Starting on ESMB Professor Jim Beverley

[NoName]

Dude, that's like really offensive to monkeys. The worst they ever done is sling shit at each other. Not like they lock three year olds in chain lockers.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I like your essential faith in mankind.

But, you bring up a good point. Of course, there are conniving con artists, like Hubbard, who do ask for your time and money.

But there are other equally precious things that authors and even message board posters ask for--such as one's acceptance and propagation of their ideas, misconceptions or knowing lies.

In a war of information vs. disinformation, individuals who write or post spin, half-truth or lies are actually combatants and not recognizing them as such leads to a place where people eventually stand up and yell Hip-Hip-Hoorays or Heil Hitler or other undeserved Helluva-Hoax-Honorfics.

Hip-Hip-Hooray!


Great Post!

 

[Stat]

That explains it. Thanky.

The hat was awarded to Ron after he became "blood-brothers" with the Tibetan Monkeys.

Quite remarkably, Ron had not yet cognited that the gurus teaching him should have instead been worshipping him as the returned Buddha.

Here is Ron before he was fully hatted.

​

Was this one from a Sequoia University period?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_University

 

[Boomima]

The hat was awarded to Ron after he became "blood-brothers" with the Tibetan Monkeys.

Quite remarkably, Ron had not yet cognited that the gurus teaching him should have instead been worshipping him as the returned Buddha.

Here is Ron before he was fully hatted.

​

Reader's Note: The CoS is still telling tall tales of Buddha's current incarnation as the young Ron Hubbard, noting:


See link at: http://www.galaxypress.com/l-ron-hubbard


Many sources have compellingly de-bunked the fictional story, including an expose in the Los Angeles Times where the opening line reads:


See link at: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-24/news/mn-1013_1_blackfeet-blood-brother

Thank you, HH, since I couldn't be arsed to look up the right information.

 

[Lermanet_com]

Re: "dominant ideology in the academic world"

If the statement or claims are false, they are propaganda...

Also see Logical Fallacy "appeal to Authority"

AND see Logical Fallacy "Bandwagon Fallacy"

Re the phrase "New Religious Movements":


"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. "" War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler

The reason repetition makes the mind accept a lie as truth is described in detail by Andrew Salter's 1949 "Conditioned Reflex Therapy" This is also the same technique used by Hubbard in his books... to trick the readers mind into acceptance of false information.

Example in Court: In scientology's court filings in RTC vs Lerma they repeat the word RELIGION, and RELIGIOUS over and over and over...




"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
p20 Media Control by Noam Chomsky 2002

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Well, as I said Jim, it's an information war we're in.

Yes, ESMB can be a huge timesink...but so worthwhile in many ways. We do have some good discussions here, (about all kinds of things!) and I learn something new each time I read around the board.

Some of the older threads and personal stories are so interesting!

There has been some talk of creating an index of some kind. I said it was a good thesis project for some grad student in Sociology.

Meanwhile, lots of folks have chimed in to share some really good information with you here on this thread, so this thread is already experiencing abundance!

Just let it roll on like a river!

Oh yeah! I forgot about Ron's buying his "doctorate" degree from a paper mill.

 

[James Beverley]

Hi Jim,

1. How do you view the trajectory of the Scientology membership going forward? "Everyone" here at ESMB thinks the membership is in dramatic decline. Where will it go from here? Where can it go? Have you made any estimates based on historical examples (e.g. Shakers)?

I have never studied the facts on Sci numbers and growth/decline. One huge problem with dealing with Sci is that totally opposite things are reported on even basic objective issues. Think of the impression on growth issues via Marty's blog and think of what the Church claims.

2. Are there sociological and cultural factors in a society that make the formation and growth of a mind control cult easier to accomplish? Is there something about cultural attitudes now vs. 40 years ago that makes things more difficult for cults now? I wonder about this because my belief is there are fewer cults forming now. Am I right about this? What are the reasons for this?

