Did LRH go bonkers?

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

I was going to write something on this thread, but this post NAILS IT!

Hubbard ALWAYS had something very much "wrong with him". The nature of that may have changed over the years, but he was NEVER "well". An honest look into his ACTUAL past and history from the time as a young boy displays that.

I find it quite hilarious that Hubbard's name will be "smashed into history" mostly as a buffoon.

If I had to guess I'd say Hubbard was molested as a child by his mentor Naval Commander and Naval Psychoanalytic Dr. Joesph Thompson. Why else would he be so damaged that he couldn't maintain a functional relationship with adults, he even created a fake navy to chase after an imaginary military composed of space aliens who happen to be evil psychs, and he also looked at all homosexuals as evil perverted deviants who were programmed to be homosexual by these imaginary evil psychs. He couldn't even bring himself to acknowledged his own son's homosexuality, even after he killed himself. He just blocked him out of existence, never to be mentioned again.

 

[Clarence Rockaway]

Rons claim about being the youngest Eagle Scout has never been verified. Like much of his biography, it's probably bogus.

http://www.spaink.net/cos/LRH-bio/eaglesco.htm

Maybe never an Eagle Scout. But probably eagle scat.

 

[Challenge]

I thought that he was "bonkers" when I met him in the 50's.
But....he was SO entertaining with his exagerrations and absurdities. Or so I thought of him.


One time we had a discussion about UFOs. The subject came up between us when I mentioned that UFOs had been reported over * Oklahoma*, I think it was. This was in about 1956 or thereabouts. In D.C.

He got serious about the conversation, and began to 'grill' me about what I thought about E.T.s, and what their purpose would be in coming here. I repeatedly asked him what he thought about it, but never got an answer from him.

Yeah. He was always 'bonkers', but bright as the sun in most conversation. I think he changed a lot in the mid 50s when, he found that he could "mass hypnotise".
He saw that a lot of people, those types that were drawn to certain command phrases, certain mock-ups that he was masterful at presenting, those folks became his avid admirers and his loyal followers.

When *it* was getting too big for him to exert total control, when the scene got too big for him to dominate,, he created his own Navy , so as to surround himself with those peeps and things which enabled his total dominance. They, in turn, became his puppets.


The last 2 paragraphs are my opinion. Take 'em or leave 'em.


challenge

 

[uniquemand]

Couple years ago I run across an Internet article about the last two years of LRH’s life. According to the article, LRH spent much of his time in a mental hospital. He was incoherent and hallucinating nonstop. It looked like he was creating a new MEST universe. Unfortunately I did not write down the article’s URL. I would like to learn more about the final days of LRH.
There is an interview of L. Ron Hubbard Junior on the Internet. The Junior says that his father believed that he [LRH] is Satan. Can anything be crazier than this?
There is a secret HCOB where L. Ron Hubbard writes that “L” is for Lucifer, not for Lafayette, as previously thought. My friend saw that HCOB but was not allowed to copy it. The bulletin is short, about ½ page. In it LRH says that God did injustice to Lucifer, and now it is time to bring justice to Satan. However, he did not elaborate what he meant by that.
Overall the picture of lRH’s mental health is very bleak and it looks like, finally, the insanity of his teachings caught up with him.

All indications are that LRH did NOT "go bonkers".

He started "bonkers".

Bright, charismatic, and "bonkers".

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

LRH = BPC

Bonkers. Predatory. Criminal.

What other kind of man would claim to have "your eternity" and then use ghost-stories* to terrorize you into buying it back.


* Scientology, in essence, is an elaborately detailed and lavishly expensive ghost story that begins as pleasing entertainment and ends with private investigators parked outside your house if you dare to stop reading & believing it.

 

[anonomog]

snip.


* Scientology, in essence, is an elaborately detailed and lavishly expensive ghost story that begins as pleasing entertainment and ends with private investigators parked outside your house if you dare to stop reading & believing it.

I know this as truth, we all do to varying degrees, but jeez it gave me the heebies reading that.

After awhile on these boards it's: "Pffft, s/he was only in RPF for 23 years chained to a pissed off crocodile and fed old newspapers; Miss X was keelhauled as a 3 year old. Twice!

Sometimes it takes a step back to see the full creepshow in 3d and colour.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Interesting. The question that one day maybe I'll answer for myself is how the fuck did I ever fall for it.

