Nibs Tells Us the MO of Ron, SR.

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

Supposing this Hell and Bible stuff is all true, then that would tend to give some credence to the "I am the anti-christ" stuff of the OT-8 Student Briefing.

-snip-

Nibs was expressing some of his opinions.

And that OT 8 is an old hoax.

I'm beginning to think you're an old hoax too.
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Id say Nibs out of his depth 'drug-searching the clam' whilst his dad applied workable increments of Amphetamines & gleefully scribled it all down, for his upcoming masterpiece-meal History of My son & Wife.
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
Nibs prolly was "out of his depth".
I remember him as being sort of 'wimpy'. Non-agressive.
I think that he might well have been "after some money" in the 80s.
There were multiple rumors going around from '78 (or maybe even earlier) that LRH was dead. He was surely "off tech lines".

Nibs prolly thought that his Dad was either dead or incompetent, and as the first born Son, felt it incumbent on him to discover the truth of that rumor. So he called LRH out. What Nibs got, IIRC, was a thumbprint and a letter from LRH stating that he was alive and well.

There's no arguement that Nibs needed money. He was dying. He *prolly* wanted to leave his children , LRHs Grandchildren, something other than a legacy of rejection and embarrassment from their Grandfather. If it took a recantment statement from Nibs, so what? He was already on his way out. Nothing to lose, and maybe some comfort for his children.


Challenge
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron

Interesting.

I remember that when I first got to Phoenix there was much talk about Scn "is not a pseudoscience".

I now think that the subject came up because LRH had the book "The New Word".
He would've wanted to distance Scn from a label of "Pseudoscience".
He was pushing Scn hard hard hard among the ranks of Dianeticists because the majority of them wanted no part of Scn, nor of a new "Religion".


challenge

Challenge
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Interesting.

I remember that when I first got to Phoenix there was much talk about Scn "is not a pseudoscience".

I now think that the subject came up because LRH had the book "The New Word".
He would've wanted to distance Scn from a label of "Pseudoscience".
He was pushing Scn hard hard hard among the ranks of Dianeticists because the majority of them wanted no part of Scn, nor of a new "Religion".


challenge

Challenge

Do you recall seeing Ron with the book The New Word?

There were other books where Dianetics was labeled a Pseudo-Science, Fads and fallacies was 1952, also mentioned was Korzybski's semantics.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
And pray tell, what undeniable facts are you referring to?

Put it this way, Leon: if Scientologists had listened to Nibs at the time and sought themselves to verify his statements, the movement would not be in the trouble that it is today. His was a clarion call to LOOK. Thirty years later and still some will not.
 
What I don't get is Nibs game plan. In the 2nd video looked like he was in a wheel chair, and in an earlier post said he had an amputation and diabetes (if memory serves) so his days were numbered. Was he seriously trying to take control of the church, or just doing some sort of "pay me and I'll shut up" to leave something for his progeny?

If it is the latter, then it throws a lot of his accusations into doubt.

Am I right in this?

Mimsey.
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
What I don't get is Nibs game plan. In the 2nd video looked like he was in a wheel chair, and in an earlier post said he had an amputation and diabetes (if memory serves) so his days were numbered. Was he seriously trying to take control of the church, or just doing some sort of "pay me and I'll shut up" to leave something for his progeny?

If it is the latter, then it throws a lot of his accusations into doubt.

Am I right in this?

Mimsey.

Mims, good conjecture...however, I'm thinking that if he was "pay me and I'll shut up" then his accusations would need to be true in order for him to get paid. Hubbard would never part with a dime unless he had to so I'm thinking there'd be merit to Nibs' account of history. I mean, sheesh, Hubbub is raking in millions and STILL collecting a measly $70/month for VA benefits or something like that - 1958 and beyond.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Do you know what I think was wrong in Scientology? I'll tell you. I referred to this in an earlier post somewhere but I'll spell it out clearly here.

