... the use of actual "goodness" and "truth" by Hubbard, as a "gimmick".
Kevin Brady
"After exiting Scientology a long time ago, and having read Crowley,
Korzybski, looked in to the history of Abreaction Therapy, and talked to
people such as former Senior C/S and Hubbard's auditor, David Mayo,
notorious 1960s "squirrel" Jack Horner, and many others, and having
examined - at least superficially at that time - the boxes of photocopies of
the 1977 FBI raid docs, I decided that - to obtain a full perspective on
this subject, that I'd better find a person to be a "Preclear," and audit
that person from "Straight Wire" (recall), to some Dianetics, through some
"Objectives" (mostly "Opening Procedure by Duplication), and then through
the "Lower Grades," and a few other things, besides.
I did my own C/Sing (case supervising), and the results were successful.
I did not usually "evaluate" in the sense that I did not tell the person
what to think.
However, the atmosphere was completely different from that found in an
"Org."
And this brings in the subject of _environment_. Things happen IN something.
What I did was in a free environment, and I knew what I was doing. Plus, I
was aware of the subject of Destructive Mind Manipulation, and of the
various control and domination tricks, which had been outlined by Robert J.
Lifton, and others.
Dianetics, _used sparingly_, and with the "PCs" strong interest only, had
some interesting moments. (And it also satisfied the "PCs" curiosity about
what it would be like to "run Dianetics.")
The "lower grades," minus the Hubbard-designed Cult environment, proved to
be an interesting adventure in self-discovery.
After completing these actions, my "PC" took some time off and went to a
family reunion in Canada. A reunion he had dreaded attending; yet, to his
surprise, he found it an easy and pleasant experience.
He was calmer, more alert, and had increased self-confidence.
I have about a hundred pages of "write ups" by this person, which are very
different from the often vapid "success stories" that come out of the LRH
worshiping portion of the "Freezone."
All in all, it was a useful several months long exploration.
I reviewed the "Implant levels," and decided that I would not be party to
inflicting that on someone, someone that I had just helped to attain a new
degree of aliveness. It would have been a step backwards - a needless and
potentially destructive series of introverting and "evaluative" actions -
"from on high" - and was also a waste of time, IMO.
And I'm glad I made that decision.
Some time later, on my somewhat naive recommendation, this person went to a
field auditor (G. Filbert) for "Power Processing" as a kind of "wrap up." It
was OK, and he let Filbert know that he was happily satisfied, and that he
was finished with that type of activity - he had completed what he had set
out to do, and was DONE.
He has been very well since.
Afterwards, I did some more auditing, here and there, to complete my
post-cult exploration of that area.
All in all it was a positive experience.
I had audited - years earlier - inside Scientology, and wanted to see what
would happen if the same actions were done outside - and outside, with the
added new knowledge that Hubbard did indeed have a hidden
agenda.
After this, I continued my examination of the earlier sources of
Scientology, and gradually deciphered the boxes of (pre-Internet)
photocopies of court documents, and - well - it went on from there.
Another story for another time.
The point I've made on many an occasion is that Hubbard, more than anything,
wanted something NOT to happen - he did NOT want the subject, in all its
aspects, to be fully known or fully understood.
The actions I did, as a "heretical" auditor, were, largely, actions that
were part of the "display" portion of the subject - that being the more or
less benign portion - benign, at least, when outside the myriad overt and
covert controls of Hubbard's personality cult.
And this "display" portion - including its sometimes "benign" aspects, needs
to be mentioned in any description of "Scientology" for that description to
be _complete_.
And when the largely hidden (or denied) dominant dark core of the
"Scientology Operation" is described, and _also_ the "lead in" publicized
display portion - well, the "Scientology mental-healing-coated money and
power and blackmail collecting operation begins to quiver.
Hubbard used truth and goodness as gimmicks.
He made truth and goodness part of the superficial portion of the subject.
Denying that only helps the Cult."
Muldoon
In recognition of my "brilliance," do me a favor - try to refrain from
using the word "tech" in discussions, unless, at least, the word "tech"
is prefaced with one or more adjectives, and - preferably - a line or
two of clarification.
The word itself has many meanings, and - in Scientology, as designed
by Hubbard - is used as a manipulative cliche, and using it carelessly
will land you in endless flame wars.
Out_Of_The_Dark
Kevin Brady wrote: Repost of brilliant insights of Muldoon:
"Hubbard used truth and goodness as gimmicks."
"He made truth and goodness part of the superficial portion of the
subject."
"Denying that only helps the Cult."
Very true. Scientology also takes great advantage of people who desire
to know truth and goodness in life. The end result is living a lie,
defending and justifying bad acts like the disconnection policy and
gang-bang sec checks. Now the 'parishoners' are instructed to attack
with" What crimes have you committed???!!!" in response to anyone who
even appears to be opposed what they do. ( see Kevin & Bean Radio post
and link to show from yesterday) Thanks for reposting this, Kevin
Kevin Brady
"Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152942948.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Well, in this case, it was Muldoon who reposted my repost of his post. But
you're welcome.
Muldoon
When I first began examining Hubbard's confidential "Scientology
Intelligence tech," and his confidential "Propaganda tech" writings
years ago, and trying to make sense of it, I hadn't yet seen that
Hubbard had not only used this particular "tech" on the outside world,
but had internalized it onto Scientologists.
Hubbard's Intelligence and Propaganda "tech" instructed on "creating a
vacuum," that would, then, be "filled." A person - in Hubbard's
carefully crafted Cult environment - would "blow mental mass" or "blow
considerations," only to find himself in an environment where that
"vacuum" (his newly "cleared" mind) was - if he wasn't careful - going
to be "filled" with Cult indoctrination.
This doesn't mean that discarding old "fixed ideas" is necessarily bad,
or for that matter, that "blowing ones mind" is always bad; it just
means that one should be careful where one does it.
Hubbard wrote about "suitable guises" and "covert data collection," and
Scientology Inc.'s use of "ministers" to take "confessionals" (ending
up in 'PC folder culling'), is a glaring example of just that.
That doesn't mean all ministers are bad, or that getting something of
ones chest is always bad; just be mindful of where, and to whom, it's
done.
Hubbard instructed on the use of "multiple channels" of attack or
influence on targets of his "covert ops." Inside Scientology, the
membership are subjected to "multiple channels" or avenues of influence
to achieve the desired fanatical mind-set.
And it goes on.
Another item of interest is Hubbard's 1955 Hoax "Russian Textbook" on
"Brainwashing," which he originally wrote as a black propaganda
vehicle, and which, years later, he began to apply on unsuspecting
Scientologists.
And then, one mustn't forget to look over the August 1938 "Skipper
Letter," to first wife, Polly, written shortly after the creation of
the manuscript known as 'Excalibur'.
