Gibs Great Find

[mockingbird]

Gib has showed me and many others something I only recently realized the full significance of and feel warrants its own thread .
He showed that Hubbard both studied rhetoric and sent a letter to Dean Wilbur who literally wrote the book on it a very telling letter about it.
Records show Hubbard was a student of the Dean who specialized in this subject .

The pertinent quote is o not allow this to upset you in any way. Put it down that I am a rebel, a nonconformist, anything. Some of these days I am going to set down these things in a book, and your rhetoric, very battered now, will be open on the desk beside me when I write it. L Ron Hubbard

The entire letter is at :https://backincomm.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/dear-dean-wilbur/







Now , there are several reasons this is important to me . I knew form his own affirmations and many tapes and HCOBs that Hubbard made a long study and practice of hypnotism for many years. Of this I have no doubt. But Gib showed in making his insane cult doctrine there was another element Hubbard knew well and incorporated intentionally all along .

Rhetoric , and specifically in the form the Dean taught . Here is a small collection of quotes from a very simple site Gib was kind enough to find and share :

Defining rhetoric :

• The art of persuasion, and the study of the art of persuasion, and An individual act of persuasion.
• In the work we'll do in our rhetorical analysis, there are 2 parties to be concerned with:The rhetor: the party that is attempting to persuade, andThe audience: the party that is the target of persuasion.
  "Of the [modes of persuasion] provided through speech there are three species: for some are in the character of the speaker, and some are in disposing the listener in some way, and some in the argument itself, by showing or seeming to show something" --Aristotle, On Rhetoric, 1356b (trans. George A. Kennedy)​
  In other words, Aristotle argues that there are three elements to the art of persuasion:
• ethos: The rhetor is perceived by the audience as credible (or not).
• pathos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by making them feel certain emotions.
• logos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by the use of arguments that they will perceive as logical.

We call these three elements rhetorical appeals. It's not necessary for every act of persuasion to make use of all three appeals. Often, however, there is some element of each. In academic writing, ethos and logos are given more respect than pathos. An essay that relies primarily on pathos, with little use of ethos or logos, is unlikely to be perceived by an academic audience as persuasive.

Page history last edited by George H. Williams 2 years ago

"Part 1" of the Norton Field Guide to Writing covers the concept of "Rhetorical Situations" (1-17).

Whenever we write, whether it's an email to a friend or a toast for a wedding, an English essay or a résumé, we face some kind of rhetorical situation. We have a purpose, a certain audience, a particular stance, a genre, and a medium to consider--and often as not a design. All are important elements that we need to think about carefully. (1)​

This concept is usually covered in English 101, and you can review "Part 1" if you need to refresh your understanding. In what follows below, we're going to cover what are called the "three rhetorical appeals."
[h=2]What is Rhetoric?[/h] Before we can understand the ways in which the rhetorical appeals work, we must first understand what rhetoric is.
Definition There are many commonly-used definitions, but for our purposes "rhetoric" refers to all of the following:

• The art of persuasion, and
• The study of the art of persuasion, and
• An individual act of persuasion.

In the work we'll do in our rhetorical analysis, there are 2 parties to be concerned with:

1. The rhetor: the party that is attempting to persuade, and
2. The audience: the party that is the target of persuasion.

We will consider ourselves to be a 3rd party: the observer. We're not being persuaded. We're not persuading. We're just observing the interaction between the rhetor and the audience.
Three Rhetorical Appeals

"Of the [modes of persuasion] provided through speech there are three species: for some are in the character of the speaker, and some are in disposing the listener in some way, and some in the argument itself, by showing or seeming to show something" --Aristotle, On Rhetoric, 1356b (trans. George A. Kennedy)​

In other words, Aristotle argues that there are three elements to the art of persuasion:

• ethos: The rhetor is perceived by the audience as credible (or not).
• pathos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by making them feel certain emotions.
• logos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by the use of arguments that they will perceive as logical.