I spent about 12 or 13 years on Org staff, and obne doesn't have to have been there very long before one gets the idea that there must be something wrong going on here. I mean the subject is great and these are all decent people and auditing is great etc etc so what is keeping people away? Why didn't guys want to get into the subject?

after years of pondering on this and not quite knowing the insidiousness of the answer, I came to the point where what the Orgs were doing was for the most part not something I wanted to be involved in. So I left and continued with the parts of Scio that I did like and that worked for me and that I saw a being beneficial to othwers and which they also though was beneficil to them. And life was good.

But always I wondered What was it that went wrong in that place? How did such a good subject go so very screwy?

When I got the answer eventually, and part of the credit certainly goes to this board, it was so devious that at first I just couldn't reconcile myself to it. This was some years ago now - soon after the board started. But before long the pieces fitted the puzzle and I was OK on it all.

In Theosophy they talk about the Left Hand Path and the Right Hand Path. The difference, briefly stated, is that the Right Hand Path seeks to empower others while the Left Hand Path seeks to gain power over others. Along with this Power over others comes Greed, Dominance, Enslavement, etc etc etc. These are values that our society generally finds abhorent.

Well Hubbard himself was undeniably a Left Hand Path man. Dyed in the wool. While Dianetics and Scientology were originally quite Right Hand Pathish, and in the hands of good people they were very thoroughly Right Hand Path. These were the sort of people that I encountered in the Orgs in South Africa. Really good sorts of pepole. Then they started the Sea Org there and the Left Hand Path crap came into it all and things went screwy from there on.

Hubbard used - set it up - the Right Hand Path things to lure guys in and then - as Veda calls it - does the switch and gets them over to the Left Hand Path. KSW was always the big stick on this.

Now the big mistake in Scio was not so much that they mixed the two paths together, but rather that they did anything on the Left Hand Path at all. The old saying of "Power corrupts, and absolute power corupts absolutely" refers entirely to Left Hand Path power. Not to RHP empowering of others.

The Left HP can be guarranteed to always lead to degredation and corruption for the practitioner. Why? Well the answer is easily found in Right HP Scientology. Left Hand Path is alien to the basic nature of a thetan and so will lead to the destruction of theta. As LRH himself epitomised so clearly.

But hey, that Right Hand Path Scientology is good. It is very very very good. One has to keep it that way and eliminate from it all the Left Hand Path curves that LRH put into it.
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Do you know what I think was wrong in Scientology? I'll tell you. I referred to this in an earlier post somewhere but I'll spell it out clearly here.

I spent about 12 or 13 years on Org staff, and obne doesn't have to have been there very long before one gets the idea that there must be something wrong going on here. I mean the subject is great and these are all decent people and auditing is great etc etc so what is keeping people away? Why didn't guys want to get into the subject?

after years of pondering on this and not quite knowing the insidiousness of the answer, I came to the point where what the Orgs were doing was for the most part not something I wanted to be involved in. So I left and continued with the parts of Scio that I did like and that worked for me and that I saw a being beneficial to othwers and which they also though was beneficil to them. And life was good.

But always I wondered What was it that went wrong in that place? How did such a good subject go so very screwy?

When I got the answer eventually, and part of the credit certainly goes to this board, it was so devious that at first I just couldn't reconcile myself to it. This was some years ago now - soon after the board started. But before long the pieces fitted the puzzle and I was OK on it all.

In Theosophy they talk about the Left Hand Path and the Right Hand Path. The difference, briefly stated, is that the Right Hand Path seeks to empower others while the Left Hand Path seeks to gain power over others. Along with this Power over others comes Greed, Dominance, Enslavement, etc etc etc. These are values that our society generally finds abhorent.

