On the whole "Is hypnotism involved in Scientology?" theme, Anakin Skywalker just started a new thread with a great post!
Here's a quote of the relevant passage:
"
Well, let’s take a look at the earliest definition of hypnotism, as was given by James Braid, who coined the term:
“The real origin and essence of the hypnotic condition is the induction of a mental concentration in which the powers of the mind are so much engrossed with a single idea or train of thought, as to render the individual unconscious of, or indifferently conscious to, all other ideas, impressions, or trains of thought.”
—James Braid, Hypnotic Therapeutics, 1853
Now, take a look guys:
Ron was superb at concentrating our attention on him and his tech alone:
Don’t read newspapers, don’t do other practices, don’t listen to psychologists, disconnect from your friends and family who disagree with scientology, don’t be a dilettante, spend all your free time at the org, be a dedicated Sea Org member, scientology is the only solution etc.
This concentration of attention is, purely by definition, a method of hypnosis.
Examples of this include the following:
“I have been researching upper OT levels, and I can tell you this very plainly: If Scn doesn’t make it worldwide you’ve had it – yes, I mean you. One is not working for just this life. He is working for any future life at all”.
(HCO PL 14 March 1982 Financial Irregularities)
Ok, he said this, so how do you know it is true? Well you don’t. You have to take his word for it. This means that in order to really “know” this for yourself, you have to continue up the Bridge and all of its secret levels.
By now your mind may be shutting you down to listening to what I have to say here. That is because Ron, the Master Marketer, cleverly positioned himself as “Mankind’s best friend,” and carefully covered his tracks by indoctrinating Scientologists with the idea/broad generality that anyone who is critical of Scientology is anti-spiritual freedom. Wow, how’s that for effective thought-stopping?
Here follows another classic example of how Scientology training can gradually get one’s attention focused on Scientology and little else:
“We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better.
The whole agonized future of the planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.
This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance.
Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past.”
–L. Ron Hubbard HCO PL 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working Series 1
Not only does this policy narrow one’s attention so that Scientology becomes the most important thing in one’s life, it also creates a sense of urgency, and a heightened sense of potential loss.
It is important to note that we often overreact to potential losses, focusing more on the short-term consequences rather than the longer-term effects. And the more meaningful a potential loss is, the more likely we are to make irrational decisions.
If it is not the policy itself which is at fault, then
the fault is surely the mind-frame which is cultured by some policies; the overriding mood, the pervasive sense of urgency, of emergency, of superiority, of us-versus-them.
Herewith follows an example of how the us-versus-them attitude starts to enter the scene:
“When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe – never permit an open-minded approach. If they’re going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they’re aboard; they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us – win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists.
We’d rather have you dead than incapable.”
(HCO PL Keeping Scientology Working 1)
So now we have not only an “induction of a mental concentration in which the powers of the mind are so much engrossed with a single idea or train of thought, as to render the individual unconscious of, or indifferently conscious to, all other ideas, impressions, or trains of thought,” but we also have a sense of us-versus-them starting to creep in.
Here is another example that shows how some Scientologists have developed an elitist, and hence separatist, mind-frame:
“A handful of us are working our guts out to beat Deadline Earth. On us alone depends whether your kid will ever see sixteen or your people will ever make it at all. A few of us see the world has got a chance if we don’t dawdle along the way. Our chance is a thin chance at best. We are working as hard as we can in Scientology. And, the only slim chance this planet has rests on a few slim shoulders, overworked, underpaid and fought – the Scientologist. Later on, if we make it, what will be your answer to this question? Did you help?”
(“Five Years”, 1967, Auditor Mag #9)
Note once again the overriding sense of urgency, as well as the narrowing of attention (“only slim chance”) in the quote above.
Other “cultural” factors in Scientology further separate Scientologists from others (which, incidentally, is a sign of overt-acts) by calling people such things as “Degraded beings,” “SPs,” “wogs”and “raw meat.”
Such indroctrination all forms a part of the hypnosis process.
According to Hubbard, hypnosis is a relatively simple mechanism:
“By deep trance or drugs we take a patient into amnesia trance, a state of being wherein the ‘I’ is not in control but the operator is the ‘I’ (and that’s all there is, really, to the function of hypnosis).”
–L. Ron hubbard, Dianetics Modern Science of Mental Health
Of course, Hubbard created great rapport with his audience by regaling him with his exaggerated stories, and his charming and charismatic personality. This made it easy for his audience to accept all that he was saying without question.
In fact, a common mantra which Hubbard himself promoted was “What would Ron do?”, as a means of handling situations in orgs. Ron also wrote the policy of KSW1, which mandated that Scientologists do what he dictated. This, in effect, put the “I” out of control, and made L. Ron Hubbard the “I.”
Perhaps one of the more significant policies that determine the general Scientologist’s mind-frame is “The Responsibility of Leaders.” The essay is Hubbard’s criticism of Simon Bolivar and his consort, Manuela Saenz. He analyses what he feels they did wrong and what they should have done to be successful.
Listen to some of the things he criticized Manuela for not doing:
“…she never collected or forged or stole any documents to bring down enemies…”
“…she never used a penny to buy a quick knife…”
“She never handed over any daughter of a family clamouring against her to Negro troops and then said ‘Which oververbal family is next.’”
He also recommends that those working for a power give that power deniability – the famous “pink legs” quote. And he recommends always “pushing power to power.” “It may be more money for the power or more ease or a snarling defence of the power to a critic or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark…”
He also has the following policy:
“When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police.”
Gee, suddenly my PC folders dont feel so “confidential” anymore…
I know, I know, this is all “taken out of context” and “he really didn’t mean it” and “he was only kidding,” and so on. No, re-read the essay. Read it for what it actually says.
The fact is, this represents the exact culture of Scientology, a culture which is steeped in this kind of totalitarian ethics. It is the culture which it creates which is at fault. And the culture stems directly from the policy.
Of course, this could probably all be justified if things were so terribly serious, and if Scientology were the only hope for “salvation.” But here’s another thing: when did it all become so bad? From what do we need this “salvation”? ... (more follows).
It's a brilliant post. I think that Anakin is still trying to salvage some good from the Scientology processes, or maybe is just wanting to further explore mankind's "spiritual" abilities (which we almost all have and don't need Scientology to learn or develop.)
Anyway, read the whole post and see what you think:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?28236-My-synopsis-of-Scientology
) . . . <brevity snip> . . .
right now and you can the first 
Oobleckologist!