And, of course, there's much more.
And despite all of these things, the act of attentively listening to
another person, and acknowledging him, has not - quite - yet been
completely discredited as an activity.
Hubbard designed Scientology as a trap, and all traps have a "positive"
aspect, and those "positives" can sometimes include some good ideas.
Scientology Inc. does not want the trap thoroughly described.
Kevin Brady
news:1153034166.1...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
BUMP. Rack Him! Consider it archived.
zeeorger
> Kevin Brady wrote:
> > Repost of brilliant insights of Muldoon:
> >
>
> And, of course, there's much more.
>
> And despite all of these things, the act of attentively listening to
> another person, and acknowledging him, has not - quite - yet been
> completely discredited as an activity.
>
> Hubbard designed Scientology as a trap, and all traps have a "positive"
> aspect, and those "positives" can sometimes include some good ideas.
>
> Scientology Inc. does not want the trap thoroughly described.
I would posit that the trap is based on lies about communication.
specifically:
"Communication is the universal solvent" - LRH
This statement is a partial truth. A more correct statement
would be:
"Truth is the universal solvent"
The difference may appear minor at first, but it is a key
factor. Communication is an action (verb), Truth is an
item (noun).
The issue here is that communication by itself does
not dissolve anything. You need both Truth (the
solvent) and communication (the act of applying a
"liquid") to get proper dissolution. Truth can be
viewed as a solvent that does nothing without
communication. Lets also assume, for discussion
sake, that there is only one "truth" (fact) and many
"non=truths". "the apple is red" - "red" is a single
truth, all other colors are non-true.
Now we get to the trap set by LRH. He placed the
emphasis on communication. A great deal of effort
is concentrated in this single doingness area (TRs,
cycle of communication, how we control a session,
on and on ... )
But lets look at the permutations:
communicate truth -> positive result
communicate non-truth -> nagative result
non-communicate truth -> nothing happens
non-communicate non-truth -> nothing happens
>From this abstraction the difference between a positive
and a negative result is the use of truth. communication
only alters having/not-having a result. From this we get:
"Truth is more important than communication."
>From this we can try the following, what if we replace
the emphasis on communication (the "tech") with an
emphasis on truth in say KSW#1 - lets see:
1. Having the Truth.
2. Knowing the Truth.
3. Knowing that the Truth is true.
4. ...
Now we have a totaly different "religion", you apply any
little bit of it and it will not only have a result - it will be
a positive result, always. It almost does not matter how
it is applied. You can slop, goop or paint truth on any
surface and you will get some dissolution.
That is the problem with Scientology, the emphasis is
on communication. Truth is relegated to "what is true
for you", perception of reality is perverted. Shore stories
are acceptable. Justice fails, process and hearsay
(communication) become senior to facts (truth) ...
The mantra of the critics (realists) becomes:
Scientology is nothing but lies lies lies ...
A single truth, just one, pushed home, is enough to start
the dissolution of scientology.
Z
Muldoon
Bait and switch: Start with "communication," end up with infallible
Cult dogma.
> That is the problem with Scientology, the emphasis is
> on communication. Truth is relegated to "what is true
> for you", perception of reality is perverted. Shore stories
> are acceptable. Justice fails, process and hearsay
> (communication) become senior to facts (truth) ...
>
Sounds more like "The ends justifies the means." - Pure expediency.
And, I'm not so sure the emphasis is really on communication:
"Communication" is also inhibited with censorship, while still being
placed on display: "Communication!"
And "What is true for you," becomes subordinate to the enforced reality
of the Cult, while still being placed on display, "Think for yourself"!
Hubbard used words to manipulate people - any words and any activities:
"Truth," "Communication," "Freedom," etc.
> The mantra of the critics (realists) becomes:
>
> Scientology is nothing but lies lies lies ...
>
> A single truth, just one, pushed home, is enough to start
> the dissolution of scientology.
>
> Z
>
Interesting analysis, but the point I was trying to make was much
simpler.
Scientology, as designed by Hubbard, is coated with "_truth_ and
_Goodness_", and that "truth and goodness" become its ultimate disguise
(cover), since it is (because of the rotten dominant core of
Scientology), not perceived by those who know what Hubbard was really
doing.
Yet, it's there: "Truth and goodness," dangling like Christmas
ornaments, visible to the unsuspecting and the vulnerable, and
invisible to others.
We see what's behind the dangling ornaments, but re-focus your eyes,
the ornaments are there too.
(And seeing those damned ornaments is essential to reaching someone,
either vulnerable to Scientology, or IN Scientology, so as to
"innoculate" the person, or to help the person to break free.
Their attention is on the "truth and goodness" and unless you also
recognize it, don't expect the person to listen when you try to tell
them "the rest of the story."
And it ("Truth," etc.) does function as a kind of "ultimate disguise,"
since it's invisible to all except the vulnerable.
So who could warn against it?
The perfect "gimmick."
Stating, "Scientology is nothing but lies lies lies," while disliked by
Scientology Inc., is yet tolerable to them - why? Because they, then,
still have their main disguise: "Truth and goodness."
Real life situation: If someone has a problem, and someone else listens
to them, they feel usually better.
And that's the kind of basic human thing that's exploitable by the
Destructive Cult of Scientology Inc.
That's an example of the "neutral medium" through which the trickery
flows.
Muldoon
>
> Their attention is on the "truth and goodness" and unless you also
> recognize it, don't expect the person to listen when you try to tell
> them "the rest of the story."
>
> And it ("Truth," etc.) does function as a kind of "ultimate disguise,"
> since it's invisible to all except the vulnerable.
>
> So who could warn against it?
>
> The perfect "gimmick."
>
> Stating, "Scientology is nothing but lies lies lies," while disliked by
> Scientology Inc., is yet tolerable to them - why? Because they, then,
> still have their main disguise: "Truth and goodness."
>
> Real life situation: If someone has a problem, and someone else listens
> to them, they feel usually better.
>
> And that's the kind of basic human thing that's exploitable by the
> Destructive Cult of Scientology Inc.
>
> That's an example of the "neutral medium" through which the trickery
> flows.
Another way of saying this is, "What's the point of telling the mouse
there is no cheese in the trap, when the poor mouse can already smell
the cheese?"
"There is NO Cheese!!!"
"There is no truth in the tech." But wait, the word "tech" is just a
cliche - it means a whole bunch of things; it means everything, and it
means nothing.
There's plenty of_negative_ "truth" in any successful trap - and that's
supposed to be kept hidden.
And, of course, there's also _positive_ "truth" in any successful
trap, and that's promoted.
"But, no no, there can't be."
"There can only be _negative_ 'truth'. Now that's THE 'truth'. And only
that."
