Have you ever experienced nodding off during TR0 ??

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Have you ever experienced "nodding off" during TR-0?

One exec from the old days recounted a story from the National Inquirer.. that Hubbard issued under his name as an internal "LRH Executive Directive"

Another old navy guy told me that a famous policy letter called "CSW" "Completed Staff Work" - a way in scientology that you put forward a proposal for something to be done about whatever... he said the text of Hubbard's CSW policy was lifted verbatim from the WWII version of the Navy Operations Manual.. anyone with a copy of that, might look up "CSW" and send me a copy...

Another old guy called me with an interesting tale that has yet to be checked out... he said when Hubbard was student at George Washington University.. the reason he got such bad grades was that he never attended many classes, because he had gotten incarcerated at St Elizabeth's Mental Hospital in Washington DC. where he may have received Electroconvulsive shock therapy, and developed his distaste for it

And it was yet another telephone call from another very old fellow, who claimed to have been in the Navy hospital with Hubbard. He said that a psychiatric clinician had been passing around his research paper... and that Hubbard took a copy with him when he left and used THAT to write Dianetics.

That clinician turned out to be the head of psychiatry in UK, Dr William Sargant. Dr Sargant published HIS book based on his original paper stolen by hubbard, in 1955. Those ex members that I have enticed to read Dr William Sargant's "Battle for the MInd" have all told me the same thing.. Holy smoke arnie, the topics in DIanetics are the same, but the words got rewritten and changed to Hubbard's own terms... Hubbard in Dianetics, is describing Abreaction Therapy, a technique discarded by psychiatry as being of limited value and taking too long to train people on how to use it.

William Sargant's specialty was treating shell shocked British soldiers in North Africa... he abandoned Abreactive Therapy in favor of Shock therapy,, because it took too long...and took too long to train people to use it, So Shock therapy helped win WWII.. Had the British used aberactive therapy... fewer men might have been returned to service as fast as they were.

Hubbard was a Con man, and a thief.

His "TRs" or Training Routines, (TR0 and some of the TR5 and above called the "upper indoctrination routines" ) (c) 1964 ( this hasn't been webbed yet ) are amazingly similar in patter and use to the hypnotic induction techniques described in a little book from 1960.. 'Hypnosis for Salesmen"... which describes an "eye to eye" technique.

ALL Scientologists have experienced what hubbard calls "boil off" - or nodding off during TR0...
That IS AN EXACT AND INCONTROVERTABLE MARKER FOR ATTAINING A DEEP HYPNOTIC STATE.

There is NOTHING wrong with hypnosis, I do not seek to demonize it. Hypnosis and trance states are VERY pleasant.. and we all know how pleasant they are.. however, the use of hypnosis is regulated by various laws - that is why Scientology, in fact, is already BANNED.. and why when I'd bring up hypnosis ten years ago, the old ARS newsgroup would go nutz with screeching from OSA's thought controllers...

A mild hypnotic state IS pleasant..

Have you ever been caught daydreaming? that is a mild trance state.
Wasn't it pleasant?

That is one of the hooks that keep scientologists IN scientology..
The E-meter is another.. LINK

AND they think this is something Hubbard's discovered!

See The Hypnosis Index for more

Questions?
I have lost my voice once already from being on the telephone too long, I love to hear from ex-members, I'd ask that anyone calling with questions, please listen to my last radio show (an Excellent show starts 4:42 seconds into this tape, sorry) HERE, perhaps that will save me from explaining so many things and I just concentrate on your needs when you call.
LERMANET.COM Exposing the CON of Scientology since 1996
Arnie Lerma
703-241-1498
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=381
http://www.Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK
for our friends and family
to get them out of scientology
before they end up here:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net

PS: Also see todays Study Tech revelations
 
Last edited:

SomeGuy

Patron Meritorious
William Sargant's specialty was treating shell shocked British soldiers in North Africa... he abandoned Abreactive Therapy in favor of Shock therapy,, because it took too long...and took too long to train people to use it, So Shock therapy helped win WWII.. Had the British used aberactive therapy... fewer men might have been returned to service as fast as they were.