Obviously, lrh was bat shit crazy from the git go and so was most of his BS - and yet I bought it hook line and sinker.

So easy to look back and see it... just as it it was easy to look at it and fall for it.

I'll give him, at least, he was a damn good con man. Damn it.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I thought that he was "bonkers" when I met him in the 50's.
But....he was SO entertaining with his exagerrations and absurdities. Or so I thought of him.


One time we had a discussion about UFOs. The subject came up between us when I mentioned that UFOs had been reported over * Oklahoma*, I think it was. This was in about 1956 or thereabouts. In D.C.

He got serious about the conversation, and began to 'grill' me about what I thought about E.T.s, and what their purpose would be in coming here. I repeatedly asked him what he thought about it, but never got an answer from him.

Yeah. He was always 'bonkers', but bright as the sun in most conversation. I think he changed a lot in the mid 50s when, he found that he could "mass hypnotise".
He saw that a lot of people, those types that were drawn to certain command phrases, certain mock-ups that he was masterful at presenting, those folks became his avid admirers and his loyal followers.

When *it* was getting too big for him to exert total control, when the scene got too big for him to dominate,, he created his own Navy , so as to surround himself with those peeps and things which enabled his total dominance. They, in turn, became his puppets.


The last 2 paragraphs are my opinion. Take 'em or leave 'em.


challenge

Interesting. I find your account very believable. Among the most enjoyable people I've known were those who combined eccentricity with obvious intelligence. Those individuals with the characteristics often lumped under the category of Mood Affective Disorders often fill the bill.

Fortunately, none of these I have known ever went so far as to contrive to create a cult around themselves as a buffer to the world. LRH clearly did. It raises the issue of how much his creation of a personality cult was an expression of his own need to isolate from a world he perceived as essentially hostile.


Mark A. Baker

 

[GoNuclear]

Interesting. The question that one day maybe I'll answer for myself is how the fuck did I ever fall for it.

Obviously, lrh was bat shit crazy from the git go and so was most of his BS - and yet I bought it hook line and sinker.

So easy to look back and see it... just as it it was easy to look at it and fall for it.

I'll give him, at least, he was a damn good con man. Damn it.

How you fell for it ... 1) you are, or at least were at the time, a basically decent and honest guy, and, because of that, could not imagine how devious, evil, and ill intentioned some people can be. Yeah, you knew about criminals and prisons and the like, but none of that had any real bearing on your life since you never ran into a real criminal. 2) You were probably brighter than most of your peers. Scientology tends to suck in brighter people, or at least years back. It tends to not suck in your average NFL fan. 3) You were looking for something in the way of answers and were willing to consider some out of the box thinking 4) you didn't grow up in a neighborhood where con games were common. 5) For all of the above, you were willing to overlook/didn't see/deliberately didn't look at the simplicity of it ... its all about the money.

But yeah, as far as cons go, HubTurd was amonst the best. The Cof$ was an amazing piece of work as far as con games, started initially on a shoe string.

Pete

 

[AnonKat]

These qoutes seem to align with your views about Hubbard

“A person is either the effect of his environment or is able to have an effect upon his environment.”

“There is only one security, and when you've lost that security, you've lost everything you've got. And that is the security of confidence in yourself; to be, to create, to make any position you want to make for yourself. And when you lose that confidence, you've lost the only security you can have. ... Self-confidence is self-determinism. One's belief in one's ability to determine his own course. As long as one has that, he's got the universe in his pocket. And when he hasn't got that, not all the pearls in China nor all the grain and corn in Iowa can give him security, because that's the only security there is.”

“The evolution of knowledge is toward simplicity, not complexity.”

“When you can be your own best audience and when your applause is the best applause you know of, you’re in good shape.”

Interesting. I find your account very believable. Among the most enjoyable people I've known were those who combined eccentricity with obvious intelligence. Those individuals with the characteristics often lumped under the category of Mood Affective Disorders often fill the bill.

Fortunately, none of these I have known ever went so far as to contrive to create a cult around themselves as a buffer to the world. LRH clearly did. It raises the issue of how much his creation of a personality cult was an expression of his own need to isolate from a world he perceived as essentially hostile.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gadfly]

Interesting. The question that one day maybe I'll answer for myself is how the fuck did I ever fall for it.

Obviously, lrh was bat shit crazy from the git go and so was most of his BS - and yet I bought it hook line and sinker.