"There is NO Cheese"!
Everyone together: "No Cheese!"
(Notice: These lyrics are copyrighted by the estate of Frank Zappa.)
:^)
zeeorger
I think we are at odds because of your choise to use
"truth" in the phrase "truth and goodness" ...
I don't deny that Scientology is capable of blowing
smoke in our eyes because there are some of things
it can "prove" to be "usefull". I agree they do paint
themself as "goodness", much the same way some
politicians wrap a flag around themself.
My point was slightly different. I was trying to answer
'What is it that is wrong with scientology as a whole.'
We know that LRH was deceitfull. Deceit requires
basic skills, communication and non-truth. Holding
this viewpoint about scientology explains a lot of
phenomena about the CoS. The majority of the
"tech" is dedicated to the field of communication
(TRs, auditing cycle, disconnection, etc) and the
rest is half-truths and non-truths. You can then
predict what a scientologist will do. Given half a
chance they communicate (and use communication
quite skillfully) and push false data. always, 100%
of the time, because that is what they have learned
from duplicating LRH's tech.
It recomends we write "fair roads good weather"
letters to those who are antagonistic to Scn. This
is deceit through communication. It teaches us to
use communication in a way that does not involve
confronting truth (whatever is considered antago).
Failing that, the next step is disconnection. Which
is again using communication tech, in this case
deciding not to communicate.
Pointing at the "successfull handling" of an antagonistic
terminal using deceit can be considered a "win". The
"tech" of it could even be considered effective, since
any failure by it to work effectively is buried using the
added tech of disconnection. All this does not make
the methods used by this technology "true".
Z
Muldoon
We seem to agree on much, except we're sometimes using words with
different meanings.
Unfortunately, I don't have a Vulcan mind-meld component on my
computer, so we'll just have to struggle along as best we can.
For example, for me, "Tech" is a mish-mosh of verbiage and "know how,"
that ranges from how to wash your car, to baby formula, to how to
pressure people out of their life savings, to cheering up a sullen
person by gently having him notice interesting things in the
environment.
Whether used approvingly or disapprovingly, the word "tech" is a
manipulative cliche. That's why I usually don't use the word.
In the original post on this thread, I described my use, not of the
"tech," but of a very small fraction of the subject, much of it
traceable to earlier subjects, and pointed out that - in a
non-deceitful and non-coercive environment, and with an awareness that
the subject's founder was a con man - that this tiny fraction of the
subject, used intelligently, could produce positive results.
People have different perspectives, for me - although I worked mostly
as an auditor, briefly as a "Field Staff Member," and even, for a time,
as a Scientology spy - I never formally joined staff, and never much
liked the average Scientologist, and when "in," would participate for a
year here, and then a year there, mostly concerned with auditing, and,
then mostly concerned with auditing others.
For me, the thing began to majorly unravel around 1979, when, while
doing 'used and obscure book store' hopping" in Manhattan, I came
across a little dark red hard-bound text, titled, 'The Book of the
Law', and then other books by Aleister Crowley.
A few months later, AOLA (Advanced Organization Los Angeles) contacted
me, informing me that because of changes in the "Grade Chart," I now
had excess money on account (the old upper OT levels [OT 4-8] had been
replaced with NOTs), and would I like to use my excess money to buy
some tapes? So, thousands of miles away, I said, fine, and bought the
Philadelphia Doctorate Course Lectures' from 1952.
When the big box came in the mail, I began to listen to the tapes, and,
was puzzled to hear Hubbard saying words that reminded me of the words
I had been reading in my ever growing collection of the works of
Aleister Crowley. Then, I was startled when, in tape #18, Hubbard
mentioned Crowley as "his very good friend."
Wait a minute! The story told by Scientology (in 1969 to the 'Times of
London') was that Hubbard's only contact with 'Magic', etc., was that
Hubbard had been "sent in by Naval Intelligence, in 1946, to break up a
Black Magic group, and he rescued a girl," (cough).
And now Crowley was his "very good friend." ???
Of course, in reality, Crowley was not Hubbard's "very good friend,"
and Hubbard was only briefly and superficially involved in "Naval
Intelligence," and then at a "clerk" level, as were thousands of
others.
And, well - the situation slowly progressed from there. But it took
time, and I can present this same information to a "true believer" with
zero effect on that "true believer's" mind.
People can be exposed to the most outrageous facts about Hubbard and
Scientology, and still be drawn in.
As an historic example, the very revealing 'Life Magazine' expose on
Scientology in 1968 was read by millions, and it was followed by
Scientology's greatest expansion.
Scientology is designed to do an "end run" around any unpleasant facts
- when being promoted by a skilled person.
And that "end run" can be "short circuited" only by describing the
_entire subject in detail_, which includes mentioning all that stuff
that is seldom discussed in critical examinations: the stuff that isn't
"all bad."
And "that stuff" exists.
It was planned that way.
Call it "truth"; call it "good stuff"; call it re-cycled Korzybski;
call it whatever - It's the stuff that Scientology's most ardent
critics cannot see, and it is to their disadvantage not to see it.
It's Scientology's ultimate disguise.
Probably there are people reading this who have no idea what I'm
talking about.
And, again, it was planned that way.
What can I say. I see the subject from a different perspective. I
suppose we all do.
It's probably amazing that we can communicate at all - but I think
we're getting there, and learning quite a bit as we go.
Kevin Brady
just an observation.
You should write a book. Your perspective of having been an auditor, as
well as an operative, put you in a rather unusual position. Most auditors
are unaware of "the Dark Side". Most operatives probably think of the
religious side of scientology as "namby-pamby non-confront", or at least as
something to do when the war is over with the Marcabs, etc.
This would allow you to present your complete view (in theory).
If you're not careful, I'm going to ghost-write it anyway, and wait 'til you
die, and then publish "The Mostly Complete Thoughts of Muldoon, as
considered by Kevin". You don't want that, do you? You'd better beat me to
it!
--
Kevin G. Brady
http://www.myspace.com/clear_objectives
http://www.tir.org
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/sands.htm
http://www.futurepsychiatry.com
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1153112262.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Zinj
@dslextreme.com says...
<snip>
> Scientology is designed to do an "end run" around any unpleasant facts
> - when being promoted by a skilled person.
>
> And that "end run" can be "short circuited" only by describing the
> _entire subject in detail_, which includes mentioning all that stuff
> that is seldom discussed in critical examinations: the stuff that isn't
> "all bad."
>
> And "that stuff" exists.
>
> It was planned that way.
>
> Call it "truth"; call it "good stuff"; call it re-cycled Korzybski;
> call it whatever - It's the stuff that Scientology's most ardent
> critics cannot see, and it is to their disadvantage not to see it.