We call these three elements rhetorical appeals. It's not necessary for every act of persuasion to make use of all three appeals. Often, however, there is some element of each. In academic writing, ethos and logos are given more respect than pathos. An essay that relies primarily on pathos, with little use of ethos or logos, is unlikely to be perceived by an academic audience as persuasive. Below, each of these appeals is explained in more detail.

---

Seldom is any one statement an example of only one appeal.
"I have to tell you that if you don't stop smoking, you're going to die, " said the doctor to her patient.

This statement combines all three appeals: End quote

The full link is :http://georgehwilliams.pbworks.com/w/page/14266873/Ethos-Pathos-Logos-The-3-Rhetorical-Appeals









Now there are several things to stress first Hubbard did indeed use that book on rhetoric when he wrote all his works and knowing the methods makes seeing how the con was made much easier . Plainly he knew what fallacies were and so liberally applied them to his victim's minds .

Gib has also smartly pointed out Hubbard never taught rhetoric and only very late in the game used the data series as a very poor substitute for logic to undo the mental paralysis his contradiction based double bind hypnotic mind control induced for decades . Plainly his piling hypnotic commands based on confusing his victims with contrary doctrine resulted in very obedient but thoroughly confused and dense and submissive slaves who were useless for decision making in the intelligence activities he needed some of them to perform .

Reportedly another wrote the data series to help fix this and Hubbard did not point out piling more contradictory commands on top would only make matters worse as that was how he deepened the trance in the first place.That is why OEC/FEBC , the BC , ClassVIII and all that other training is useless for making competent anything because if the commands take you get an idiot slave robot . If not you should see the contradictions and not accept them or Hubbard as making any sense and reject both utterly.Without the trance to hide contradiction from your conscious mind his insane cult doctrine should look insane and meaningless as technology.

The fact rhetoric contains combined methods of persuasion and Hubbard studied and obviously used it shows very strong proof he knowingly combined practices and I feel hypnotism , psychology and earlier cult methods were all combined into a mad stew and that is why Scientology is so hard to break out from and explain as it is dozens or perhaps hundreds of methods combined so knowing a little about one or two does not take away the confusion and harm from all the rest .

I hope this is of some use .

 

[AnonyMary]

I read that whole letter. What ass kissing bulls**t. A fail on trying out his overblown narcissist belief of having 'rhetorical skills' on a man who most likely thought he was nuts. and rightly so, if he remembered him at all.

Just so you know, he only took one class with Wilbur and only managed a C+ average grade in that particular class. It would take him years of practice and he still couldn't remain on topic for the most part.

 

[Lurker5]

 

[AnonyMary]

And yes, kudos to Gibs!

 

[WildKat]

Interesting letter, thanks for the link!

 

[WildKat]

I read that whole letter. What ass kissing bulls**t. A fail on trying out his overblown narcissist belief of having 'rhetorical skills' on a man who most likely thought he was nuts. and rightly so, if he remembered him at all.

Just so you know, he only took one class with Wilber and only managed a C+ average grade in that particular class. It would take him years of practice and he still couldn't remain on topic for the most part.

But weren't you impressed by his masterful use of punctuation? Lol

 

[AnonyMary]

But weren't you impressed by his masterful use of punctuation? Lol

BTW, I was not impressed that I misspelled Wilbur's last name. I have just corrected it.

 

[uncover]

Interesting:
Why did El Con Hubbard try to learn german in 1931 ? Did he intend to become a competitor of Hitler ?

 

[strativarius]

Interesting:
Why did El Con Hubbard try to learn german in 1931 ? Did he intend to become a competitor of Hitler ?

Good question. Maybe he wanted to read 'Mein Kampf' in Hitler's mother tongue and glean a few hints and tips on holding sway over millions of people.

 

[Udarnik]

Interesting:
Why did El Con Hubbard try to learn german in 1931 ? Did he intend to become a competitor of Hitler ?

No.

German was, up until about 1990 or so, the predominant foreign language for technical people. Pre-internet and pre-translation software, a significant portion of the world's physico-chemical historical data (compound melting points, reactivities, known reactions, etc) were contained in German sources such as the Beilstein Handbook of Organic Chemistry. That particular volume collected humankind's organic chemical data and experience going all the way back to 17freaking71!

