How Hubbard created a 100% workable technology

[alex]

Pieces, player or pawn,

better to know your role

if your to enjoy the game.

winning isnt the only way to enjoy

playing isnt the only way to win

but if there is no enjoyment

is it a game?

alex

 

[PirateAndBum]

Warning if you are a Game-Player or ex-Game-Player, reading this may make you feel conned and cheated, You may become angry or sad. Don't read this if you wish to retain your faith in the Games Leaders and "technology".

This expose of how Game-Players and their Leaders did it was prompted by a discussion about the validity of the level of Games experience and some people's assertions that they knew from their own experience that some Games worked, or parts of it did, and that was sufficient proof to them of its validity.

The 1100 soccer playing people were divided into 100 soccer teams of 11 people and each team were given a different opponent in a best of a 100 team race.

You get the idea?

In the first round 555 people experienced a 100% successful system.

In the next round 261 people experienced a 100% success.

In the next round 116 people were convinced that their soccer playing team had a 100% successful soccer playing system.

This continues until 11 people in the ultimate winning team experience a 100% successful soccer playing system.

All subjects come under the rule of survival of the most effective and competent - unless you live in the UK

To succeed at any game you use the above: (BTW scamming is a game!)

In poker you discard the bad hands and invest on the good.

To win in the stock market you discard your bad stocks and invest in the good.

Building a winning sports team you discard the losers and keep the winners.

This is how different levels of competency or divisions in sporting events are decided.

I believe even science uses this method!

Alan

Yes, this is a completely different process though Alan. If we were analysing the horses in LH's example - which horses kept on winning...

Alan, you have developed Knowlegism and it appears you have adopted portions of Scn methodology into it. What do you have to say regarding the hypnotic aspects of processing, if any?

 

[PirateAndBum]

The Patriots almost made that 100% 100% win isn't even required in your scenario to be the ulimate winner, unless you do it like a tennis match.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Pieces, player or pawn,

better to know your role

if your to enjoy the game.

winning isnt the only way to enjoy

playing isnt the only way to win

but if there is no enjoyment

is it a game?

alex

Yes, I'd say it's still a game. Probably one that one is unaware they are playing.
The game called victim comes to mind. Maybe victims enjoy being victims - I guess you'd have to check with them. But you'd probably not get much agreement that they were playing a game.

 

[Alan]

Yes, this is a completely different process though Alan. If we were analysing the horses in LH's example - which horses kept on winning...

Not so - you were analysing bettors abilities to pick winning horses

Alan, you have developed Knowlegism and it appears you have adopted portions of Scn methodology into it.

It appears that way - but in fact all that I use has been discovered in other practices.

The Scio methods were almost all part of a team co-discovery.

What do you have to say regarding the hypnotic aspects of processing, if any?

It is very easy to observe if the pc is in an "hypnotic trance" state - thus very open to suggestibility.

The first question we use after Start of Session ascertains what awareness state the pc is in.

Alan

 

[PirateAndBum]

Not so - you were analysing bettors abilities to pick winning horses

No, not really. The scheme LH is laying out is based on no ability whatsoever to pick winners -- it is based only on telling a large enough sample of people all possible combinations of outcomes. No skill other than fraud is involved on the part of the picker.

The first question we use after Start of Session ascertains what awareness state the pc is in.

What question will ascertain that?

 

[PirateAndBum]

The way the stock-pickers do this is to send out a mailing to say 10,000 people. In 50% of the letters you predict IBM stock will go up in the the other half you predict it will go down. Then another mailing is done to the same people predicting a different stock in the same fashion 50/50. Choosing at random which of the 10,000 will get which prediction. This is kept up. Some number of the recipients are going to receive a string of perfect picks. It is these people that will now believe they have found a stock-picking guru and sign-on with whatever he is selling.

(I may have munged up the best way the predictions are chosen to be sent (not random), you choose 1/2 of the group that last got the up prediction to now get a down and the other half gets another up prediction, similarly for the group in the last mailing that was given a down prediction - you give that bunch a 50/50 split of up/down predictions. This would assure a string of perfect predictions of some length to a certain number of people.) It is only required to increase you mailing list to increase the length of the perfect streak, or to get more suckers with a fixed length run.

 

[Alan]

What question will ascertain that?

Its super-duper confidential!

The question is: "Describe your mood level?"

To describe one's mood level the being needs to separate from whatever they are "sitting in" to describe it.