>
> It's Scientology's ultimate disguise.
>
> Probably there are people reading this who have no idea what I'm
> talking about.
>
> And, again, it was planned that way.
>
> What can I say. I see the subject from a different perspective. I
> suppose we all do.
>
> It's probably amazing that we can communicate at all - but I think
> we're getting there, and learning quite a bit as we go.
Agreed on how amazing it can be that we manage to communicate at all,
especially about Scientology :)
Something you said to Zee struck a chord with me, when commenting on how
close your views seem to be, and that it's sometimes the definition of a
'word' that differs.
I'm often struck by how close our (and others) POVs overlap, although there
are sometimes differences.
What you say above being one case. Yes, in discussing Scientology, *context*
is everything, but, the context is the *whole* of Scientology. Hubbard and
'Church' (or even just 'philosophy') practice resembles the 'blind men and
the elephant' metaphor, where deliberate effort is taken not to let the blind
men compare notes. The left hand is never supposed to know what the right
hand is doing; context is intentionaly 'fragmented' into compartments which
are supposed to be 'judged' separately; and, like a 'binary' poison, be
judged separately 'harmless'.
One of the points where we seem to diverge of late is your insistance that
parts of 'the Tech' (or whatever elements of Scientology you choose) are
'good', and that failure to recognize them as good leads to a misperception,
cognitively, and a loophole, tacticly, in opposing the 'whole'.
I get your point, but, cheese in the trap or not, it's irrelevant whether the
cheese is gouda or limberger. The bait is essential to the trap, and the
context is the trap *with* bait.
From my point of view *nothing* in Scientology is 'innocent' or 'harmless' or
even 'positive' in *context*.
Example; a fresh coat of paint is a 'good' thing, until you find out it's a
fresh coat of green paint being painted over a stop sign.
I get frustrated when I see, and I see it often, such Scientology eyewash as
the 'Creed' or the 'Auditors Code' or other being glossed over as 'yes,
that's all good, if it were what they actually do...'
No; in most cases it is not all good. Practically every line in all such
codes or creeds is objectionable because of deliberately included 'escape
hatches' or 'weasle words' such as 'good will' etc., that negate any
limitation of what you, so aptly, point out is the Crowleyesque 'whole of the
law'.
For the sake of agreeing with you, I'll stipulate that Scientology Tech can,
and often does, result in 'positive' effects on an individual, especially in
the areas that correlate to 'affirmations' and 'placebo effects' and 'self
confidence'. Almost all 'newage' type 'therapies' latch onto these bits of
cheese, and they can have positive results.
Since, however, they are all aspects of 'auto-hypnosis', even in the most
benign settings, I tend to see them as inherently dangerous. Why I think
that is probably best left for some other conversation, but, within the
context of Scientology (or other deliberately malicious manipulation) they're
not only dangerous, but predictably harmful. The 'auto-hpnosis' has a remote
control in *someone else's hand*.
I do think we're talking about the same things most of the time; and, I do
think I'm in agreement with most of what you've had to say about the 'good
elements' of Scientology, but, I think I diverge radically when you insist
that Scientology Critics should recognize and accept the 'good' in
Scientology as a matter of tactics.
From my point of view, Scientology should be seen in the 'whole' context,
and, that means that nothing in the Scientology context is harmless or
innocent or 'good'.
If that means that I'm seen as hysterical for saying that I see evil in the
'TRs' or 'flying rudiments' or the 'codes' or the 'grades', so be it. But
their all infected by the whole, and, while you can crack nuts with a
thumbscrew, it's still a thumbscrew by design.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
K Palmer
I agree with this Zinj - in any religious setting there is "good" and
"innocent" appearing but within the context of the whole these kernels
of good and innocent become part of a larger whole that is neither good
nor innocent.
>
> Example; a fresh coat of paint is a 'good' thing, until you find out it's a
> fresh coat of green paint being painted over a stop sign.
>
> I get frustrated when I see, and I see it often, such Scientology eyewash as
> the 'Creed' or the 'Auditors Code' or other being glossed over as 'yes,
> that's all good, if it were what they actually do...'
>
> No; in most cases it is not all good. Practically every line in all such
> codes or creeds is objectionable because of deliberately included 'escape
> hatches' or 'weasle words' such as 'good will' etc., that negate any
> limitation of what you, so aptly, point out is the Crowleyesque 'whole of the
> law'.
The weasel words get to me too - always allowing for an out - a way to
turn something fairly benign into something destructive. A way to use
words/actions to cause pain and suffering.
>
> For the sake of agreeing with you, I'll stipulate that Scientology Tech can,
> and often does, result in 'positive' effects on an individual, especially in
> the areas that correlate to 'affirmations' and 'placebo effects' and 'self
> confidence'. Almost all 'newage' type 'therapies' latch onto these bits of
> cheese, and they can have positive results.
>
> Since, however, they are all aspects of 'auto-hypnosis', even in the most
> benign settings, I tend to see them as inherently dangerous. Why I think
> that is probably best left for some other conversation, but, within the
> context of Scientology (or other deliberately malicious manipulation) they're
> not only dangerous, but predictably harmful. The 'auto-hpnosis' has a remote
> control in *someone else's hand*.
Auto-hypnosis is present in any religious setting IMHO - a group
agreement on the basic principles being espoused is created - all sit in
agreement and that is further enforced by rituals and rites that (in
some churches) is reinforced by exclusionary practices (you are not one
of us yet so you cannot participate in this ritual but if you do this or
take this course you can). Group think is always reinforced by
auto-hypnosis and is used to further the group. Always at the bottom of
every rite/ritual/course is the main operating mechanism of recruiting
new members - whether it be a church/new age touchy feely philospohy, or
a cult - the bottom line is to get more people in and keep the money
flowing in.
>
> I do think we're talking about the same things most of the time; and, I do
> think I'm in agreement with most of what you've had to say about the 'good
> elements' of Scientology, but, I think I diverge radically when you insist
> that Scientology Critics should recognize and accept the 'good' in
> Scientology as a matter of tactics.
To accept that there is some good in scientology would be easy - the
whole bait and switch is based on people gaining something at the
earliest levels BUT and it is a big but as you state the good is simply
the bait in the trap - we must recognize it for what it is and not
necessarily what it does for individuals. It is designed that way with a
purpose - and that purpose is KSW - or making money - getting more and
more people involved through whatever means possible - including the use
of front groups. I have been accused of loving drugs for protesting
against the Drug Free Marshals - I am not but I am against the use of
children in the cult's recruitment tactics. There is always a hook
under the bait - always which makes the "good" suspect.
>
> From my point of view, Scientology should be seen in the 'whole' context,
> and, that means that nothing in the Scientology context is harmless or
> innocent or 'good'.