So easy to look back and see it... just as it it was easy to look at it and fall for it.

I'll give him, at least, he was a damn good con man. Damn it.

Here is a short excerpt from the Foreward of Hubbard's, "A History of Man".

"The test of any knowledge is its usefulness. Does it make one happier or more able? By it and with it, can he better achieve his goals?

This is useful knowledge. With it the blind again see, the lame walk, the ill recover, the insane become sane and the sane become saner. By its use the thousand abilities Man has sought to recover become his once again."

What strikes me about it, reading it NOW, is how much it is based on empty, unproven claims. Sure, these are wonderful things, even comparable to miracles attributed to Jesus in the Bible. But, where's the BEEF???????

I have the opinion that MANY people "fall for it", because they are tricked into jumping on Hubbard's bandwagon with their own hopes and dreams. Hubbard gets you to contribute your own hopes and dreams to his largely empty charade. He has a large bag of tricks for doing that. What keeps you going are YOUR OWN hopes and dreams that YOU have ADDED to the mix.

I will examine the above few sentences.

The test of any knowledge is its usefulness.

Bingo. THAT is a wonderful statement. Most people can and will agree with that. That is a "good thing". So, right from the start Hubbard has you agreeing with SOMETHING. You LIKE what you just read. Hubbard knew well about how to get a person to agree, bit by bit, along a "gradient", until he or she was agreeing and believing exactly what he wanted.

Does it make one happier or more able?

Now, he is adding qualifications to the first statement, and putting a spin on it that for ANY subject to "pass the test" it must 1) make you happier, and 2) make you more able. That is an arbitrary, obviously, as MUCH "knowledge" is useful, such as math, aspects of science, any number of books on learning ANY skill, etc., and yet it wouldn't be said that they thus or necessarily make you "happier". He is again getting your agreement, because again, it IS a good thing for most people to be "happy" and "competent" (able). Hubbard knew how to "survey" for "buttons".

"Happiness" is a HUGE button. "Competence" is a BIG button in this modern world of "competition". Hubbard IMPLIES, and the naive reader often all-too-easily accepts the implication, that HIS SUBJECT can, does and will make YOU "happier" and "more able". Again, at best this is an unverified CLAIM. It is a statement, couched in a veracity which it may not at all have.

"By it and with it, can he better achieve his goals?"

More implication. He is reeling you in by making sneaky statements that just about any person will find little wrong with. He is setting up a hypothetical situation where he is making the mostly agreeable statement that it would be a "good thing" for some subject to help any person "better achieve his or her goals". Many people will agree with the sentence because they will mostly notice the part that is desirable - better achieving goals. But many will NOT notice that Hubbard also got you to unconsciously agree, even if just a little, with the notion that HIS subject can do it. He NEVER comes out and says it - not yet. You are being greased up!

"This is useful knowledge."

This is one of the things Hubbard does often, and so well. He simply comes out and flashes a statement across your consciousness, with total authority and certainty. BANG! He just puts it out there as a mock-up. Just like God said, "Let there Be Light", and there WAS light (or so the Bible says), by pure postulate and power of the Divine Imagination, so Hubbard mimmicks the same type of "act of creation". Except that he makes statements that often are NOT true, have ZERO "proof", and which he gets you somehow to accept because he simply stands there are BOLDLY ASSERTS IT. Hubbard did somewhere say that most people will believe ANYTHING if the "data" is given to them with certainty and authority. The above is an UNVERIFIED claim. In the end, I suspect that people accept and believe it because they want to - but there is MUCH more to it than that (see below).

"With it the blind again see, the lame walk, the ill recover, the insane become sane and the sane become saner."

Who ever actually believed that? I didn't. But, I suppose some did. I read that, and for me I decided that I would simply wait until "proof either confirmed or denied" the claim. Remember, Hubbard also states that "one need not believe or accept anything in Scientology without experiencing it yourself". "Just give Scientology a try and see for yourself". See, THAT above statement is BAIT. Scientology even acts, at this early stage, as if it is OK to have doubts, and be skeptical. But, once you are ON THE CONVEYOR BELT, then the indoctrination begins, and the "gradient" gets stiffened in terms of demands on behavior. After a year or two, you STILL have NEVER seen ANY EXAMPLE of a blind person seeing again, or a lame person walking, BUT, you have somehow forgotten this little bit of "bait" that originally may have helped motivate you to START walking the Scientology Path to Total Stupidity.