There was so much freaking data in German that no one ever bothered to translate it all. This became a problem in both WWI and WWII when the German publishers ceased to export to us. (The Brits had a similar problem in WWI in that they had let their Organic Chemistry industry languish as too "working class" for their business elite, and suddenly discovered that pretty much all of their famous khaki dye for their Army uniforms was imported from BASF ).

The German grip on scientific data began to release in 1941. In WWII, even more than in the previous war, the loss of the technical manuals became intolerable. The Japanese had cut off our access to rubber in SEA, so we began a massive project to create a good synthetic rubber. The need to share basic data such as physical constants and reactivities between the network of labs engaged in the Synthetic Rubber Program led to the first English language attempt to create something like the German data books: the Chemical Rubber Company's CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Every undergrad chemist and physicist I knew in the 1980s and 1990s, and a goodly number of engineers, had a copy of this 3 - 4 inch thick tome on their desks. Beilstein was a 60 volume monster we left in the library, but the CRC handbook was our bible. I spent my 18th birthday money to buy a copy of the Handbook the first week of my freshman year. It was that important.

In additional explanation of Hubbard's choice, the majority of the major physicists at the time (the 30s) were German, and published first in German. If you were a chemist, scientist, or engineer in the 30s, German was a logical, perhaps required, class in your curriculum. Up until about the time I was in college (late 1980s), many tech departments still required one or two years of a foreign language, and German was the language of choice because of all the data locked in German-language databases.

I took 2 years of German in middle school, and with a bit of specialized vocabulary memorization, I could read Beilstein and other handbooks in college, so I opted for Russian. But almost all of my Chemistry and Chemical Engineering peers opted for German (we had a 1 year foreign language requirement, most went for 2 years).

This bit of Hubbard's transcript doesn't hide something sinister (for once). Although he probably wanted to hide the fact that he did appear to suck at it, but that was pretty much true of his studies across the board...

 

[Gib]

I read that whole letter. What ass kissing bulls**t. A fail on trying out his overblown narcissist belief of having 'rhetorical skills' on a man who most likely thought he was nuts. and rightly so, if he remembered him at all.

Just so you know, he only took one class with Wilbur and only managed a C+ average grade in that particular class. It would take him years of practice and he still couldn't remain on topic for the most part.

I'm well aware of the grades Mary.

But the key point in the paragraph is "your rhetoric, very battered now"

means Hubbard kept Wilburs book and used it quite a bit, and he said he would use it the future.

Question to ask also is which book? Dean Wilbur wrote several books on Rhetoric.

It would be insightful to find out which book, and then read it.

But, at least we know Hubbard learned Rhetoric, and most likely expanded on it's usage in the future from that 1936 letter.

So, when I read that letter by Hubbard over on the BIC blog, and Hubbard mentions Rhetoric a few times in that letter,

I say to myself,

Gib, WTF does Rhetoric mean?

So I do a google research, and do a deep research to further understand, , and stumbled upon this website:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

so I start reading it, from the viewpoint of how Hubbard tricked us,

mind you I was out of the mindset, just curious how I was fooled, and I became curious about rhetoric, since I never learned it. And also because Alanzo and TAJ and a few others mentioned The Republic from Plato.

I actually at the time, after reading a bit of the website I link, I asked my neighbors if they know of rhetoric, if they know what ethos, pathos or logos mean? None knew what they meant.

more to come.............

 

[Udarnik]

I'm well aware of the grades Mary.

But the key point in the paragraph is "your rhetoric, very battered now"

means Hubbard kept Wilburs book and used it quite a bit, and he said he would use it the future.

Question to ask also is which book? Dean Wilbur wrote several books on Rhetoric.

It would be insightful to find out which book, and then read it.

But, at least we know Hubbard learned Rhetoric, and most likely expanded on it's usage in the future from that 1936 letter.

So, when I read that letter by Hubbard over on the BIC blog, and Hubbard mentions Rhetoric a few times in that letter,

I say to myself,

Gib, WTF does Rhetoric mean?