Scientology and other cults are built to keep the money flowing so as to
exercise the maximum amount of power and increase the money flowing and
the bodies in the shop - this is why the "good" exists - to trap people in.
>
> If that means that I'm seen as hysterical for saying that I see evil in the
> 'TRs' or 'flying rudiments' or the 'codes' or the 'grades', so be it. But
> their all infected by the whole, and, while you can crack nuts with a
> thumbscrew, it's still a thumbscrew by design.
Hardly hysterical from my point of view - if one looks at the whole and
sees the holes and rotten bits - the few threads that may be "good" are
weakened and useless- like a rug caught in a fire - it may appear OK but
once you start cleaning out the soot and smoke it falls apart - with
only a few threads left untouched it is unusable - do you keep it for
the sake of a few untouched threads?
Kim P
>
> Zinj
Keith Henson
snip
>And despite all of these things, the act of attentively listening to
>another person, and acknowledging him, has not - quite - yet been
>completely discredited as an activity.
Far from it! "Attentively listening to another person, and
acknowledging him" is the basis of psychoanalysis, now known to be
ineffective. There was (and still is) a substantial industry of
intently listening to people and charging big buck$. Even if
psychoanalysis didn't help people in an objective sense, they were
rewarded by the attention.
Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with people getting intense
attention, no more than there is anything wrong with people using
highly addictive drugs in appropriate circumstances.
The problem comes from people not knowing that for some people (actors
particularly) this kind of attention is as addictive as hard drugs.
>Hubbard designed Scientology as a trap, and all traps have a "positive"
>aspect, and those "positives" can sometimes include some good ideas.
While scientology certainly turned out to be a trap, strictly speaking
LRH didn't "design" it. Scientology evolved by trials based on
results more than it was designed with a deep understanding of human
psychology--though you have to give LRH credit for a con man's
instinctive understanding of human psychological vulnerabilities.
>Scientology Inc. does not want the trap thoroughly described.
That's true, but the people all the way to the top are blind to what
to the nature of the trap(s), including the one DM and those around
him are in.
Keith Henson
Eldonbraun
> On 16 Jul 2006 00:16:06 -0700, "Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com>
>
> snip
>
> >And despite all of these things, the act of attentively listening to
> >another person, and acknowledging him, has not - quite - yet been
> >completely discredited as an activity.
>
> Far from it! "Attentively listening to another person, and
> acknowledging him" is the basis of psychoanalysis, now known to be
> ineffective. There was (and still is) a substantial industry of
> intently listening to people and charging big buck$. Even if
> psychoanalysis didn't help people in an objective sense, they were
> rewarded by the attention.
>
> Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with people getting intense
> attention, no more than there is anything wrong with people using
> highly addictive drugs in appropriate circumstances.
>
> The problem comes from people not knowing that for some people (actors
> particularly) this kind of attention is as addictive as hard drugs.
That's certainly part of it Keith. But if you go back to Jung and
Erickson (just to name two, and there were many others), they had a
couple of things in common:
1. Benificence. They desired a positive outcome and closure for the
client or patient. They wanted to put themselves out of business.
2. Publication. They wanted to share and propogate whatever it was they
thought they had developed. They didn't try to make it proprietary and
confidential.
Oh, they also considered psychotherapy a sort of art form.Their work
was individualized even if they did follow certain formulaic
structures. But they didn't turn it in to an R-3-R routine that
supposedly applied to everybody like a Skinnerian rat maze experiment
or raising kids in boxes.
I think you are just a bit cynical in your evaluation of mental
research and therapy, though given the circumstances I certainly can't
blame you.
While you're at it, check out Heinz Kohut and Robert Hare.
Kevin Brady
news:44c38534....@news2.lightlink.com...
Keith, you are making a very large claim when you say that is all there is
to psychoanalysis. Certainly, many of the "structures" such as "id", "ego"
"super-ego", to say nothing of "oedipal complexes" or "complexes" have not
been proven to exist in an objective sense. They are posited constructs.
In this light, "the mind" has also not been proven to exist, nor has
"intentional activity". This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as an
intention, or a mind. And while I think many of the constructs in
psychoanalysis are nothing more than "ways of thinking about something",
rather than the strongly posited actual entities many old-style
psychoanalysts thought, this doesn't mean that analysis is complete bunk.
I'm not a fan of psychoanalysis, as I think that it obscures more than it
makes clear. However, to assert that whatever power psychoanalysis did have
to help was entirely concerned with the focused attention brought to bear, I
think is false. I think what was helpful was the person's review of their
life, even if the categories and associations drawn by the analyst were
wrong (I think the analyst should let the analysand make the connections).
While I think it is true that attention "feels good", it's not that feeling
good that stays with a person when the session is over. It's the insight
into their lives, and their ability to change the way they operate, which is
less present, from report I've heard, in psychoanalysis than in some other
forms of psychotherapy, except over long periods of time.
I think the theories of evolutionary psychology make a lot of sense, and
therefore shed a lot of light on human behavior. But they don't explain
subjective experience, and I think they are very far short of "the whole
story" on the psyche. Admittedly, my exposure to those theories is through
popular books like Horgan's "The Undiscovered Mind", and Pinker's "How the
Mind Works", but Pinker is taken very seriously by many evolutionary
psychologists, and his book makes the ideas pretty plain. Also, I think you
pick on the weakest variant of psychotherapy when you go after
psychoanalysis. I can see why, if the appeal of dianetics, or more modern
renditions like TIR are based in early psychoanalysis. But they are not one
and the same. And the assertion that they depend for all of their efficacy
on attention is both true and false: it's true because they will have no
efficacy without focused attention, but it's false that this is where their
efficacy ends. It IS critical, but it is the beginning, not the end.
Muldoon
Hubbard crafted Scientology pretty much as a kind of "covert
operation," complete with what he called "perimeter defense."
"Perimeter defense" is a protective layer, or zone, of disguise.
When Scientology strategists think of protecting "Scientology," the
preferred mind-set for the public is "Scientology is good" (essential,
important); next is, "Scientology is unimportant"; next is "Scientology
is bad" (nonsense, garbage, "crap.")
All three, in that order, are preferable to any variation, such as
"Scientology is bad with some good sprinkled on top," etc., etc., etc.,
etc.
Scientology can tolerate being denounced (if it must), but it does NOT
want to dissected. It does not want to be taken apart and examined _in
detail_.
Zinj, you saw the ogre behind the mask before you saw the mask, and -
now - it's difficult to focus on the details of the mask itself.
And that understandable.
Muldoon
(There's a little more time, now, so I'll answer a few other points -
to the extent that they can ever be "answered.")