That is an interesting leap of logic, pretty sure shock therapy is no longer used (and has been in an age) for PTSD. So perhaps both were bunk and bad science?
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
That is an interesting leap of logic, pretty sure shock therapy is no longer used (and has been in an age) for PTSD. So perhaps both were bunk and bad science?

People, even psychiatrists, do the best they can, understand that it was 1944, wartime conditions, desperate conditions.

64 years ago..

Now there are SSRI's, and far more is known about modulating brain chemistry, electricity is even used to treat stubborn cases of depression today.

-------------
What did you think of the TR-0 Nod off being evidence of hypnosis in scientology..
 

SomeGuy

Patron Meritorious
People, even psychiatrists, do the best they can, understand that it was 1944, wartime conditions, desperate conditions.

64 years ago..

Now there are SSRI's, and far more is known about modulating brain chemistry, electricity is even used to treat stubborn cases of depression today.

-------------
What did you think of the TR-0 Nod off being evidence of hypnosis in scientology..

Oh I wasn't debating that it might have it's uses (Ernest Hemmingway might disagree though). Just the "So Shock therapy helped win WWII" statement, seemed like it required that either solution actually did anything tangeable to PTSD.

Sorry don't want to derail your thread, we'll just chalk it up to different interpretations.
 

Kathy (ImOut)

Gold Meritorious Patron
Once I got involved with Scn and it came up during some session that I used to practice self-hypnosis, it was such a problem. It helped me loose weight and it helped me relax to fall asleep. What was the big deal? I wasn't doing it every single day and I probably hadn't done it in years before getting in Scn.

A couple of weeks ago my Naturopathic doctor suggested I use hypnosis to quit smoking and of course I had the Scn mind-set - can't do that, it's awful. Duh. I used it for several years and nothing bad happened to me.

And then to read your post and TRs have a similar effect - great.:omg:
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Once I got involved with Scn and it came up during some session that I used to practice self-hypnosis, it was such a problem. It helped me loose weight and it helped me relax to fall asleep. What was the big deal? I wasn't doing it every single day and I probably hadn't done it in years before getting in Scn.

A couple of weeks ago my Naturopathic doctor suggested I use hypnosis to quit smoking and of course I had the Scn mind-set - can't do that, it's awful. Duh. I used it for several years and nothing bad happened to me.

And then to read your post and TRs have a similar effect - great.:omg:

And now you may experience the benefits of ethical hypnosis without guilt...

And why did you try to 'get your TRs in" before every session?
Get your TRs in = invoke the trance state

You have read Hubbard's literary agent, Forrest Ackerman's notes about the unethical stage hypnotist L Ron Hubbard's performance in front of the LA Science Fiction club?

forrest-ackerman.jpg


LINK

"I remember he gave one young man a... what would you call it... In any event, the boy was convinced that cupped in his hand, he held a little tiny Kangaroo that was hopping around and I remember he came over and showed the Kangaroo to me. An ah, one by one Ron was hypnotizing everyone in the club."
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
Have you ever experienced "nodding off" during TR-0?

Yeah, I was knackered and shouldn't really have been in the courseroom in the first place!

His "TRs" or Training Routines, (TR0 and some of the TR5 and above called the "upper indoctrination routines" ) (c) 1964 ( this hasn't been webbed yet ) are amazingly similar in patter and use to the hypnotic induction techniques described in a little book from 1960.. 'Hypnosis for Salesmen"... which describes an "eye to eye" technique.

ALL Scientologists have experienced what hubbard calls "boil off" - or nodding off during TR0...
That IS AN EXACT AND INCONTROVERTABLE MARKER FOR ATTAINING A DEEP HYPNOTIC STATE.

Well, regardless of what Hubbard said, I can see that it could be hypnotic. Equally I can also see that it could run out hypnosis - or "anaten" or whatever word one likes to use - and might well produce the same phenomena in the process.

You seem to me to sometimes be a little too sharp on being critical and not subjecting what you say to critical analysis yourself.

