiment, discard the hypothesis, or advance it now to the status of "Theory."

6. Make further predictions, further experiments, and collect more observational evidence until a contradictory relevant fact is found.

7. Discard the old theory, take the new total of observational data, and form a new hypothesis.

8. See Step Three.

This process seems, at first glance, a completely circular, going-nowhere system. It isn't; the 50-passenger airliner flying by just overhead testifies to that. Notice that each time round that cycle the new hypothesis shows how to get new data, new experimental evidence, new information. The process is not circular; it's an expanding spiral, and each sweep around it covers a broader and broader field of understanding.

But the most important step of all—the one that took men longest to make once the idea of organized knowledge was started—is Step Seven. "Discard the old theory . . . and start all over again." It's hard for men—who are basically conventional, status-quo animals! ... to give up the comfortable familiarity, the nice, easy routine, of that Old Time Theory, to embark on a completely new system that calls for a total revision of all their thoughts. It's so easy and comfortable to believe that the old theory is Truth, and doesn't and won't ever need changing, even if it doesn't work all the time. Like an old pair of shoes, it is comfortable, and familiar, even if the holes are apparent.

The true scientist is in a somewhat different position. He starts off with any theory and finds it useful only so long as it works. If it no longer works, it should be discarded, and a new, better one fashioned.

And that is an old, comfortable familiar theory that you can settle down into, and stick with for life. Expect change; you can be sure you won't be disappointed.

John W. Campbell, Jr.
Nuclear Physicist,
Author of The Atomic Story

NOTE: Formulation of this Scientific Methodology was contributed in part by the engineers of "Ma Bell"—the Bell Telephone research laboratories—to whom thanks are extended.

Hubbard, L. R. (1950). Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, a handbook of dianetic procedure (25th printing June 1981 ed., pp. 505-11). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.






There's another thing that DM doesn't get and that's the distinction of Dianetics and Scientology in the eyes of the consumer. Hu666ard understood this distinction and kept them separate to confuse the unwary consumer.

Hu666ard was a master markerter and his books act like free reports in direct response marketing. They prep and sell the consumer on the service before they even enter the establishment. This is why the cognitive dissonance happens - the consumer is expecting and wanting the 180 degree opposite to what is the existing scene.

Look up Dan Kennedy. He's a professional information markerter. Hu666ard was a natural pioneer at this.

DM doesn't know or understand the distinction and glumps these two things together and even pronounces it as "Dianeticscientology" and everywhere there's Dianetics he's connecting and pushing Scientology.

People don't want a church. They don't want Scientology. Thus, the stats plunmmet and it's too late to pull out of the tailspin...the public are wise to the scam and now Dianetics has the Scientology anathema around it's neck and that's a noose.

He should've left it as a front group like it was - separate premises and all.

DM is the best thing that has happened to Scientology. Can you imagine what might've happened if a competent individual was at the helm?
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Trivia alert!!

My apologies to those who believe that this doesn't belong in this thread; they're probably right, but it's not worth starting a new one. I was just reading one of wikipedias' potted biographies when I came across this:

After abandoning Kriya yoga, Salinger tried Dianetics (the forerunner of Scientology), even meeting its founder L. Ron Hubbard, but according to Claire he was quickly disenchanted with it. This was followed by an adherence to a number of spiritual, medical, and nutritional belief systems including an interest in Christian Science, Edgar Cayce, homeopathy,acupuncture, and macrobiotics.

I never knew J. D. Salinger met Hubbard. Live and learn eh.
 

Gib

Crusader
There's another thing that DM doesn't get and that's the distinction of Dianetics and Scientology in the eyes of the consumer. Hu666ard understood this distinction and kept them separate to confuse the unwary consumer.

Hu666ard was a master markerter and his books act like free reports in direct response marketing. They prep and sell the consumer on the service before they even enter the establishment. This is why the cognitive dissonance happens - the consumer is expecting and wanting the 180 degree opposite to what is the existing scene.

Look up Dan Kennedy. He's a professional information markerter. Hu666ard was a natural pioneer at this.

DM doesn't know or understand the distinction and glumps these two things together and even pronounces it as "Dianeticscientology" and everywhere there's Dianetics he's connecting and pushing Scientology.

People don't want a church. They don't want Scientology. Thus, the stats plunmmet and it's too late to pull out of the tailspin...the public are wise to the scam and now Dianetics has the Scientology anathema around it's neck and that's a noose.

He should've left it as a front group like it was - separate premises and all.