One huge factor is whether a nation allows religious liberty. If it does, new groups flourish. I am working on a database of all religious groups in USA and Canada. Every year there are new groups and sometimes dozens of them.
It is astonishing.

I don't think it is any harder today to get a new group going than in the recent past.

I have the idea that the population bubble of the baby boomers, the questioning of authority that happened in the 60's and the tremendous increase in personal wealth in industrial countries created fertile ground for scam artists like Hubbard to exploit. Things have changed somehow and I'm wondering exactly what - beyond the Internet.

I think the ground is still fertile for starting new groups.

Any ideas?

See answers above.

Thanks for all the posts!

 

[Veda]

See answers above.

Thanks for all the posts!

"Every year there are new groups, sometimes dozens of them"... New religions?

Just out of curiosity, what new religions appeared in Canada and the USA in the last year? Do they actually call themselves religions?

For example, I don't recall that Heaven's Gate referred to itself as a religion, or did it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZnBkdFooFU&feature=related

 

[James Beverley]

A couple of other items:

Someone asked me last week about Hubbard's occult roots. Here are a couple of quick points:

1. Be careful of using arguments about common dates in a group's history. In this case, April 30 comes up. The fact that several leaders had the same birthday or that big events happened on that date is not that big a deal. On this kind of argumentation, one needs an expert in statistics to work out details. For examples on this front, see the popular writings of Martin Gardner.

2. Hugh Urban just wrote an article about LRH and Crowley in Novo Religio.

3. Remember that not everyone who uses the term Satanist or occult are talking about the same thing. Crowley is different from LaVey who is different from Aquino (Temple of Set) and these are all distinct from Nazi occult connections.

4. Remember there is a possibility that LRH left the strange occult world of Parsons/Crowley in the dust and went on to his own unique theories about reality. That made me think about Ron's Affirmations: does anyone have the complete text? I have only seen the partial documentation from Gerry Armstrong's trial.

 

[Lermanet_com]

sounds like 'make nothing of it'

This trait of the human mind that allows ideas that have been repeated sufficiently to become a reality, subconcsiously, may be based upon evolution.

As hunter gatherers, living in natural surroundings, it is difficult to find anything that repeats itself outside of the faces of ones family or tribe, or perhaps the den in which we might shelter from storms, or the path home to the warm den during a blizzard... repetition means 'safety'.

In nature, there are no two rocks or pebbles that look precisely the same. Trees are all trees but no two trees are alike. All shapes are curved... Everything is different. So our minds would be very alert for 'signs'. for hints that things are 'the same'...we would note any pattern that repeats, like the footprints of game... or we would not bring back meat to eat that day. This fascination with things, that repeat would likely be hard wired into the human mind and may also explain the secret power of symbols and words..

Repetitive anything would be associated with the faces of my tribe and family, with 'safety', with 'warmth', with mother's face..This is may be why repetition 'works'.

Thus repetition of the same idea has tremendous power, genetically! It simply has to be this way for us to have survived as hunter gatherers.. It would also explain the phenomena of Hollywood 'stardom'...

George Estabrooks (father of military hypnosis) said that the only defense against such techniques, is to familiarize oneself with them..

Which is why I posted this, to protect my brothers in arms from the seduction of repetition of certain ideas by our guest, who may have come to accept them, for the same reason we fell for Hubbard's lies in his books...... repetition!

Remember this: George Estabrooks (father of military hypnosis) said that the only defense against such techniques, is to familiarize oneself with them..

arnie lerma

Note: I did not read this anywhere... this recently occurred to me after digesting Andrew Salter some time ago..

 

[James Beverley]

sounds like 'make nothing of it'

Thus repetition of the same idea has tremendous power, genetically! It simply has to be this way for us to have survived as hunter gatherers..

George Estabrooks (father of military hypnosis) said that the only defense against such techniques, is to familiarize oneself with them..