Nick
 

Escalus

Patron Meritorious
You seem to me to sometimes be a little too sharp on being critical and not subjecting what you say to critical analysis yourself.

Nick

I don't know about lermanet but I'll confess that's a problem I have, embarrassed to say. But let's be clear - Scientology makes claims and automatically -therefore - assumes the role of having to prove the validity of the claims. As has been said on thousands of discussion boards since the beginning of time (er... the internet) no one has to prove a negative.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I think, if anything, the point here is that ESMB is a board with and about people. There are current and ex and never-been scientologists and there are believers and critics (of numerous flavors) and yes, activists, and, even OSA fer chrise sake :)

Lots of people with varying agendas; none of which are the *board* agenda. Which is good. Like 'anon' would say; ESMB is not your army.

Whether the point is to 'clear the planet' or to 'march shoulder to shoulder against the enemy' (whichever one...)

If somebody says something you feel like discussing; go for it. Either you get an answer that satisfies you, or you don't. The most important part is that the discussion itself is carried out in a friendly, or at least not unfriendly, manner. Maybe it goes somewhere; maybe it doesn't.

Zinj
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yeah, I was knackered and shouldn't really have been in the courseroom in the first place!



Well, regardless of what Hubbard said, I can see that it could be hypnotic. Equally I can also see that it could run out hypnosis - or "anaten" or whatever word one likes to use - and might well produce the same phenomena in the process.

You seem to me to sometimes be a little too sharp on being critical and not subjecting what you say to critical analysis yourself.

Nick

Maybe I'm making up for lost time,... and IMHO, that was the problem, we were not street-wise enough to CONfidence artists, we were not sharp enough, smart enough, yes, but not well informed enough... I got fooled by that particular professional liar (proof), for ten years... how long were you?

And yes, I know, there is a gradient to reawakening, see 8 steps OUT, those are the steps I walked to get out... Scientology IMO has contrived synthetic personalities at various steps of the 8 steps out, all gently saying, that is far enough, go back, nothing to see here folks..because at the end of that bridge out, is the state recovering scinetologists must be prevented from attaining at any cost and scientology's greatest fear of all, the desire to seek justice.
 
Last edited:

Escalus

Patron Meritorious
Zin, you know I hit on this on another thread. But I'll repeat, I may be on the wrong board or have the wrong idea of things here but - honest to God - I'm kinda thinkin' this part of the board is for evaluation and critique. I don't see the harm in going at things rigorously a'la Oxford style or whatever anyone wants to call it. Since I'm new I'll stand down if I've read this wrong, but vigorous exploration shouldn't be viewed as a threat so long as the participants understand their own failings. Like, for example me, a Grade A jerk. :)

I'm reading it as socializing on other parts and investigation here. but, if I'm off base I'll tuck the tail. Hell, I have no pride anyhow!
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Zin, you know I hit on this on another thread. But I'll repeat, I may be on the wrong board or have the wrong idea of things here but - honest to God - I'm kinda thinkin' this part of the board is for evaluation and critique. I don't see the harm in going at things rigorously a'la Oxford style or whatever anyone wants to call it. Since I'm new I'll stand down if I've read this wrong, but vigorous exploration shouldn't be viewed as a threat so long as the participants understand their own failings. Like, for example me, a Grade A jerk. :)

I'm reading it as socializing on other parts and investigation here. but, if I'm off base I'll tuck the tail. Hell, I have no pride anyhow!

I'm not disagreeing with you :)

I think in the other thread you got the impression that I was saying people shouldn't mention Aunt Sadie's lampshade hat. That's the opposite from what I was saying, which is that the royalists are doing a good job of getting used to people denying the crown, without calling for the Ethics Officer.

Same with debate and discussion and criticism and everything in between. There are no sacred cows that I know of, and if somebody wants to claim something, there's no reason not to doubt it, even vocally, with or without counter-argument.

But, there's enough diversity around here that it's unlikely that there will ever be a *resolution* of some of the arguments, which is also fine.