Everything within the Scientology Operation (and it is more accurately
described as an "operation" [or even a "machine"] than a "group" or a
"movement"), is used to the Cult's advantage.
Even looking up words in a dictionary is used in a manipulative way.
And _out of the Cult *context*_ any thing changes - to what, and to
what extent it changes is another matter.
And I know Scientology PR people use the "It's out of context" argument
as a ploy - and I hope that their use of "out of context" as a gimmick,
has not made those words impossible to use in a discussion. (Has the
phrase, "out of context" become "tainted"? [Only half serious here].)
> Example; a fresh coat of paint is a 'good' thing, until you find out it's a
> fresh coat of green paint being painted over a stop sign.
>
> I get frustrated when I see, and I see it often, such Scientology eyewash as
> the 'Creed' or the 'Auditors Code' or other being glossed over as 'yes,
> that's all good, if it were what they actually do...'
>
> No; in most cases it is not all good. Practically every line in all such
> codes or creeds is objectionable because of deliberately included 'escape
> hatches' or 'weasle words' such as 'good will' etc., that negate any
> limitation of what you, so aptly, point out is the Crowleyesque 'whole of the
> law'.
>
The original posting on this thread depicted an application of a small
fraction of the subject.
Believe me, I'm well aware of the "weasel words," etc.
> For the sake of agreeing with you, I'll stipulate that Scientology Tech can,
> and often does, result in 'positive' effects on an individual, especially in
> the areas that correlate to 'affirmations' and 'placebo effects' and 'self
> confidence'. Almost all 'new age' type 'therapies' latch onto these bits of
> cheese, and they can have positive results.
>
> Since, however, they are all aspects of 'auto-hypnosis', even in the most
> benign settings, I tend to see them as inherently dangerous. Why I think
> that is probably best left for some other conversation, but, within the
> context of Scientology (or other deliberately malicious manipulation) they're
> not only dangerous, but predictably harmful. The 'auto-hpnosis' has a remote
> control in *someone else's hand*.
>
I think, lately, the terms, "hypnotic" and "hypnosis" and
"auto-hypnosis" have been over used.
(Person #1: "I feel better now, that I finally cleaned up the back
yard."
Person #2: "No you don't. You just think you feel better."
Person #1: "No, I really do feel better."
Person #2: "You can't. I read about that. It's a Scientology thing,
called a 'cycle of action'.
Person #1: "You mean it's tainted by association with Scientology?"
Person #2: "Exactly."
If that seems ridiculous, you're right. It is ridiculous.)
The series of actions described in the initial post on this thread did
not involve "hypnosis."
And there was no "remote control in someone else's hand."
And that was part of the point which I was attempting to make.
In Hubbard's 1955 hoax "Russian Textbook" he wrote, "The Subject of
hypnotism is the subject of belief... The limitation of hypnotism was
that many subjects were not susceptible to its uses, and thus hypnotism
had to be improved upon in order to increase the suggestibility of
individual who would otherwise not be reached."
What Hubbard did with his Cult-operation went _beyond_ ordinary
"hypnosis," and attempts to _always_ squeeze what Hubbard was doing
(and created) into the bottle of "hypnosis" misses that point.
The words "hypnotic" and "hypnosis" are sometimes applicable, of
course, but words such as "deception," "manipulation," "suggestion,"
and other terms, are also useful and applicable.
And things not only exist in a context; they occur in a sequence. And
just as there can be a manipulative context, there can also be a
manipulative or exploitive sequence of events - a person can be
(genuinely) "helped," so as to be "set up" for the "next step" which
may be, in fact, harmful.
> I do think we're talking about the same things most of the time; and, I do
> think I'm in agreement with most of what you've had to say about the 'good
> elements' of Scientology, but, I think I diverge radically when you insist
> that Scientology Critics should recognize and accept the 'good' in
> Scientology as a matter of tactics.
>
The "defense perimeter" exists.
The "window dressing" exists.
For some reason, it's almost intolerable to consider that "good" can be
_used_.
> From my point of view, Scientology should be seen in the 'whole' context,
> and, that means that nothing in the Scientology context is harmless or
> innocent or 'good'.
>
Yes, by all means, and I've been doing that.
But Scientology, being deceptive, seldom presents itself in its "whole"
context, and it becomes instructive to describe "Scientology" in all
its permutations.
> If that means that I'm seen as hysterical for saying that I see evil in the
> 'TRs' or 'flying rudiments' or the 'codes' or the 'grades', so be it. But
> their all infected by the whole, and, while you can crack nuts with a
> thumbscrew, it's still a thumbscrew by design.
>
> Zinj
> --
> You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
We seem to be going in circles.
Jeez. Did Hubbard write something about circles? I hope not.
zeeorger
I don't think the differences are that large. Its like the complaint
by others
that 'scientology' is not 'scientology' - we just need to make sure we
know
what "hue" of 'scientology' is meant. in this case:
Scientology (as it really is) is not scientology (as it was expected to
be).
[ This reminds me about the statements "it works" and "it does not
work",
the definitions of "it" and "work" need some work - makes me want to
walk up the testing center and ask what they mean by "it" and "work" as
a repetitive command ... ]
> > What you say above being one case. Yes, in discussing Scientology, *context*
> > is everything, but, the context is the *whole* of Scientology. Hubbard and
> > 'Church' (or even just 'philosophy') practice resembles the 'blind men and
> > the elephant' metaphor, where deliberate effort is taken not to let the blind
> > men compare notes. The left hand is never supposed to know what the right
> > hand is doing; context is intentionaly 'fragmented' into compartments which
> > are supposed to be 'judged' separately; and, like a 'binary' poison, be
> > judged separately 'harmless'.
> >
> > One of the points where we seem to diverge of late is your insistance that
> > parts of 'the Tech' (or whatever elements of Scientology you choose) are
> > 'good', and that failure to recognize them as good leads to a misperception,
> > cognitively, and a loophole, tacticly, in opposing the 'whole'.
> >
> > I get your point, but, cheese in the trap or not, it's irrelevant whether the
> > cheese is gouda or limberger. The bait is essential to the trap, and the
> > context is the trap *with* bait.
> >
> > From my point of view *nothing* in Scientology is 'innocent' or 'harmless' or
> > even 'positive' in *context*.
> >
>
> (There's a little more time, now, so I'll answer a few other points -
> to the extent that they can ever be "answered.")
>
I have been thinking about it quite a bit ...
> Everything within the Scientology Operation (and it is more
accurately
> described as an "operation" [or even a "machine"] than a "group" or
a
> "movement"), is used to the Cult's advantage.
Ok, "operation" sounds good. Since, after all, when dealing with
the CoS operation you are treated as being "in-session" 24x7 the
minute you walk in.
> ...