The same thing occurs when a person writes up their story for ESMB. As you write it you have to separate from it - this gives you back some of your own space, your own time, your own energy and allows you to correct wrong items and objects this in turn increases your reach and your spheres of influence.

It helps release you from what you have been stuck in - but more than that it also helps others who have had similar experiences to release themselves from what they also have been stuck in.

Alan

 

[PirateAndBum]

Thanks Alan,

I'm feeling very happy to have found this board. And even more so from being free from the church.

I have a number of questions about Knowledgism - can I call you?

Mayhaps entranced? LOL

 

[Leon]

Why exactly?

My statement was prompted by Hanover's words:

"the 'tech' (Hubbard's own brand of psychiatry/psychology) is as twisted, psychotic, and corpulent as Hubbard himself."

which are a straightforward attempt to slag LRH and gives the lie to Hanover's earlier claims that he wanted an intelligent analysis of Scientology. What he wants is purely to defame and degrade. Such intentions would make him at home on Clambake.

It seems that Ad Hominem attacks are perfectly OK if directed at LRH.

 

[Hanover Fist]

Its super-duper confidential!

The question is: "Describe your mood level?"

To describe one's mood level the being needs to separate from whatever they are "sitting in" to describe it.

Could you explain this a bit more, please? I am not sure why this necessarily follows. Also, is the "one" in the above sentence the same as "the being"?

The same thing occurs when a person writes up their story for ESMB. As you write it you have to separate from it - this gives you back some of your own space, your own time, your own energy and allows you to correct wrong items and objects this in turn increases your reach and your spheres of influence.

It helps release you from what you have been stuck in - but more than that it also helps others who have had similar experiences to release themselves from what they also have been stuck in.

Alan

Could you also explain this mechanism as well? Is it similar to the general psychoanalytic idea that by confronting a past "issue" you can resolve it? Could you explain "your own space, your own time, your own energy"?


TIA
Hanover Fist

 

[Björkist]

Sheesh I must be very close to the truth to get such a response!

Didn't L. Ron Hubbard say something very similar?

 

[PirateAndBum]

Excellent post Lionheart. You have managed to articulate this aspect of Ron's Con very well. This also emphasises the fact that the 'tech' (Hubbard's own brand of psychiatry/psychology) is as twisted, psychotic, and corpulent as Hubbard himself.

My statement was prompted by Hanover's words:

"the 'tech' (Hubbard's own brand of psychiatry/psychology) is as twisted, psychotic, and corpulent as Hubbard himself."

which are a straightforward attempt to slag LRH and gives the lie to Hanover's earlier claims that he wanted an intelligent analysis of Scientology. What he wants is purely to defame and degrade. Such intentions would make him at home on Clambake.

It seems that Ad Hominem attacks are perfectly OK if directed at LRH.

I fail to see how this particular thread has addressed, much less "emphasises the fact" of your statement. It is a bit much to label something you know very little about in such a fashion. Perhaps your primary exposure to "the tech" is the OT III materials on the internet? This constitutes less than 0.1% of "the tech" you so vehemently disparage.

I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, but your own learned stance is a bit tarnished when you engage in such bashing from a position of ignorance of that which you bash. You accuse others of being ignorant in the subject of Logic and instruct them to go audit a class on Logic. I wouldn't recommend you go take a course at your local Scn Org but, if you expect to be given much credence by those that do not agree with you on this particular point you'll need to become more knowledgeable.

I can recommend this book (full text download) by L.Kin http://freezoneamerica.com/pub/lk4e.zip (which I got from this page: http://freezoneamerica.com/downloads/files.html). Excalibur Revisited by Jeff Filbert (available on that last link) is also a distillation of what the author considers to be the only worthwhile portion of the "the tech" (it also includes additional higher level processes he developed). I believe he says this represents 0.25% of "the tech".

Asking you to read 15 books, 13 encyclopedic "Tech" volumes and listen to a 1000+ recorded lectures would be a bit too much to ask! That doesn't cover the policy either - you'd have to add another 11 volumes to the list.

 

[Free to shine]

My statement was prompted by Hanover's words:

"the 'tech' (Hubbard's own brand of psychiatry/psychology) is as twisted, psychotic, and corpulent as Hubbard himself."

which are a straightforward attempt to slag LRH and gives the lie to Hanover's earlier claims that he wanted an intelligent analysis of Scientology. What he wants is purely to defame and degrade. Such intentions would make him at home on Clambake.