Zinj
 

grundy

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think, if anything, the point here is that ESMB is a board with and about people. There are current and ex and never-been scientologists and there are believers and critics (of numerous flavors) and yes, activists, and, even OSA fer chrise sake :)

Lots of people with varying agendas; none of which are the *board* agenda. Which is good. Like 'anon' would say; ESMB is not your army.

Whether the point is to 'clear the planet' or to 'march shoulder to shoulder against the enemy' (whichever one...)

If somebody says something you feel like discussing; go for it. Either you get an answer that satisfies you, or you don't. The most important part is that the discussion itself is carried out in a friendly, or at least not unfriendly, manner. Maybe it goes somewhere; maybe it doesn't.

Zinj

Zinj. This is the first post I have ever seen from you that I agree with totally and completely (although some have been good, and some downright hilarious).

We will probably never become buddies, but my respect has gone up astronomically.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
My motivation for posting about this, is the letters I get form recoving scientologists. When I get a few nice ones, like I dd this am, it motivates me to do a little more on a topic, because what was done already helped a person get their lives together.

And, while I was getting my car inspected I read this little book... Hypnosis for Salesmen... that i got from my mom's house.. who was ED Fnd at DC in the 60's

I don't mind arguing and have no problem with differing opinions, my intent on mentioning this is to help recovering scientologists recover a little faster, and have the benefit of years of reading dreadfully dry books on hypnosis.

And Zinj, I also, would have posted that I liked your post but somebody beat me to it.

I do have a problem with topic changes, thought stopping phrases, and fallacious argument. I have endured all the above in order to entice one or two newly departeds to explore a previously demonized website...

LERMANET.COM Exposing the CON of Scientology since 1996
Arnie Lerma
703-241-1498
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=381
http://www.Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK
for our friends and family
to get them out of scientology
before they end up here:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
 

SomeGuy

Patron Meritorious
I do have a problem with topic changes, thought stopping phrases, and fallacious argument. I have endured all the above in order to entice one or two newly departeds to explore a previously demonized website...

LERMANET.COM Exposing the CON of Scientology since 1996
Arnie Lerma
703-241-1498
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=381
http://www.Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK
for our friends and family
to get them out of scientology
before they end up here:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net

Consider this a free bump(and more advertising for your site) then and a question which is why I brought up the "leap of logic" before.

You speak with absolutes, primarily a correlation that nodding off is entering a hypnotic state, then correlate TR0s (I have no idea what's involved but for the purposes of this question it doesn't really matter) based on this evidence that TR0s are hypnotic in nature. I have no clue if they are or not, most likely they are but not due to thhe evidence you put forward it would require some logic steps most people can't do.

I'll give you an example, while in the shower this morning I nodded off. If I follow your logic that must mean that showers are hypnotic inducing procedures (maybe they are). But that's not quatifiable and requires some really faulty logic, primarily accepting that nodding off is a hypnotic state.

So my question really is, does providing "suspect" analysis serve the purpose you want? Would it be more prudent to speak in posibilities as opposed to absolutes?

Hopefully you don't take my asking the question as invalidating the message or the messenger. It's why I posted on another thread that when as an outsider examining the "critics" you guys look batshit crazy to me. Primarily for this reason that all things are absolutes in your eyes. I don't think most people have that world view.

Thanks!
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Consider this a free bump(and more advertising for your site) then and a question which is why I brought up the "leap of logic" before.

You speak with absolutes, primarily a correlation that nodding off is entering a hypnotic state, then correlate TR0s (I have no idea what's involved but for the purposes of this question it doesn't really matter) based on this evidence that TR0s are hypnotic in nature. I have no clue if they are or not, most likely they are but not due to thhe evidence you put forward it would require some logic steps most people can't do.

I'll give you an example, while in the shower this morning I nodded off. If I follow your logic that must mean that showers are hypnotic inducing procedures (maybe they are). But that's not quatifiable and requires some really faulty logic, primarily accepting that nodding off is a hypnotic state.

So my question really is, does providing "suspect" analysis serve the purpose you want? Would it be more prudent to speak in posibilities as opposed to absolutes?