"By its use the thousand abilities Man has sought to recover become his once again."

What "thousand abilities"? Here is another thing Hubbard excels at, and he does this OFTEN, he speaks in tremendous generalities. "Man has sought"? There is NO POSSIBLE WAY for this to connect to ANYTHING except your own imaginative meanings and significances. This is an open-ended statement designed to sucker YOU into "completing the sentence" or "filling in the blanks" (DUB-IN). Hubbard almost makes it sound like this is some REAL thing, like THE Empire State Building, THE Seven Deadly Sins, or THE Eucharist - thus THE thousand abilities. Now, it might have meaning as a VERY loose metaphor if said as "any of a thousand abilities that Man has sought". But really, sit down with a piece of paper, and start writing THE THOUSAND ABILITIES that MAN has SOUGHT! Even, forget "Man", and just do it for YOURSELF. I am pretty sure you will lose interest before you hit 50 or 75.

So, this "thousand abilities" is a meaningless term that hubbard throws out that YOU, the reader, FILL with meaning and significance. Hubbard WAS briliiant at this - being able to spit out EMPTY shit that the READER adds to and gives "meaning". Hubbard did, in his own twisted way, greatly understand the psychology of how to deceive and manipulate the minds of Men.

Of course, Hubbard heavily implies that whatever these abilities are FOR YOU, that his subject, Scientology, will assist you in RECOVERING these desirable and long lost abilities. But really, it is another ASSERTION. It is a CLAIM. It is a STATEMENT put forth as if it were and MUST be true.

I actually analyzed a good deal of what I read like the above when I was involved. But, once I was firmly entrenched on the Scientology mass-production line, pressure, demand, constant attention, and force take over to control your behavior. Of course, once you get somewhat involved, it becomes a CRIME to question, dispute or invalidate the "abilities" of the products of Scientology (Clear and OT, etc.). Most people come to somehow forget about these "need to be verified in the future" type of statements by Hubbard, because first, you are kept BUSY - VERY BUSY, and second, you get a few wins about some area of life (not that difficult to do really with just about ANY system) and you are led to CONFUSE those FEW WINS with the larger and greater Scientology subject and organization.

And, the initial newbie view and heavily pushed PR-line that you can "try it, test it out, and make up your own mind, not ever having to believe anything" gets quickly replaced with the severe demand and BELIEF requirement of institutionalized Scientology through intense indoctrination into "Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW). "We are the last free men and women on planet Earth", "if we don't make it now we may never have another chance", "it is your ETERNITY you are walking into", "don't be chasing butterflies...", ad nauseum.

Whenever any person reads ANY Scientology, whether by Hubbard or publications of the Church, look for, detect and notice the repeated use of unverified CLAIMS, STATEMENTS and ASSERTIONS that are delivered with TONE 40, "certainty" and "authority". This involves a very integral part of the "art of persuasion". Understand THAT in the context of all Hubbard discusses about "creation", "mocking up", and especially "agreements". Hubbard's writings and lectures are FILLED with such flippancy. They overflow with such bold (unverified) assertion. To Hubbard, and to some Scientologists who have very much bought into the delusion, the ONLY thing that matters is GETTING OTHER PEOPLE TO AGREE WITH HIS/THEIR STATEMENTS, CLAIMS AND ASSERTIONS. And, the truthfulness, acccuracy or legitimacy of these statements, claims and assertions is entirely meaningless (to them).

To Hubbard, the whole game is/was to GET YOU TO AGREE. He is/was VERY good at doing that, garnering agreement, with some people. The system of organized Scientology can be examined and understood as a complex method to get unsuspecting dupes to accept and agree with numerous unverified and often unverifiable CLAIMS. Claims that YOU come to accept and even BELIEVE, because you deep down HOPE and DREAM that such things can be and are true.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... To Hubbard, the whole game is/was to GET YOU TO AGREE. ...

Not just Hubbard. Agreement is a big button for people generally. Both the character of many of the posts on this board as well as what passes as 'political discourse' in u.s. society support this perspective.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

These qoutes seem to align with your views about Hubbard ...

My thoughts about hubbard have been expressed in my posts on this board and elsewhere. Your post reflects your thoughts not mine.