I don't deny that there are parts of scientology that are usefull.
As your example demostrated, it is possible to run the grades
and power processes with good intentions and without deception
and achive good results. The grades "work" within their own
context. The missions of old were very successful with that
part of the (auditing) tech. They could have sold and done
nothing else and scientology would have keept on expanding.
But scientology consists of a lot more, it does have a larger
context. This context makes it more akin to the mafia. It
is as if LRH simply could never quit being a deceptive con
man, there was never a chance to "go legit".
So what we are left with is deceptive fronts. Left with bodies
of data that are treated as complete when in fact they are, at
best, incomplete and, at worse, harmfull.
I might even go out on a limb and say that Ethics and Justice
'tech' within scientology is the wost of area of all. LRH would
invalidate entire areas of knowledge and then proceed to replace
it with his own (quite biased, and often insane) viewpoint. I
often wonder how many items where never tested, let alone
opened for peer review.
For example, there is no demand that people on the RPF
be treated humanely. The concept of "compromise" is alien.
The concept of democracy does not exist, its called 'group
bank' ... I could go on for hours.
It is these 'missing concepts' that I find most destructive.
They short-cirquit common sense, with resulting neglect.
It is this resulting neglect that harms (as in it is beter to
sell your house and join the SO) or kills (as it did LTM)
That is why I am doing a peer review.
Z
Truth is the universal solvent
Scamology
Muldoon
To decribe Scientology is to expose Scientology, and this is vastly
more effective than efforts at "trashing" Scientology.
Describing simple introductory actions as "horrific," or "dangerous,"
when, by themselves, they are essentially benign (such as simple
pleasurable recall), can have an effect on the curious, similar to
showing the 1930s anti-marijuana movie, 'Reefer Madness' to college
students. It only increases their curiosity.
To me, the 'Free Zone' has been a disappointment, and Ron's Orgs is an
embarrassment, and on the verge of becoming a Cult, or even a
Destructive Cult.
However, there are other perspectives, and, this thread, I hope
provides a look at some of those.
Kevin Brady
of the people operating in those areas have little, if any, scientific or
logical education. I wouldn't expect huge leaps in this area!
Psychologists and philosophers have banged their heads against similar
problems for years and years, and they at least laid claim to following
objective standards.
Until scientologists begin to accept logical and scientific standards,
progress cannot occur.
--
Kevin G. Brady
It's not about me.
"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."
- Socrates (470-399 B.C.)
Zinj
> Muldoon, Independent and FreeZone scientology are young, as entities. Most
> of the people operating in those areas have little, if any, scientific or
> logical education. I wouldn't expect huge leaps in this area!
> Psychologists and philosophers have banged their heads against similar
> problems for years and years, and they at least laid claim to following
> objective standards.
>
> Until scientologists begin to accept logical and scientific standards,
> progress cannot occur.
Would you say the same of phrenologists?
Barbara Schwarz
Kevin Brady schrieb:
> Repost
Too bad that your p$ychiatric case officers don't allow you to see the
truth. It's called mindcontrol. Poor critters.
--
Barbara Schwarz (Looking for the original Mark (Marty) Rathbun. No
impostor, please!)
http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities:
He also has bomb instructions on the net:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
Victoria (Tory) Christman was on drugs and also experimented with
heroin. If not for Scientology, she might have died. She now defames L.
Ron Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists who salvaged her from her
destructive "lifestyle".
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/_vti_bin/shtml.dll/search.html
"I made my typical, totally evaluative decision without ANY real
facts."
Tory Christman, 27 Jun 2001, Message-ID:
<3B3A9693...@worldnet.att.net
The Chief Instigator
>Kevin Brady schrieb:
>> Repost
>Too bad that your p$ychiatric case officers don't allow you to see the
>truth. It's called mindcontrol. Poor critters.
Too bad you see "case officers" who don't exist, Babbles That's what
Scientology has done to you.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
Kevin Brady
news:szkr70b...@fnord.io.com...
> "Barbara Schwarz" <barbara...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>Kevin Brady schrieb:
>
>>> Repost
>
>>Too bad that your p$ychiatric case officers don't allow you to see the
>>truth. It's called mindcontrol. Poor critters.
>
> Too bad you see "case officers" who don't exist, Babbles That's what
> Scientology has done to you.
Of course they exist. It's my psychiatric paymasters that keep me eating
well! No dumpsters for me!
God Bless the Marcab Confederation!
Kevin Brady
news:MPG.1f2dabc84...@news.day.sbcglobal.net...
I don't see the comparison.
John
"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44c414f9$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
I, for one, welcome our insect overlords.
The Chief Instigator
>>>Kevin Brady schrieb:
>>>> Repost
Babbles is one ungrateful kook, considering all the effort the Marcabs put
into trying to rescue her...
John
> zeeorger wrote:
>> Muldoon wrote:
>> > >
snip
>
> And, I'm not so sure the emphasis is really on communication:
> "Communication" is also inhibited with censorship, while still being
> placed on display: "Communication!"
>
> And "What is true for you," becomes subordinate to the enforced reality
> of the Cult, while still being placed on display, "Think for yourself"!
mmm. Doubleplusgood.
Muldoon
Zinj wrote:
- snip -
>
Zeeorger wrote:
>
> I don't think the differences are that large. Its like the complaint
> by others
> that 'scientology' is not 'scientology' - we just need to make sure we
> know
> what "hue" of 'scientology' is meant. in this case:
>
> Scientology (as it really is) is not scientology (as it was expected to
> be).
>
> [ This reminds me about the statements "it works" and "it does not
> work",
> the definitions of "it" and "work" need some work - makes me want to
> walk up the testing center and ask what they mean by "it" and "work" as
> a repetitive command ... ]
>
>
[Yes, the words "it" and "tech" and "Scientology" and "works" are often
used as "buzz words."]
>
>
> I don't deny that there are parts of scientology that are useful.
>
> As your example demonstrated, it is possible to run the grades
> and power processes with good intentions and without deception
> and achieve good results. The grades "work" within their own
> context. The missions of old were very successful with that
> part of the (auditing) tech. They could have sold and done
> nothing else and scientology would have kept on expanding.
>
> But scientology consists of a lot more, it does have a larger
> context. This context makes it more akin to the mafia. It
> is as if LRH simply could never quit being a deceptive con
> man, there was never a chance to "go legit".
>
> So what we are left with is deceptive fronts. Left with bodies
> of data that are treated as complete when in fact they are, at
> best, incomplete and, at worse, harmful.
>
> I might even go out on a limb and say that Ethics and Justice
> 'tech' within scientology is the wost of area of all. LRH would
> invalidate entire areas of knowledge and then proceed to replace
> it with his own (quite biased, and often insane) viewpoint. I
> often wonder how many items where never tested, let alone
> opened for peer review.