Hopefully you don't take my asking the question as invalidating the message or the messenger. It's why I posted on another thread that when as an outsider examining the "critics" you guys look batshit crazy to me. Primarily for this reason that all things are absolutes in your eyes. I don't think most people have that world view.

Thanks!

Yes it is prudent to speak in possibilities, if there are other possibilities, some background, I've been pouring over some of the most dreadful reading I've had to do, ever... by the time one reads his 7th or 8th book on hypnosis, one starts to think they have a clue, and I'm up to about 15 of them, all from before 1955... (see I wanted to read the books on the subject that Hubbard would have read while he was contriving scientology) and then I read this slim little book from 1960, its description of easy to do exercises to induce hypnosis, as so similar, if you contrived them to be done by two people working together.. on each other... as hubbard did, that I was driving back from the inspection station thinking EUREKA! This is all I need to explain the TR's - plus the date was circumstantially relevant as the TR bulletin was issued in 1964.

And its easy to read... so what you see is my exhilaration and enthusiasm.. so I felt no inclination to mince words.. Ill get this scanned in as we have done a number of other books that are revelatory regarding hypnosis and manipulation.

Of course in the Anderson Report they came up with the same conclusion, but that's a mean nasty old official government inquiery, filled with evil Psychs, what do they know?

The first 9 chapters of Estabrooks...(mentioned by Hubbard in a PDC tape as a source for proof his stuff was NOT hypnosis - he was bluffing) has been webbed in the meantime, give it a shot, and see how many of his techniques you can spot in scientology..

see Lermanet's Hypnosis Index Books and Periodicals Section
read for a few days and you will find there is nothing to argue about


and Im not the only ex to delve into this subject to realize the situation, I just collected the very best of everything I read and made it available to doubters

I've waded through the unreadable stuff for weeks so you don't have to
It is quite an adventure, you will be finding out how hubbard did it...

http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosis-index.htm

Hypnosis and Dianetics, 1952 Journal of Hypnotism

Instantaneous Hypnosis by Harry Arons Journal of Hypnotism, 1952

Beyond Hypnosis The Truth About Dianetics authored by Hugh Lacy, 1952

Comparison of hypnosis and auditing from an ex scientology member who became a Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist - Another Look at Hypnosis, by Lawrence West, USA

Hypnosis Is What Works in Scientology by Don Carlo

Ex-member Peter Forde: Hypnotic Coercion Uncovered Via Coue

HYPNOSIS by G.A. Estabrooks ©1943

HYPNOTISM TODAY, Leslie M. Lecron and Jean Bordeaux, 1947 (excerpt)

CREATIVE IMAGE THERAPY, 1954, Volney Mathison, Hubbard Denounced by Inventor of the E-Meter Volney Mathison (excerpt)

Transcript of a 1984 lecture by Ron DeWolfe, (L Ron Hubbard Jr,) describing use of Magick and hypnosis by his father, L Ron Hubbard

The Misuse of Hypnosis in Destructive Cults, An excerpt from a summary paper presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), under the sponsorship of Division 30 (Psychological Hypnosis) By: Steven Hassan

http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosis-index.htm

Remember, Hubbard said "Always goto source" so I did, I went to the sources Hubbard stole from to contrive what we once said 'worked' when you and I would quip,

"Scientology Works"

HYPNOSIS WORKS!
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
Maybe I'm making up for lost time,... and IMHO, that was the problem, we were not street-wise enough to CONfidence artists, we were not sharp enough, smart enough, yes, but not well informed enough... I got fooled by that particular professional liar (proof), for ten years... how long were you?

I was about 20 years in the CoS before I figured it was going nowhere. However, I differ from you in that I found enough postive in the subject both from the CoS days and after to continue to be interested in it.

I am not that interested in whether Hubbard stole or borrowed things from other philosophers and researchers. I am just a punter interested in what I find useful.

Nick
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Arnie,

I was a Comm Course sup for awhile. I rarely saw anyone dozing off while doing any TRs.

Also, while on course or in cramming at ASHO I never saw anyone falling asleep during TRs.
 
Top