Mark A. Baker

 

[degraded being]

Interesting. I find your account very believable. Among the most enjoyable people I've known were those who combined eccentricity with obvious intelligence. Those individuals with the characteristics often lumped under the category of Mood Affective Disorders often fill the bill.

Fortunately, none of these I have known ever went so far as to contrive to create a cult around themselves as a buffer to the world. LRH clearly did. It raises the issue of how much his creation of a personality cult was an expression of his own need to isolate from a world he perceived as essentially hostile.


Mark A. Baker

That's what I said, paranoid schizophrenic.
Creating a cult around him was probably helped along by Hubbard's psychopathic abilities which ebabled him to "terminatedly handle" all those that his paranoia "mocked up" as enemies.
Lovely combination of "eccentricity with obvious intelligence".

 

[Gadfly]

Not just Hubbard. Agreement is a big button for people generally. Both the character of many of the posts on this board as well as what passes as 'political discourse' in u.s. society support this perspective.

Mark A. Baker

Of course, yes, most people and groups want you to agree with something - even basic relationships are based on "agreement". I suppose I am a brutal liberatarian, and the only agreements I need from others are things such as "don't kill me", "don't rape my children", "don't burn my house down", and basically "leave me alone". But, MANY people want you to agree with LOTS more than that - usually because they want something from you - your money, your business, sex, your time, your attention, your interest, your approval, your beliefs, and on and on.

BUT, and this is a HUGE "but", Hubbard designed whole topics and sections of his "subject" to "address", "modify", "handle" and obtain that agreement. He takes the desire to obtain agreement, and built an entire MANIPULATIVE system to extract this agreement. Yes everybody requires some sort of agreement from and with others if they want to co-exist with other human beings, BUT Hubbard analyzed and brought the "trick" of obtaining agreement to a near "art". Hubbard incorporates this "advanced" trickery into garnering agreement into his books and lectures. It is commonplace - easy to spot if you know what to look for. Just watch Tommy Davis, or any "reg" or "recruiter" applying their "Bene Gesserit" trickery (Bene Gesserit - from the book "Dune" - a sort of secret society with advanced MIND powers, able to coerce others through will and intention).

Note: I recommend Frank Herbert's book, Dune, to anybody (David Lynch's 1984 movie version is quite good actually, though NOT the book). The Bene Gesserits had fictional abilities that Hubbard pretends to be able to deliver through Scientology - "members train their bodies and minds through years of physical and mental conditioning to obtain superhuman powers and abilities that can seem magical to outsiders" (from Wikipedia).

Reverend Mother Mohiam (Siân Phillips) and other Bene Gesserit, from David Lynch's Dune (1984)
(you can almost imagine them Bene Gesserit witches/bitches in CMO Sea Org uniforms)

The "bag of tricks" designed by Hubbard and used by Scientologists to "obtain agreement" is so often SO SLIMY and UNDERHANDED. I remember talking to regges and recruiters, and some would even admit what they were doing WAS "manipulative", but they had it all justified because "we are the solution to all Man's ills", and "that public person will be happy that we FORCED him up the Bridge when he arrives on the other side".

Everybody need and wants some sort of agreement, but what matters is to what degree of deceit, trickery, lies and manipulation any person or group will go to GET this agreement. It also matters WHAT is being attempted to be agreed with - is it a lie, is it the truth, is it in your best interests, is it not?

 

[degraded being]

Not just Hubbard. Agreement is a big button for people generally. Both the character of many of the posts on this board as well as what passes as 'political discourse' in u.s. society support this perspective.


Mark A. Baker

So people who post here (who BTW, are not paranoid schizophrenic psycopaths),
according to you, have a "big button" (is that a paranoid schizophrenic psycopath's
copyrighted word) on agreement. Just like that paranoid schizophrenic psycopath, Ron Hubbard. Should everyone start being kinder to the cult leader now?
BTW, I thought politicians were supposed to try to get agrreement.

 

[uniquemand]

Here is a short excerpt from the Foreward of Hubbard's, "A History of Man".

"The test of any knowledge is its usefulness. Does it make one happier or more able? By it and with it, can he better achieve his goals?

This is useful knowledge. With it the blind again see, the lame walk, the ill recover, the insane become sane and the sane become saner. By its use the thousand abilities Man has sought to recover become his once again."

What strikes me about it, reading it NOW, is how much it is based on empty, unproven claims. Sure, these are wonderful things, even comparable to miracles attributed to Jesus in the Bible. But, where's the BEEF???????