DM is the best thing that has happened to Scientology. Can you imagine what might've happened if a competent individual was at the helm?

:thumbsup:

There were a couple of folks who did get it, one Jefferson Hawkins & Steve Hall. And both created the big dianetics campaign in the mid 1980's which brought in tons of peeps, and namely yours truely. That time frame did reboot dianetics and scientology.

Thank gawd they both escaped, they did not blow because of O/W's, but escaped because DM was physically assaulting them. Not too say they are now still persuaded by dianetics, far from it.
 
Last edited:

guanoloco

As-Wased
:thumbsup:

There were a couple of folks who did get it, one Jefferson Hawkins & Steve Hall. And both created the big dianetics campaign in the mid 1980's which brought in tons of peeps, and namely yours truely. That time frame did reboot dianetics and scientology.

Thank gawd they both escaped, they did not blow because of O/W's, but escaped because DM was physically assaulting them. Not too say they are now still persuaded by dianetics, far from it.

Wait...Steve Hall was still an indie scieno last I heard. Jefferson Hawkins is blown for good or something like that...right?
 

Gib

Crusader
Yeah, Gib, Big Being Steve Hall is a Ron Crusader by the looks of it.

Weren't those Jefferson Hawkins Dianetics commercials in the 80s good?

I Don't know if Steve still is a Ron Crusader. If he isn't, I reckon he keeps the site up for the "in-between lives" of folks just leaving the COS and starting to research the truth. If so, that's ok in my book.

Yah, those commercials. While I remember them as being impressive, I never bought a book from them. What happened in my case was that I was reading a bunch of self help books at the time, I went over to a buddy's house to pick him up to go bar hopping, chicks galore at those bars we went to, yay! LOL

Anyways, he had bought the dianetics book, it was on the top of his TV, I asked if I could borrow it. Unfortunately he said yes. :melodramatic:

What's funny, after all those years, Jefferson Hawkins Counterfeit Dreams book helped me majorly to get out of scientology. Yay!

PS. Hawkins and others did not have this data of the early life of L Ron, with Campbell & Heinlein, which is why I find it fascinating, as Hats said, to read other peoples mail, LOL
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
When I think of Campbell's comparing Ron's Dianetic tech as the best of assimilated and edited witchcraft, I get creeped out. I have to say though, much of what came up in my auditing on space opera was chuck full of bizarre sorceries. So maybe the sci geezers who wrote were tuned into the the same high weird vibe.

H. P. Lovecraft 1890-1937

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft

Themes


Forbidden knowledge

Forbidden, dark, esoterically veiled knowledge is a central theme in many of Lovecraft's works.[38] Many of his characters are driven by curiosity or scientific endeavor, and in many of his stories the knowledge they uncover proves Promethean in nature, either filling the seeker with regret for what they have learned, destroying them psychically, or completely destroying the person who holds the knowledge.[38][39][40][41][42][43]

Some critics argue that this theme is a reflection of Lovecraft's contempt of the world around him, causing him to search inwardly for knowledge and inspiration.[44]

Non-human influences on humanity

The beings of Lovecraft's mythos often have human servants; Cthulhu, for instance, is worshiped under various names by cults amongst both the Greenland Inuit and voodoo circles of Louisiana, and in many other parts of the world.

These worshippers served a useful narrative purpose for Lovecraft. Many beings of the Mythos were too powerful to be defeated by human opponents, and so horrific that direct knowledge of them meant insanity for the victim. When dealing with such beings, Lovecraft needed a way to provide exposition and build tension without bringing the story to a premature end. Human followers gave him a way to reveal information about their "gods" in a diluted form, and also made it possible for his protagonists to win paltry victories. Lovecraft, like his contemporaries, envisioned "savages" as closer to supernatural knowledge unknown to civilized man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos_deities

Didn't one of the old guys interviewed about Ron's inspiration for Excalibur say LRH had gotten all hopped up about some character he had just read about in someone else's sci-fi work.


Was it a Chthulhu myth or Dweller In The Darkness?
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/dwelldar.htm



1944 Weird Tales mag cover below:
http://tellersofweirdtales.blogspot.com/2014/11/aliens-on-cover-of-weird-tales.html?m=1

Did Ron come up against something running Dianetics that was similar to the later Zenu!!
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/lovecraft-and-scientology.html

I haven't finished reading all the letters yet. Campbell was a true believer.
 