So I do a google research, and do a deep research to further understand, , and stumbled upon this website:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

so I start reading it, from the viewpoint of how Hubbard tricked us,

mind you I was out of the mindset, just curious how I was fooled, and I became curious about rhetoric, since I never learned it. And also because Alanzo and TAJ and a few others mentioned The Republic from Plato.

I actually at the time, after reading a bit of the website I link, I asked my neighbors if they know of rhetoric, if they know what ethos, pathos or logos mean? None knew what they meant.

more to come.............

I can see Laffy just absorbing the key points and ignoring the rest (such as how to write concisely and to the point...) in a frosh English class. I'm sure his writing style did not endear him to a stylistic purist in an Academic institution. In fact, a mastery of the material but an inability to spit it back out in an acceptable manner looks exactly like a "C" student to me...

 

[Freeminds]

I've read it before, but: man! L Ron Hubbard was such a failure...

Was there any phase in his life that didn't end with him slinking away to lick his wounds, bitterly blaming others for his failings? Modelling your life on principles established by that cynical, scarred old man has got to be dumb!

 

[Gib]

Defining rhetoric :

• The art of persuasion, and the study of the art of persuasion, and An individual act of persuasion.
• In the work we'll do in our rhetorical analysis, there are 2 parties to be concerned with:The rhetor: the party that is attempting to persuade, andThe audience: the party that is the target of persuasion.
  "Of the [modes of persuasion] provided through speech there are three species: for some are in the character of the speaker, and some are in disposing the listener in some way, and some in the argument itself, by showing or seeming to show something" --Aristotle, On Rhetoric, 1356b (trans. George A. Kennedy)​
  In other words, Aristotle argues that there are three elements to the art of persuasion:
• ethos: The rhetor is perceived by the audience as credible (or not).
• pathos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by making them feel certain emotions.
• logos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by the use of arguments that they will perceive as logical.

We call these three elements rhetorical appeals. It's not necessary for every act of persuasion to make use of all three appeals. Often, however, there is some element of each. In academic writing, ethos and logos are given more respect than pathos. An essay that relies primarily on pathos, with little use of ethos or logos, is unlikely to be perceived by an academic audience as persuasive.

Ok, so regarding Ethos or appeal to credibility.

The first thing I realized was I now understood why Hubbard lied about his past, it was to get people to read his book or listen to him. He had to establish credibility, who would listen to a pulp fiction writer as he told Dean Wilbur in that letter. That's why he called himself a nuclear physicist and used Dr. Winter as an authority in 1950's Dianetics to verify or establish credibility back then. (have to remember the means to verify his past was not an easy task as it it today, and even when I read dianetics in 1987 nor did I have the knowledge about Rhetoric)

And, of course, I connect the dots with Gerry Armstrong and his findings while working on the LRH autobiography.

Here's a good snip, which explains why Hubbard was livid at Gerry, for Gerry now knew Hubbard's ethos or credibility was shit, snip from this post:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-L-Ron-Hubbard&p=990215&viewfull=1#post990215

"There were banker boxes full of “advises” from L Ron spewing hate filled vitriol about Jerry. The information that Jerry provided to Russell Miller and Jon Attack about L Ron’s actual history did in fact exposed his underbelly and pulled back the curtains on his imaginary life he expected others to believe."

see, Hubbard knew his scam would be shot down if the truth would be known about his past. (think Mayo and Bill Franks actual cause of blows being ARCX and not W/H)

One has to realize Rhetoric and it's 3 parts can be used to forward, convince a good idea, but on the other hand one has to realize it can be used to forward a scam, ie scientology & MLM's and a host of other things (scams).

So, I also realize Hubbard used Ethos on us members, he gave us credibility and at the same time giving scientology creditability by saying such things as:

1. making the able more able
2. those who found scientology are the elite of the planet with great intelligence
3. Auditors are the smartest of the smartest
4. SO members are the elite of the planet

etc, etc, etc

I'm sure there are lots of other things hubbard said to give a member of scientology credibility, but those come to mind off hand.

Are there any others one can think of?