Exactly. I read this book early on, and said to myself: "really?" I put it down and said: "well, I don't believe that right now, but once I tear into my case with these here trusty methods, perhaps I will". Then I largely put it out of my mind. I continued with this sort of suspended disbelief (necessary when you're in any sort of novel, good or bad) for a while, continuing to agree largely with Dianetic METHOD, Science of Survival METHOD, and some concepts from Scientology like grades and flows (all about method, me), but kept questioning the theory, which never really had my agreement. Eventually, it was this lack of agreement which led me to DOUBT, and then after prolonged doubt, to being declared enemy, traitor, etc. and literally declared "suppressive".

I'm with Bill Maher: I'm on the corner with doubt. I preach it. I'm about unbelief. I'm fine with method, because that I can test, refine, scrap, etc., but theory is all about elegance, and whether it fits the methods.

BIG SNIP for brevity's sake.

To Hubbard, the whole game is/was to GET YOU TO AGREE. He is/was VERY good at doing that, garnering agreement, with some people. The system of organized Scientology can be examined and understood as a complex method to get unsuspecting dupes to accept and agree with numerous unverified and often unverifiable CLAIMS. Claims that YOU come to accept and even BELIEVE, because you deep down HOPE and DREAM that such things can be and are true.

Yes, very true. However, it's important to include that a lot of the methods do SOMETHING. Not what Ron claimed, and not what the success stories hype, but they do something. Analysis of this, for me, has resulted in understanding that some elements are highly helpful, but have associated transference effects that are not discussed, and which are then exploited, in fact, to cause compliance and devotion of resources and time. It's not just the power of claims and desires that are holding people and compelling them to spend exorbitantly on a cult that places ever increasing pressures upon them. That hope and dream element is the bait and switch, but a bait and switch, by itself, is unlikely to keep thousands of people paying ever increasing fees for no real reward for decades. There was powerful abuse of psychological mechanisms at work, as well.

It is true that the acceptance of the terminology and the structure of the Bridge, as well as key concepts like Clear and OT, are important to keep people consciously engaged, as well as preventing them from looking elsewhere for the same benefits or theories, since not only is that not allowed, but it's impossible: what dictionary compares engrams and trauma, for instance?

 

[Gadfly]

Eventually, it was this lack of agreement which led me to DOUBT, and then after prolonged doubt, to being declared enemy, traitor, etc. and literally declared "suppressive".

Yeah, me too!

Analysis of this, for me, has resulted in understanding that some elements are highly helpful, but have associated transference effects that are not discussed, and which are then exploited, in fact, to cause compliance and devotion of resources and time. It's not just the power of claims and desires that are holding people and compelling them to spend exorbitantly on a cult that places ever increasing pressures upon them. That hope and dream element is the bait and switch, but a bait and switch, by itself, is unlikely to keep thousands of people paying ever increasing fees for no real reward for decades. There was powerful abuse of psychological mechanisms at work, as well.

It is true that the acceptance of the terminology and the structure of the Bridge, as well as key concepts like Clear and OT, are important to keep people consciously engaged, as well as preventing them from looking elsewhere for the same benefits or theories, since not only is that not allowed, but it's impossible: what dictionary compares engrams and trauma, for instance?

Mine above in BOLD.

These "associated transference effects that are not discussed, and which are then exploited" are VERY KEY to understanding the "trap" aspect of Scientology. I have made this same point in the past, but you phrased it just so wonderfully!

For instance, I went exterior early on, during Objectives, on TRs, and then later on a few of the expanded Grades. These experiences were VERY UNUSUAL, very NICE, very DESIRABLE, and extremely PLEASANT! There was no downside to the experiences themselves, BUT there was an intense downside to how the Church operation acted to "associate and transfer" these wonderful feelings to other concepts "not discussed", such as to LRH, the "survival of the Church", "clearing the planet", ad nauseum. And, then as you say, which were then heavily "exploited".

I agree, it would be nearly impossible to make endless claims, as Hubbard does, and provide NOTHING at any point, and then ONLY apply the severity of Hard Sell and KSW to keep Church participants on the hamster wheel. I know that for myself, I made the mistake of ASSUMING that my wonderful experiences were "a hint of what was to come latter" in terms of depth and stability (they weren't). My own gains were "transferred" to so many other UNRELATED things about Sceintology, especially as relates to the organization and OEC volume aim to "expand Scientology".