It seems that Ad Hominem attacks are perfectly OK if directed at LRH.

You included Lionheart in your suggestion, which doesn't make sense to me.

And perhaps Hanover has reached a conclusion from the analysis done since joining.

Personally I totally agree with that statement. As I understand it, ESMB doesn't have any requirement to honour LRH or refrain from stating an opinion, ad hom or not.

 

[Leon]

As you wish.

 

[PirateAndBum]

I reserve my right to attack Ron, Cof$ and my little dog too.

Difference of opinion makes for interesting reading.

I'm certainly interested in hearing the rationale for such statements - it is one thing to make such statements - it is quite another to explain it so as to persuade another to a different viewpoint.

 

[Veda]

My statement was prompted by Hanover's words:

"the 'tech' (Hubbard's own brand of psychiatry/psychology) is as twisted, psychotic, and corpulent as Hubbard himself."

which are a straightforward attempt to slag LRH and gives the lie to Hanover's earlier claims that he wanted an intelligent analysis of Scientology. What he wants is purely to defame and degrade. Such intentions would make him at home on Clambake.

It seems that Ad Hominem attacks are perfectly OK if directed at LRH.

LRH Personal Public Relations Officer, on the importance of "LRH's Image," and the importance of "positioning LRH" as the "stable terminal in society":

"It is LRH's image on which all the rest of our expansion depends. To the degree that LRH is made the stable terminal in society, people will reach for his books and services and we can get them on the Bridge to Total Freedom."

Your 'Survival!' and the 'Survival!' of Mankind are at stake! That's why it's OK to mislead others about 'LRH' and his writings and background; that's why it's OK to mislead others about Scentology doctrine, and ignore the realty that 1% of Scientology doctrine is core and senior: the Confidential 'OT levels' (the most valued being "OT 3"), and the (even more Confidential) tactical writings (on how to manipulate and dominate, not only outsiders, but also rank and file members.)

 

[lionheart]

Excellent points LH!

While I was reading this thread I remembered something that happened when I was a child. Long before Scn became their life, my parents wanted to handle a situation with my young brother and decided to take him to a psychologist who used hypnotism. As the elder sister I went along to keep him company. I can't remember our ages, probably around 7 or 8.

We were left in a room with a large bed, at the end of which was a spinning wheel. Soft music played and we were supposed to concentrate on watching the wheel spin. This was to relax us apparently. My brother got a bit sleepy but damn it I could just not! I tried but it became so boring that I ended up playing a game instead, just waiting until I could get out of there.

Then we all had to sit in a circle with about 10 other people and I remember him explaining that our thoughts could influence our feelings.

To test this out we had to take a needle and prick it into the back of our hands, one by one. So people did this and were nodding that yes, they made their hand numb and couldn't feel a thing. When it was my turn I just could get that needle not to sting!

I SO wanted to be a grown up and do the same as everyone else, so I pretended and happiness reigned in the room. 100% success rate.

Now I know why auditing didn't work for me.

In Derren Brown's book he talks a lot about how so-called "hypnotised" subjects behave in the way they think they are expected to behave because they have been hypnotised. It is more expectation and suggestion than hypnoticism.

That's what happened to you in the group of "hypnotised" subjects, you behaved in the way you thought you were expected to behave. You said you "experienced" what you thought you were supposed to experience. Have you ever wondered how many others in the group of 10 said it didn't hurt because they were expected to not feel it?

Derren Brown speculates on the percentages who "actually" experience what is expected, how many "think" they experienced it and how many "pretend" to experience it. His hypothesis is that it almost doesn't matter, because to all intents and purposes they are all behaving how they are expected to behave!

 

[lionheart]

There is one HUGE mistake with your theory LH.
If we apply your example to the CofS; there is NO WAY that the CofS will let the 1000+ people who did not get the results they want to go on their way. They will Reg them for other courses, processes and repairs UNTIL AND ONLY UNTIL they have ran out of money and credit and if possible, when they have no more possessions to sell, the church will recruit them as staff so they get the services for "free", thus keeping them as slaves.

You may be right, if it is true these days that people "stay in" even if they have had no wins. I don't have the up-to-date data.