 

[Commander Birdsong]

"drinking platonic absinthe in a wildfire mannequin of argentine cafes i range the moccasin rose for seven jackknives to fiddlestick my golden owl out of his rhetoric complex"

gary johnston

 

[Type4_PTS]

Ok, so regarding Ethos or appeal to credibility.

The first thing I realized was I now understood why Hubbard lied about his past, it was to get people to read his book or listen to him. He had to establish credibility, who would listen to a pulp fiction writer as he told Dean Wilbur in that letter. That's why he called himself a nuclear physicist and used Dr. Winter as an authority in 1950's Dianetics to verify or establish credibility back then.

<snip>

^^^^^^ BINGO!

Hubbard HAD to create some bullshit stories about his past to establish credibility, not just for the Ethos, but also to boost his altitude for the purpose of the hypnotism.

Or as Jon Atack wrote in one of his articles over at the Bunker:

(I turned Hubbard's quoted words green, one of his favorite colors

Scientology is a system of procedures that induces euphoria (“very good indicators”) and heightens suggestibility (obedience training or OT) so that the tenets of Scientology will be followed and Hubbard deified. Elsewhere, the same techniques are called hypnosis. Hubbard said of hypnosis: “It reduces self-determinism by interposing the commands of another below the analytical level of an individual’s mind” (Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary, from Science of Survival, Book 2, p.220). It is a good definition and is achieved on a daily basis by Hubbard’s cult.

Here is one of the most relevant statements that Hubbard ever made. I shall quote it at length, because it is the essential truth of Scientology: “In altitude teaching, somebody is a ‘great authority.’ He is probably teaching some subject that is far more complex than it should be [Scientology is the most complex system ever devised by any single ‘great authority’]. He has become defensive down through the years, and this is a sort of protective coating that he puts up, along with the idea that the subject will always be a little better known by him than by anybody else and that there are things to know in this subject which he really wouldn’t let anybody else in on. This is altitude instruction.” In Keeping Scientology Working, Hubbard asserted that every major tenet in Scientology and Dianetics was his exclusive discovery. This is most certainly “altitude instruction”!

Hubbard continues, “And in order to get people to sit very alertly and do exactly what he says, he has another trick: he gives them examinations [‘star rate checkouts’] … So there is this anxiety around a person’s grades, and this comes forward until he finally gets up to a point in education where when somebody says the word examination to him it not only push-buttons him but it also threatens Mama, Papa, love and general survival. It is a terrific whip. It keeps people in a state of confusion, and when their minds are slightly confused they are in a hypnotic trance. Any time anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude. There are ways to create and lower the altitude of the subject, but if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject the same way, he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as hypnotic suggestion.” (my italics; Education and Dianetics, 11 November 1950, Research and Discovery Series, volume 4, 1st edition, pp.324-5)

Full Article: http://tonyortega.org/2014/11/29/jo...ind-for-l-ron-hubbards-most-harmful-implants/

 

[Gib]

^^^^^^ BINGO!

Hubbard HAD to create some bullshit stories about his past to establish credibility, not just for the Ethos, but also to boost his altitude for the purpose of the hypnotism.

Or as Jon Atack wrote in one of his articles over at the Bunker:

(I turned Hubbard's quoted words green, one of his favorite colors

Yep,

It's very covert what Hubbard did.

When I read that write-up by Joh, I says to myself, there yah go, hubbard creating authority, credibility.

On a side note: KSW is instant credibility established by Hubbard, perceived, by a person once they read it, and after a person has a few wins. The person reading KSW nodding his head in agreement, like Arnie has pointed out elsewhere. And I fell for it at the time, I thought KSW was da bomb, the truth.

 

[Veda]

Jon Atack's quote is one of many that are examples of the talkative Hubbard telling Scientologists "enemy tactics," tactics that Scientologists listened to attentively with appreciation, knowing that their "greatest friend" would never use such tactics on them.

No, it was the enemy - the SPs - who would use such tactics, and Hubbard was warning them about the SPs.

When Hubbard turned around and used the same tactics on Scientologists, they were defenseless. It was unthinkable that the same person who had warned them was also using those tactics on them.