Well Hubbard himself was undeniably a Left Hand Path man. Dyed in the wool. While Dianetics and Scientology were originally quite Right Hand Pathish, and in the hands of good people they were very thoroughly Right Hand Path. These were the sort of people that I encountered in the Orgs in South Africa. Really good sorts of pepole. Then they started the Sea Org there and the Left Hand Path crap came into it all and things went screwy from there on.

Hubbard used - set it up - the Right Hand Path things to lure guys in and then - as Veda calls it - does the switch and gets them over to the Left Hand Path. KSW was always the big stick on this.

Now the big mistake in Scio was not so much that they mixed the two paths together, but rather that they did anything on the Left Hand Path at all. The old saying of "Power corrupts, and absolute power corupts absolutely" refers entirely to Left Hand Path power. Not to RHP empowering of others.

The Left HP can be guarranteed to always lead to degredation and corruption for the practitioner. Why? Well the answer is easily found in Right HP Scientology. Left Hand Path is alien to the basic nature of a thetan and so will lead to the destruction of theta. As LRH himself epitomised so clearly.

But hey, that Right Hand Path Scientology is good. It is very very very good. One has to keep it that way and eliminate from it all the Left Hand Path curves that LRH put into it.

Yeah, it's a tough nut to crack - no doubt about that, Leon. It doesn't take very long to see some remarkable results when on lines, at least it didn't use to - maybe not so much with all the Golden Age of alterations taking place. But, right along side those remarkable results it also doesn't take long to see the most crazy bullshit you'll ever see take place as well.

I don't know if I'm ever gonna' figure it out all the way.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Sounds about right, for Nibs. The guy was a nutter deluxe.

The #1 Fallacious argument technique used by Hubbard to convince us that there was any worth in the Fraud of $cientology was Ad Hominem.

The specific Category of Leon's comment above is a perfect example, IMO, of the "abusive" category of ad hominem per wiki page above, and I quote:

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.



Hubbard was a master of fallacious argument techniques, the study of these techniques deprograms true believers. Please learn about these.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Confucious stated that all debate must be to determine what is the truth, NOT to determine who is right. That way everyone wins.
 
... But hey, that Right Hand Path Scientology is good. It is very very very good. One has to keep it that way and eliminate from it all the Left Hand Path curves that LRH put into it.

Very true, Leon. But using your words, the one obvious reality is that LRH left much of the delivery of the right-hand path to others. What he himself deliberately sought to introduce was the left-hand path.

It can be, and has been, demonstrated that much of the right-hand tech of scientology was the work of others. But of the left-hand tech lrh is the sole source and origin. His introduction of such methods among the practices of scientology shows a tremendous disregard for and violation of the fundamental rights of others.


Mark A. Baker
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
The #1 Fallacious argument technique used by Hubbard to convince us that there was any worth in the Fraud of $cientology was Ad Hominem.

The specific Category of Leon's comment above is a perfect example, IMO, of the "abusive" category of ad hominem per wiki page above, and I quote:



Hubbard was a master of fallacious argument techniques, the study of these techniques deprograms true believers. Please learn about these.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Confucious stated that all debate must be to determine what is the truth, NOT to determine who is right. That way everyone wins.

Cheers Arnie.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, I agree with you Mark. Work needs to be done to seperate the one from the other. Maybe one day when I retire and have time on my hands I'll have a go at it.

But to answer Arnie now: What you say it also basically correct amd I partially accept the rebuke. But in using the ad hominem rebuttal one needs to look a little further at some aspects of the original arguer's methods - in this case Nibs's.

Where a proponent makes allegations based on experiences he claims to have had 50 or more years in the past and there is no possible way now of proving the allegations either as correct or false or to substantiate them in any other way, and the whole argument rests in its entirety on the said alleger's accusations which he makes repeatedly and in the comfort of knowing that no one can refute them, and one observes further that this person presents nothing other than such irrefutable allegations, then I think the label of "nutter" has some merit and is justified.

In the one talk he gave where he went beyond this - the tape transcript - I gave him full credit for it.
 
Top