>
> For example, there is no demand that people on the RPF
> be treated humanely. The concept of "compromise" is alien.
> The concept of democracy does not exist, its called 'group
> bank' ... I could go on for hours.
>
> It is these 'missing concepts' that I find most destructive.
> They short-circuit common sense, with resulting neglect.
>
> It is this resulting neglect that harms (as in it is better to
> sell your house and join the SO) or kills (as it did LTM)
>
> That is why I am doing a peer review.
>
> Z
>
> Truth is the universal solvent
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/ab520d11153f79e7/5c7f293c11a78b71
On the topic of "universal solvents," here's a quote from an unlikely
source:
"How easy for the charlatans of oratory to seduce the simple enthusiasm
of the soul! What help have we unless we have the wit to know them as
ridiculous? There is no limit to the abyss of Idiocy where in the
quacks will plunge us - our only saving reflex is the automatic joke of
the sense of humour!
"...the universal Joke... is most assuredly a means of Grace, and often
proves the chief ingredient of the Universal Solvent."
>From 'Little Essays Toward Truth', by Aleister Crowley, published 1938.
Zinj
al...@null.edu says...
<snip>
> Yet Hubbard, the foe of "jokers and degraders", is often linked to
> Crowley.
>
> Irony or ignorance?
>
> Truth lies where man is least likely to look.
>
> Alex
The only apparent 'connection' between L. Ron Hubbard and
Aleister Crowley is Hubbard's *claimed*, desired and pretended
connection, as in 'My good friend...'
I'd say that's enough to conclude that 'Ron' admired and 'was
familiar' with Aleister Crowley, but, the only evidence that
Crowley was himself aware of 'Ron' is less than flattering, and
at best a 2nd-hand familiarity over Jack Parsons.
Still, the fact that 'Ron' attempted to borrow Crowley's
'reputation' to bolster his own does reveal his appreciation of
that 'Tech', and there is enough similarity in the Crowleyesque
and Hubbardian paradigms to suggest that the former influenced
the creation of the latter.
But, at the same time, 'Ron' seems to have been less than
willing to admit to the connection publicly, and, in fact, the
'Church' has long claimed that 'Ron's' only involvement was as a
spy for the FBI, intent on 'breaking up a satanist ring'.
The truth in this case seems to suggest that Ron lied in both
directions; he was not the intimate of Crowley that he claims in
some lectures; nor was he involved in opposing what he called a
satanist cabal.
zeeorger
> In article <1154496354....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > On the topic of "universal solvents," here's a quote from an unlikely
> > source:
> >
> > "How easy for the charlatans of oratory to seduce the simple enthusiasm
> > of the soul! What help have we unless we have the wit to know them as
> > ridiculous? There is no limit to the abyss of Idiocy where in the
> > quacks will plunge us - our only saving reflex is the automatic joke of
> > the sense of humour!
> >
> > "...the universal Joke... is most assuredly a means of Grace, and often
> > proves the chief ingredient of the Universal Solvent."
> >
> > From 'Little Essays Toward Truth', by Aleister Crowley, published 1938.
>
> Crowley.
>
> Irony or ignorance?
>
> Truth lies where man is least likely to look.
>
It looks like LRH recognized the potential foe that "jokers and
degraders" were to his command intention to create his ideal
scientology social order ... a "fun" tyrany is an oxymoron.
The most delectable irony of all is that, in the end, it is the
"jokers and degraders", such as those on ARS and South Park,
that will ultimately expose and take down the cult of scientology.
My hope is that we do restore our 'spirit of play' to what it
used to be - to once more play a joke on god and have god
let out a belly laugh.
Z
Muldoon
>
-snip-
>
> The only apparent 'connection' between L. Ron Hubbard and
> Aleister Crowley is Hubbard's *claimed*, desired and pretended
> connection, as in 'My good friend...'
>
> I'd say that's enough to conclude that 'Ron' admired and 'was
> familiar' with Aleister Crowley, but, the only evidence that
> Crowley was himself aware of 'Ron' is less than flattering, and
> at best a 2nd-hand familiarity over Jack Parsons.
>
> Still, the fact that 'Ron' attempted to borrow Crowley's
> 'reputation' to bolster his own does reveal his appreciation of
> that 'Tech', and there is enough similarity in the Crowleyesque
> and Hubbardian paradigms to suggest that the former influenced
> the creation of the latter.
>
> But, at the same time, 'Ron' seems to have been less than
> willing to admit to the connection publicly, and, in fact, the
> 'Church' has long claimed that 'Ron's' only involvement was as a
> spy for the FBI, intent on 'breaking up a satanist ring'.
>
> The truth in this case seems to suggest that Ron lied in both
> directions; he was not the intimate of Crowley that he claims in
> some lectures; nor was he involved in opposing what he called a
> satanist cabal.
>
> Zinj
> --
The claim that Crowley had been his "very good friend" occured during
the 'Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures' in late 1952. I was
reading Crowley when I first heard these tapes (1979), and noticed, not
only the recurring references to Crowley and Magic(k), but the frequent
rephrasing, and sometimes word per word repeating, of lines from
Crowley's writings.
Not all of Crowley's writings would qualify as "toxic," as he did take
from many other earlier sources, not all sinister or "Satanic."
However, many of Hubbard's "borrowings" from Crowley were of the
"darker" variety. One idea, taken from Crowley's 'Magick', expressed
in the 'PDC' lectures, was that one "should not be the effect of his
own cause." This translates into "not having a conscience," as having a
conscience "puts one at effect."
After a 'Times of London' story appeared in 1969 - describing Hubbard's
involvement with sex-magic(k) in Pasadena, California in 1946 - Hubbard
concocted a "shore story" (PR cover story, or "tall tale") in which he
had been "sent in to break up a black magic group, and rescued a girl."
That "girl" was Sara Northrup, who, five years of marriage and one
red-headed daughter later, filed for divorce in 1951.
Shortly after the 'Times of London' article appeared, Hubbard - in
Confidential writings - began describing his 2nd wife Sara Northup as a
Russian spy named Sara Komkosadamanov.
Now, back to the general theme of this thread -
The following link contains information on books and other writings,
including comments by William S. Burroughs.
Hopefully, some may find this useful.
Muldoon
A link, and a link within a link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/97ff29e0a3fd93cf
Muldoon
Links re. Aleister Crowley's "Naples Arrangement" from which Hubbard
derived his 'The Factors', etc., etc.; Patricia Waldygo's painting of
the "Tree of Life," etc., and a quote from Israel Regardie's 'The
Middle Pillar':
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.clearing.technology/msg/d24a8acaa8ee5d9d