Which is why I posted this, to protect my brothers in arms from the seduction of repetition of the ideas of our guest.

arnie lerma

Arnie...are you writing this about me? If so, what have I repeated so much that I am trying to seduce the board? Have I written anything that is untrue? false? If so, help me see it. My recent point about the standard ops of academics was not meant to excuse academics. In fact, I have been known in the academic world of the American Academy of Religion or the CESNUR conferences as someone who regularly and openly critiques new religions and the failure of academics to dig deep enough on various groups.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

4. Remember there is a possibility that LRH left the strange occult world of Parsons/Crowley in the dust and went on to his own unique theories about reality. That made me think about Ron's Affirmations: does anyone have the complete text? I have only seen the partial documentation from Gerry Armstrong's trial.

Scientology would like people to think that LRH left the strange occult world of Parsons/Crowley in the dust, along with his 1930s and 1940s passion for hypnosis - of that there is no doubt. However, it's not true. As a scholar, you should have examined enough information to realize that by now.

Even the Scientology symbol of the "S with the ARC triangle under the KRC triangle" is a restatement of Crowley's "Love is the Law; Love under Will," and there's much more.

Much of this has been covered on ESMB or in other places on the Net, and in books.

I first noticed the many correspondences between Crowley and Hubbard when listening to Hubbard's Philadelphia Doctorate Course tapes in the late 1970s, after I had been collecting and reading Crowley's books for about a year. It was startling at the time, since Hubbard was supposed to have "broken up a black magic group" etc., yet there was no denying that Hubbard was deeply influenced by Crowley in these lectures, which are still considered some of the most important Hubbard lectures by Scientologists.

Entire lines from Crowley's writings were being repeated by Hubbard, and it seemed that he must have been reading Crowley intensively around the time of these lectures. A few years later, after formally leaving Scientology, I had the opportunity to speak with L. Ron Hubbard Jr., and I asked him about the (1952) "PDC" lecture period. He told me that his father would read Crowley every night, in preparation for the next days lecture.

But I didn't need Ron Jr.'s confirmation, it was already obvious.

As interesting as this area may be, it's not as important as Hubbard's deliberate and systematic use of psychological warfare tactics on his own followers, and on others, and not nearly as strange as Hubbard's tendency to describe what he was about to do to his own followers (covertly) while warning them that the "enemy" would try to do the same thing. One might say that Hubbard talked too much for his own good, and showed his cards inadvertently with this odd booklet: http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg

 

[Lermanet_com]

Arnie...are you writing this about me? If so, what have I repeated so much that I am trying to seduce the board? Have I written anything that is untrue? false? If so, help me see it. My recent point about the standard ops of academics was not meant to excuse academics. In fact, I have been known in the academic world of the American Academy of Religion or the CESNUR conferences as someone who regularly and openly critiques new religions and the failure of academics to dig deep enough on various groups.

I believe you are repeating osa's propaganda lines... and CENSUR, is that Massimo Introveigne? I believe he is more merely a simple whore for the fraud of scientology than Melton! I spoke at a hearing on capitol Hill in 97 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe | OSCE, and my words were CENSORED from the record, and what did I ask Massimo (who on the panel)

1) to explain his financial relationship to scientology and

(5 minutes of corporate blather speak ensued) and I asked

2) When will we be heard (ex-members) on the record.

Reply from chairman : see me after meeting

and the Chairman left, his aide said Ill get back with you...

The fact that "academics" in the "religious" sector have been so thoroughly hoodwinked for so long is so frustrating. Good people die after having their fortunes and psyche's raped...a line from Bob Dylan comes to mind, from the Ballad of Hattie Carrol

"And those who philosophize deceit"

the fact of this evil indicates that something is very wrong with society and academia, something society wide... that I vent my spleen upon you is due to seeing OSA's favorite keywords in use...describing

The Fraud of Scientology


"We must have the courage to speak plainly"
- Cornel West - Prof. of Religion, Princeton University

 

[James Beverley]

Scientology would like people to think that LRH left the strange occult world of Parsons/Crowley in the dust, along with his 1930s and 1940s passion for hypnosis - of that there is no doubt. However, it's not true. As a scholar, you should have examined enough information to realize that by now.