Also though, many people do NOT have "extreme wins" (like I did), and it is ONLY the endless parading of "OTs" and "opinion leaders" to the rest of the herd that keeps them HOPING that they might someday get the same or what is being claimed by these usually enthusiastic, vibrant, attractive and gregarious opinion leaders.

I think it is an exaggeration to say that there are LOTS of gains available from Scientology. I had a few gains, granted they were large at the time, BUT they were NOT common, most of the subject was NOT useful or interesting to me, and the negative aspects of the organization and the "all-or-none we are saving the Universe" aspect so very much outweighed any slight amount of good (which became less and less as the years of participation increased).

Realize that a VERY small amount of bait, bait that is shiny, smells nice, looks good, and prods the appetite, can go a LONG WAY. I would say that in Scientology the "real wins" make up maybe 2%, and the REST is bait and switch, and endless PR and coercion from a very manipulative and "serious" organization.

Also, a great deal of how people are kept "constantly engaged" involves endless ramming of success stories in their faces. Briefings by a recent L-12 completion. Events with OT VIII speakers - who were probably good at speaking BEFORE they ever contacted Scientology! This need not involve ANY personal experience of "gain", and yet very much acts to create and build desire for what Scientology pretends to offer and provide. This contact with OTHER PEOPLE'S gains and wins, which is constantly staged by the Church organization, acts as the "meat" in many cases where the participant him or herself does NOT have such personal experiences. The whole Scientology deception trap depends on FAR LESS "meat" than anyone may think. So little "bait" is necessary when Hubbard is promising the answer to all "eternal hopes and dreams".

While I never considered Scientology a "religion", even when involved with it, it DOES function as a religion, in the sense that it hinges on FAITH - "belief in things unseen". The "things unseen" are Hubbard's MANY MANY CLAIMS. In the end a person must accept and believe these many assertions and statements - with what is for the most part ZERO "proof" - with FAITH. Strangely, if you talk to a Scientologist almost none can accept the notion that he or she acts with "faith". They are entirely BLIND to this aspect of themselves. Realize, as a simple example out of a possible many others, that there ARE many Christians, who have NEVER been to Heaven, seen God, talked to Jesus, or anything else, and THEY happily believe and behave acccordingly. They have NEVER had any "bait", yet they go along with the "switch". I think that many people underestimate the degree to which MANY people can and do ACT on wishes, hopes and dreams of some ideal. Very little "bait" is needed and flimsy claims of idealized states can keep some going for a very long time.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

So people who post here (who BTW, are not paranoid schizophrenic psycopaths), ...

You are projecting again. The idea that they might be psp's is your idea, not mine.

... according to you, have a "big button" (is that a paranoid schizophrenic psycopath's
copyrighted word) on agreement. ...

Plenty of evidence among the various posts that some of the individuals who routinely post to esmb have difficulty tolerating disagreement.

BTW, have you ever considered that you might have a button on paranoid schizophrenic psycopaths?

... BTW, I thought politicians were supposed to try to get agreement.

Not particularly. Mostly they just do deals and manipulate attitudes to enhance their apparent influence. What people think is of little interest as few people actually do. Politicians are interested in riding the wave, not studying oceanography.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Operating DB]

How you fell for it ... 1) you are, or at least were at the time, a basically decent and honest guy, and, because of that, could not imagine how devious, evil, and ill intentioned some people can be. Yeah, you knew about criminals and prisons and the like, but none of that had any real bearing on your life since you never ran into a real criminal. 2) You were probably brighter than most of your peers. Scientology tends to suck in brighter people, or at least years back. It tends to not suck in your average NFL fan. 3) You were looking for something in the way of answers and were willing to consider some out of the box thinking 4) you didn't grow up in a neighborhood where con games were common. 5) For all of the above, you were willing to overlook/didn't see/deliberately didn't look at the simplicity of it ... its all about the money.

But yeah, as far as cons go, HubTurd was amongst the best. The Cof$ was an amazing piece of work as far as con games, started initially on a shoe string.

Pete

I think it would be great idea to include in a high school curriculum and college a course(s) about the above and similar cons. There certainly are enough real life examples to present in such a course. Title of the course could be "How not to be conned" or "What to beware of when something is too good to be true".

Actually, this whole thread would be a great part of the course as there is so much truth and knowledge to be had.