This tendency by Hubbard was noticed many decades ago. It's a very revealing tendency.

As far as I know, the earliest official recognition of this tendency was by the mid 1960s Anderson Inquiry.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Gib has showed me and many others something I only recently realized the full significance of and feel warrants its own thread .
He showed that Hubbard both studied rhetoric and sent a letter to Dean Wilbur who literally wrote the book on it a very telling letter about it.
Records show Hubbard was a student of the Dean who specialized in this subject .

The pertinent quote is o not allow this to upset you in any way. Put it down that I am a rebel, a nonconformist, anything. Some of these days I am going to set down these things in a book, and your rhetoric, very battered now, will be open on the desk beside me when I write it. L Ron Hubbard

The entire letter is at :https://backincomm.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/dear-dean-wilbur/







Now , there are several reasons this is important to me . I knew form his own affirmations and many tapes and HCOBs that Hubbard made a long study and practice of hypnotism for many years. Of this I have no doubt. But Gib showed in making his insane cult doctrine there was another element Hubbard knew well and incorporated intentionally all along .

Rhetoric , and specifically in the form the Dean taught . Here is a small collection of quotes from a very simple site Gib was kind enough to find and share :

Defining rhetoric :

• The art of persuasion, and the study of the art of persuasion, and An individual act of persuasion.
• In the work we'll do in our rhetorical analysis, there are 2 parties to be concerned with:The rhetor: the party that is attempting to persuade, andThe audience: the party that is the target of persuasion.
  "Of the [modes of persuasion] provided through speech there are three species: for some are in the character of the speaker, and some are in disposing the listener in some way, and some in the argument itself, by showing or seeming to show something" --Aristotle, On Rhetoric, 1356b (trans. George A. Kennedy)​
  In other words, Aristotle argues that there are three elements to the art of persuasion:
• ethos: The rhetor is perceived by the audience as credible (or not).
• pathos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by making them feel certain emotions.
• logos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by the use of arguments that they will perceive as logical.

We call these three elements rhetorical appeals. It's not necessary for every act of persuasion to make use of all three appeals. Often, however, there is some element of each. In academic writing, ethos and logos are given more respect than pathos. An essay that relies primarily on pathos, with little use of ethos or logos, is unlikely to be perceived by an academic audience as persuasive.

Page history last edited by George H. Williams 2 years ago

"Part 1" of the Norton Field Guide to Writing covers the concept of "Rhetorical Situations" (1-17).

Whenever we write, whether it's an email to a friend or a toast for a wedding, an English essay or a résumé, we face some kind of rhetorical situation. We have a purpose, a certain audience, a particular stance, a genre, and a medium to consider--and often as not a design. All are important elements that we need to think about carefully. (1)​

This concept is usually covered in English 101, and you can review "Part 1" if you need to refresh your understanding. In what follows below, we're going to cover what are called the "three rhetorical appeals."
[h=2]What is Rhetoric?[/h] Before we can understand the ways in which the rhetorical appeals work, we must first understand what rhetoric is.
Definition There are many commonly-used definitions, but for our purposes "rhetoric" refers to all of the following:

• The art of persuasion, and
• The study of the art of persuasion, and
• An individual act of persuasion.

In the work we'll do in our rhetorical analysis, there are 2 parties to be concerned with:

1. The rhetor: the party that is attempting to persuade, and
2. The audience: the party that is the target of persuasion.

We will consider ourselves to be a 3rd party: the observer. We're not being persuaded. We're not persuading. We're just observing the interaction between the rhetor and the audience.
Three Rhetorical Appeals

"Of the [modes of persuasion] provided through speech there are three species: for some are in the character of the speaker, and some are in disposing the listener in some way, and some in the argument itself, by showing or seeming to show something" --Aristotle, On Rhetoric, 1356b (trans. George A. Kennedy)​

In other words, Aristotle argues that there are three elements to the art of persuasion:

• ethos: The rhetor is perceived by the audience as credible (or not).
• pathos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by making them feel certain emotions.
• logos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by the use of arguments that they will perceive as logical.