Even the Scientology symbol of the "S with the ARC triangle under the KRC triangle" is a restatement of Crowley's "Love is the Law; Love under Will," and there's much more.

Much of this has been covered on ESMB or in other places on the Net, and in books.

I first noticed the many correspondences between Crowley and Hubbard when listening to Hubbard's Philadelphia Doctorate Course tapes in the late 1970s, after I had been collecting and reading Crowley's books for about a year. It was startling at the time, since Hubbard was supposed to have "broken up a black magic group" etc., yet there was no denying that Hubbard was deeply influenced by Crowley in these lectures, which are still considered some of the most important Hubbard lectures by Scientologists.

Entire lines from Crowley's writings were being repeated by Hubbard, and it seemed that he must have been reading Crowley intensively around the time of these lectures. A few years later, after formally leaving Scientology, I had the opportunity to speak with L. Ron Hubbard Jr., and I asked him about the (1952) "PDC" lecture period. He told me that his father would read Crowley every night, in preparation for the next days lecture.

But I didn't need Ron Jr.'s confirmation, it was already obvious.

Thanks, Veda, for this detail. I raised the "possibility" of Hubbard leaving Crowley behind only as a possibility because I have not studied the issue enough to truly know. So, I appreciate your points. By the way, I did know that LRH referred to Crowley in his lectures and even called him "my good friend"--which was not true in the literal sense.

 

[Veda]

Thanks, Veda, for this detail. I raised the "possibility" of Hubbard leaving Crowley behind only as a possibility because I have not studied the issue enough to truly know. So, I appreciate your points. By the way, I did know that LRH referred to Crowley in his lectures and even called him "my good friend"--which was not true in the literal sense.

It was not true, period. Hubbard meant it to be taken literally, and was simply lying about Crowley being his "very good friend."

 

[James Beverley]

I believe you are repeating osa's propaganda lines... and CENSUR, is that Massimo Introveigne? I believe he is more merely a simple whore for the fraud of scientology than Melton! I spoke at a hearing on capitol Hill in 97 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe | OSCE, and my words were CENSORED from the record, and what did I ask Massimo (who on the panel)

1) to explain his financial relationship to scientology and

(5 minutes of corporate blather speak ensued) and I asked

2) When will we be heard (ex-members) on the record.

Reply from chairman : see me after meeting

and the Chairman left, his aide said Ill get back with you...

The fact that "academics" in the "religious" sector have been so thoroughly hoodwinked for so long is so frustrating. Good people die after having their fortunes and psyche's raped...a line from Bob Dylan comes to mind, from the Ballad of Hattie Carrol

"And those who philosophize deceit"

the fact of this evil indicates that something is very wrong with society and academia, something society wide... that I vent my spleen upon you is due to seeing OSA's favorite keywords in use...describing

The Fraud of Scientology


"We must have the courage to speak plainly"
- Cornel West - Prof. of Religion, Princeton University

Arnie,

I don't think it is fair to accuse me of spreading OSA's lines about Scientology. What specifically do you have in mind? The only thing I can think of is me stating that I think it is a religion. That, however, does not tell us whether or not it is a fraud. Please do not confuse me with other academics, whether Gordon or Massimo or whoever. I am my own person. I have a long track record of speaking against various cult groups. I have been an expert witness in civil and criminal trials against some groups/individuals who used their religion in a fraudulent way. I have been threatened physically for my views against certain religions as well as threatened legally.

 

[Lermanet_com]

here is man who gets it:

Marburg Journal of Religion
Volume 8, No. 1 (September 2003)
(22190 words)

Scientology: Religion or racket?
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
University of Haifa
Haifa 31905 ISRAEL

"The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the religion claim is merely a tax-evasion ruse and a fig leaf for a hugely profitable enterprise, where the logic of profitability and profit-making dictates all actions. Scientology is in reality a holding company, a business empire earning profits from a variety of subsidiaries. It is guided by considerations of economic consequences and benefits, a strict business strategy.