Last edited:

Anonycat

Crusader
Here's some interesting commentary from Mechanisms and Aspects of Therapy in Dianetics.
This aspect of pain is quite interesting in that many patients have, at one time or another in their lives, pretended to the family or the world that they had a pain. The patient thought, when he asserted this "make-believe" pain, that he was lying. In therapy, the auditor can use these "imaginings", for they lead straight to sympathy engrams and actual injury. Further, these "imaginary" pains are generally displayed to the person or psuedo-person whowas the sympathy ally present in the engramic moment. Thus, if a small boy always pretended to his grandmother, and thought he was pretending, that he had a bad hip, it will be discovered eventually that sometime in his early life he hurt that same hip and received sympathy during the engramic moment which is now eclipsed from the analyzer. Patients often feel guilty over these pretenses. Sometimes soldiers in the recent war have come home pretending they had been wounded and, when in therapy, are afraid the auditor will find out or give them away to their people. This soldier might not have been wounded in the war, but an engram will be found which contains sympathy for the injury of which he complains. He is asking for sympathy with a colorful story and believes he is telling a lie.​

Of course it is well documented that Ron claimed war injuries and healing himself from the same with Dianetics when he never saw combat or was never wounded.

But that hip...where have I heard that before? Hmmmm...I know! HIP! HIP! Naaaaawwww...that wasn't it...let's see...

Ron's Affirmations:
Your hip is a pose. You have a sound hip. It never hurts. Your
shoulder never hurts.​

That quote sounds like a confession that he'd feign sickness or whatever, for sympathy. To get attention. Be be able to stay home from school. Or later, to claim war injuries as a war hero to get laid. Later he just folded that in to his batshit insane teachings called scientology.
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
I guess Campbell changed the name of Astounding to analog. That long leggy blob made the cover again.

datauri-file%2B%25288%2529.png



http://www.castaliahouse.com/analog-magazine-in-the-sixties/
:melodramatic:

https://www.analogsf.com/information/what_is_asf.shtml

He chose "Analog" in part because he thought of each story as an "analog simulation" of a possible future, and in part because of the close analog he saw between the imagined science in the stories he was publishing and the real science being done in laboratories around the world

Dianetic auditors trained, one month, need no license

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/chur...-ron-hubbard-part-05-40-638.jpg?cb=1428737913

June 18, 1951. State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety says 'no can do this fellas'...

https://mikemcclaughry.files.wordpr...eau-inc-new-york-from-state-of-new-jersey.png

L._Ron_Hubbard_conducting_Dianetics_seminar_in_Los_Angeles_in_1950.jpg

Los Angeles 1950

http://s3.amazonaws.com/appendixjou...ts/000/000/379/large/whitaker1.jpg?1368565164

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dianetics_seminar_in_Los_Angeles_1950
 
Last edited:

guanoloco

As-Wased
That quote sounds like a confession that he'd feign sickness or whatever, for sympathy. To get attention. Be be able to stay home from school. Or later, to claim war injuries as a war hero to get laid. Later he just folded that in to his batshit insane teachings called scientology.

Ron the faking cheat in everything he did.
 

Little David

Gold Meritorious Patron
I just splurged and spent the $2 to get the Heinlein and Campbell letters. I haven't even finished the first letter but here's something from the letter that women from the state of Georgia will like. Campbell wrote to Heinlein that LRH said: "that the famous Georgia Peaches fully live up to their reputation for good looks, but that both kinds have about the same vegetable level of mentality."
 

Little David

Gold Meritorious Patron
Campbell writes another letter dated November 29, 1949, it's 4 pages long (once again Heinlein had not responded to the last letter):

"Ron has finally turned in the first article on dianetics; it will appear in the May issue, which is out in April---the first one that isn't already locked up in type and so on. It's about 16,000 words, and will run as one piece. It's titled "Dianetics: the evolution of a science", and is just about that. There'll be about 1000 words of introduction to proceed it.

...............

It's surprising to me that I can't find any prior quoting of this^^ or other parts of the letters on the internet or in books on Scientology. I haven't checked all of the books about Scientology so I can't say no one has used them in their book.

I'm halfway through the letters. They are interesting and important primary accounts of the creation of Dianetics. Thank you Gib for making me and others aware of them.

Campbell quotes, promotes, elaborates and collaborates in LRH's wild plans and claims, as if they were proven scientific facts. Despite his polite interest in Dianetics, Heinlein seems to be conscientious and to have more respect and understanding of the scientific method.
 