But in my time and earlier times that I know of, the ones on staff or on services had had wins, or if they were very new, they expected to get wins. Those who didn't get wins quickly left or were quickly "qualed" until they did get wins. Or else they were quickly labelled PTS or SP or No Case Gain and routed out through HCO faster than you can say L Ron Hubbard. The GO then moved in on any trouble makers and lied to, cheated or ruined them utterly per LRH orders.

A single day of resistiveness in the courseroom and the student was in Qual. Resistance to the Qual action and they were in HCO. And any O/W write-up failure and they were gone!

These days, with all the bad PR about Scn, I suppose the CofS has more of a scarcity of "raw meat", so they probably hang onto them and qual them longer and HCO them harder than in my time. I have no data about that other than what people report on here and OCMB.

But if we take the years 1950 to 1982 when the regime was more or less refined to what I described, you can see the pryamid principle at work.

Suppose LRH got £1 for every pooper who tried Dn or Scn...

#1 best seller: maybe a million read it and try it a little. £1million quid to Hubbard - kerchung! (sound of Hubbo's cash register)

lets say 10% experienced something that they could identify as close to Hubbard's description of what will happen. 900,000 failed cases gone! Bye bye.

100,000 poopers pay Hubbard £10 this time for the next experience. Another million quid - kerchung!

10% experience the next "right" thing. 90,000 failed cases gone! Bye bye.

10,000 poopers pay Hubbard £100 this time for the next experience. Another million quid - kerchung!

etc etc. Dwindling numbers - but loads of dosh!

But that's just 1950. let's say every year since then Hubbo got about 50,000 new poopers every year until 1982. that's 1.5 million new poopers. That's another £4.5+ million in Hubard's back pocket. kerchung!

So we have a few million failed cases and a few thousand winning cases. All of them gave Hubbard at least £1. kerchung! kerchung! kerchung! We have Hubbard's pyramid to Total Failure. Millions of failures supporting a few winners.

All Hubbard had to do was keep the failures away from the winners. This is what Qual and HCO were set up to do. Then the GO enforced the whole caboodle.

The winners must not be allowed to see or speak to the failures otherwise the winners would see the bigger picture. This was how one Kept Scientology Working, kept Hubbard's Till Kechunging!

Of course his progress wasn't as smooth as that, but essentially that is how he created a "workable technology" and filled his pockets.

1982 is when KSW started to unravel and the failures started to talk to each other and to those still winning in the church. The mistake Hubbard and the RTC made was to label too many people, all at once as losers and to mis-label too many winners as losers. Slowly they lost control of their scam and the bigger picture came into view for many people and now we are where we are.

 

[lionheart]

Look LH, there is plenty of evidence to say that Hubbard nicked various bits of tech without giving proper credit to the originator. There is adequate evidence that he was hardly guilty of underselling. And there seems to be quite a few folk who have problems for one reason or another with some of the no interference zone stuff. Fair enough.

However, for someone such as yourself who has, on this board, posted that you had gains from Scn and, further that you also continue to this day to use some things of what you have learnt from whatever source in a processing like manner, to then turn round and basically try to shit on Hubbard is, as far as I am concerned, evidence that you are simply an ungrateful sod who hasn't got what happened straight in your own mind yet. So, yeah, I am calling you bitter. I see no reason to retract the comment.

Nick

I've thought long and hard over many years to get things as "straight" in my mind as possible.

Yes I was one of those who had many "wins". I experienced many of the things Hubbard suggested to me that I would experience and a few that he never said I would! :wink2: It was wonderful!

Yes I am a traiter to Hubbard. I am one of his SPs!

But your suggestion that I am bitter doesn't chime in with my experience. I see no bitterness here.

I have often said how I don't regret my Scn experience at all. But I have to say that is not what I see when I view the bigger picture. I see a huge number of failures, betrayed and disappointed people who are still struggling to get over it, compared to a few winners like me. I am no longer the person blindly following the winning system that was real to me.

Yes the lady getting the winning bets was delighted! For her it was wonderful and "real". 7,775 people were disappointed. She didn't see them, just like I didn't see all the SP/PTS/NCGs.

I have explained how what I do these days is completely geared towards not creating any suggestion in the person I'm coaching. Not creating any reliance on me and helping them to help themselves completely independent of me as quickly as possible. What I use bears very little resemblance to Scn.

Hubbard didn't kill my desire to help. He taught me many wrong ways to help people and I am grateful to him. he has been my greatest teacher.