The assertion that Scientology is a misunderstood religion seems less tenable than the competing assertion, that it is a front for a variety of profit-making schemes, most of which are totally fraudulent. The question is only whether Scientology is "an ordinary profit-making enterprise", as Passas & Castillo (1992) suggest or whether "Scientology's purpose is making money by means legitimate and illegitimate" (US District Court, Southern District of New York, 92 Civ. 3024 (PKL) see www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/decis.time.h tml ). The most charitable interpretation would be that it is a profit making organization; a less charitable one that it is a criminal organization. The evidence for an explicit policy of deception makes it harder and harder to show any degree of charity.

The story of Hubbard and his brainchild deserves treatment by those who have written on famous impostors and great con men (Maurer, 1940/1999). Similar cases include the phenomenon of "psychic surgeons" in the Philippines, who prey on terminal cancer patients from the West, or the Dominion of Melchizedek (a cyberspace scam, self-described as a "recognized ecclesiastical and constitutional sovereignty, inspired by the Melchizedek Bible"). In the context of United States cultural history, Hubbard seems like a combination of the best-known qualities of Roy Cohn (Von Hoffman, 1988) and Lyndon LaRouche (King, 1990). The similarity between Scientology and the LaRouche organization in terms of ideology and activities seems far from than trivial, but has never been noted. "

Note: This is a revised version of a paper presented to the 1999 annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Boston, November 1999. LINK

 

[Lermanet_com]

Scientology does not care about critics of scientology, scientology doesnt care about being a called a cult, we once thought it was whether a guy could talk about xenu...but now, 20 years later, the ONLY thing they care about and..which is the line in the sand for osa operatives, is whether or not it is a religion.

Because religion, or rather their religious cloaking, is their only defense
preventing them from being taken down tomorrow for FRAUD

From Blacks Law Dictionary:

Fraud: An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words ot conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal inquiry; anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture; fraud comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a branch of legal or equitable duty and resulting in damage to another.

The Religious Cloaking described above was invoked by a Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, issued 12 February 1969 , on page 119 of the 1969 version of Volume 6 of the Hubbard Organization Executive Course ""All Orgs are now Churches" and "Stationary is to reflect fact than orgs are churches" and "All public literature must state that Scn is religious" It also states "This may or may not be publicly acceptable. This is NOT the point. It is a requisite defense."

Nota Bene; "All orgs are now churches" (Date is 1969)

"SCIENTOLOGISTS
DO NOT WORSHIP"
wrote Heber Jentszch, as President of the Church of Scientology International in a signed letter to Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby. (From the legal archives at Lermanet.com Exposing the CON)

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Which is why I posted this, to protect my brothers in arms from the seduction of repetition of certain ideas by our guest, who may have come to accept them, for the same reason we fell for Hubbard's lies in his books...... repetition!. ...

That certainly explains why you keep repeating yourself.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... I don't think it is fair to accuse me of spreading OSA's lines about Scientology. What specifically do you have in mind? ...

It's not really about you and yes, you were warned.

... Unfortunately the adverse experiences of many have made a few regulars here rather antagonistic to ANYTHING they may perceive as supportive of l.ron hubbard, the church of scientology, or the ideas embodied in the subject of philosophy. Whether that to which objection is lodged actually is supportive is irrelevant. The mere perception of an apparently supportive element is enough to earn calumny. The feeling or recognition of an emotional response serves as sufficient justification. Anything less than full antagonism may be regarded as 'wrong' or at best 'misguided' by some.

Don't take the sh!t personally. It's just 'normal' human prejudice talking. Angry people tend to spread the wealth. It doesn't have to make sense and normally won't.


Mark A. Baker