Gib

Crusader
I guess Campbell changed the name of Astounding to analog. That long leggy blob made the cover again.

datauri-file%2B%25288%2529.png



http://www.castaliahouse.com/analog-magazine-in-the-sixties/
:melodramatic:



Dianetic auditors trained, one month, need no license

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/chur...-ron-hubbard-part-05-40-638.jpg?cb=1428737913

June 18, 1951. State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety says 'no can do this fellas'...

https://mikemcclaughry.files.wordpr...eau-inc-new-york-from-state-of-new-jersey.png

view


http://s3.amazonaws.com/appendixjou...ts/000/000/379/large/whitaker1.jpg?1368565164

https://mikemcclaughry.files.wordpr...eau-inc-new-york-from-state-of-new-jersey.png

Luv the last line of that document, dated June 18, 1951:

"I understand they left Elizabeth owing numerous printing bills."

letter-to-dianna-bennett-national-better-business-bureau-inc-new-york-from-state-of-new-jersey.png
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
From Campbell's letter dated March 6th, 1951.

Some super woo here. Campbell claims Commies infiltrated the courserooms. Sara Hubbard got the worst of it. being drugged and attacked 3 times. Is he supposing the bad guys are using black dianetics?. He states there were secret implant commands installed into Sara Hubbard which included an aversion to receiving any more dianetics. Maybe the aversion was her own?

Dear Bob,

snipped:

Dianetics moves ahead, with troubles. Privately close-held information, dianetics appears to have have been adopted by a communist group that was not playing for marbles. Dianetics is a technique for straightening twisted minds-----and it shows precisely how minds get twisted. There is definite evidence that a group of six people, not proven to be communists, but suspected, were at work in California seeking to disrupt the business and to disqualify Ron. A technique of mind control that works would be very precious---provided the counter-weapon, straight therapeutic dianetics, were not accepted and used.

Sara Hubbard was the point of attack. Three times she was drugged , and beaten. It's very difficult to get information because the commands planted included, of course, a wild aversion to dianetic processing.

Simultaneously, the six undercover boys were doing their quite effective damndest to discredit the Foundation in LA. They did. They've been kicked out now
.
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
The evil purpose and the misunderstood word and the false datum brought up by Campbell in letter of March 6th, 1951. This proceeded in the same letter to Robert Heinlein as in above post:
continued__

Miles Hollister, the priciple agent, came East to work on the Foundation here---and got practically nowhere. Their tactics necessarily follow the line of discrediting The Master; they're authoritarian minded. When they got here, they found the Elizabeth Foundation in foul shape--- no sense of discipline, no respect for leadership, nothing. Everybody was working independently and disagreeing with everybody else. Hubbard wasn't considered infallible, and neither was anybody else. It was a perfectly terrible democratic hodge-podge of individuals cooperating, instead of following an understandable line of command.
snipped
I'd been working hard on the gang blowing into sight the fact that nobody knows his own mind so well as that individual himself. That processing, not auditing, teaches a man the workings of the human mind. That there is no evil in the world---only bad data, and misunderstanding, and the way to get rid of that is to get it into sight.

....and Hubbard wasn't considered infallible.
 

Gib

Crusader
I Don't know if Steve still is a Ron Crusader. If he isn't, I reckon he keeps the site up for the "in-between lives" of folks just leaving the COS and starting to research the truth. If so, that's ok in my book.

Yah, those commercials. While I remember them as being impressive, I never bought a book from them. What happened in my case was that I was reading a bunch of self help books at the time, I went over to a buddy's house to pick him up to go bar hopping, chicks galore at those bars we went to, yay! LOL

Anyways, he had bought the dianetics book, it was on the top of his TV, I asked if I could borrow it. Unfortunately he said yes. :melodramatic:

What's funny, after all those years, Jefferson Hawkins Counterfeit Dreams book helped me majorly to get out of scientology. Yay!

PS. Hawkins and others did not have this data of the early life of L Ron, with Campbell & Heinlein, which is why I find it fascinating, as Hats said, to read other peoples mail, LOL
I was correct in my assumption back in 2016 and now 2018, Steve posted on Tony O blog that he kept the website up for people leaving:

https://tonyortega.org/2018/04/17/m...to-consider-him-the-antichrist/#disqus_thread

Steve's comment:

"
Share ›








iThoughtful pluvo • 3 days ago
I few years ago I decided to leave it all as-is for now because the various sites still get a lot of traffic and do seem to provide a useful step in the process of moving away from cult fears and the mind set.
 
Top