We call these three elements rhetorical appeals. It's not necessary for every act of persuasion to make use of all three appeals. Often, however, there is some element of each. In academic writing, ethos and logos are given more respect than pathos. An essay that relies primarily on pathos, with little use of ethos or logos, is unlikely to be perceived by an academic audience as persuasive. Below, each of these appeals is explained in more detail.

---

Seldom is any one statement an example of only one appeal.
"I have to tell you that if you don't stop smoking, you're going to die, " said the doctor to her patient.

This statement combines all three appeals: End quote

The full link is :http://georgehwilliams.pbworks.com/w/page/14266873/Ethos-Pathos-Logos-The-3-Rhetorical-Appeals









Now there are several things to stress first Hubbard did indeed use that book on rhetoric when he wrote all his works and knowing the methods makes seeing how the con was made much easier . Plainly he knew what fallacies were and so liberally applied them to his victim's minds .

Gib has also smartly pointed out Hubbard never taught rhetoric and only very late in the game used the data series as a very poor substitute for logic to undo the mental paralysis his contradiction based double bind hypnotic mind control induced for decades . Plainly his piling hypnotic commands based on confusing his victims with contrary doctrine resulted in very obedient but thoroughly confused and dense and submissive slaves who were useless for decision making in the intelligence activities he needed some of them to perform .

Reportedly another wrote the data series to help fix this and Hubbard did not point out piling more contradictory commands on top would only make matters worse as that was how he deepened the trance in the first place.That is why OEC/FEBC , the BC , ClassVIII and all that other training is useless for making competent anything because if the commands take you get an idiot slave robot . If not you should see the contradictions and not accept them or Hubbard as making any sense and reject both utterly.Without the trance to hide contradiction from your conscious mind his insane cult doctrine should look insane and meaningless as technology.

The fact rhetoric contains combined methods of persuasion and Hubbard studied and obviously used it shows very strong proof he knowingly combined practices and I feel hypnotism , psychology and earlier cult methods were all combined into a mad stew and that is why Scientology is so hard to break out from and explain as it is dozens or perhaps hundreds of methods combined so knowing a little about one or two does not take away the confusion and harm from all the rest .

I hope this is of some use .

I'm kinda astonished that this is such news for many of you! I was taught Rhetoric in Jr. High, High school and College. (Along with critical thinking skills! ) How did so many of you miss it?

I do think think it helped to inoculate me, if I can use that simile, from getting sucked into Scientology at a time when many people were.

I'm glad for Gib's realization of this important part of Ron's persuasive speech and writing, and for sharing his new insight into this. Hope it helps more people to "wake up" where needed!

 

[Gib]

Jon Atack's quote is one of many that are examples of the talkative Hubbard telling Scientologists "enemy tactics," tactics that Scientologists listened to attentively with appreciation, knowing that their "greatest friend" would never use such tactics on them.

No, it was the enemy - the SPs - who would use such tactics, and Hubbard was warning them about the SPs.

When Hubbard turned around and used the same tactics on Scientologists, they were defenseless. It was unthinkable that the same person who had warned them was also using those tactics on them.

This tendency by Hubbard was noticed many decades ago. It's a very revealing tendency.

As far as I know, the earliest official recognition of this tendency was by the mid 1960s Anderson Inquiry.

exactly,

1. hubbard creates incredible credibility in the minds of scientologists, ie Hubbard is man's greatest friend (establishing Hubbard as credible and/or authority on the mind)

2. and at the same time he creates discreditabilty in the minds of scientologists. Or he discredits anybody who speaks out the truth about scientology or hubbard and it's actual results as promised by Hubbard, and he called any truth knowers as SP's, Psych's, PTS, etc. This is the evil side of Rhetoric, or to persuade for bogus reasons.

And Hubbard says anybody who stops the forward progress of scientology is an evil doer. For who would want to stop the wins a person has in scientology?

But, the bottom line will forever be, and forever,

there are no clears or ot's, no soul astronauts.

For hubbard only forwarded the abstract concept of clear & ot, and that he got others to believe:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=abstract

"existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence"