On Loaded Language

Mockingbird

Well-known member
"Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating cliches, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking." Robert Jay Lifton


I have read a but about influence and sometimes find it striking how many people of different backgrounds and professions find similar ideas or conclusions. It doesn't mean they are all right or in agreement but to compare and contrast their statements can be worthwhile if you are interested in the topic they have all discussed.


And merely quoting someone doesn't mean they are correct or even a good person. It just means that they produced a quote that is interesting to me in this context.


Like a lot of people who leave Scientology I have benefited from reading about loaded language and found that writers of all different types have something to say.


I put together some quotes from a variety of folks and included some comments of my own as I think it is valuable to both cult recovery and just dealing with life to undergo a loaded language works.






“When confronted with situations for which such routine procedures did not exist, he [Eichmann] was helpless, and his cliché-ridden language produced on the stand, as it had evidently done in his official life, a kind of macabre comedy. Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence.”

― Hannah Arendt




“None of the various 'language rules,' carefully contrived to deceive and to camouflage, had a more decisive effect on the mentality of the killers than this first war decree of Hitler, in which the word for 'murder' was replaced by the phrase 'to grant a mercy death.' Eichmann, asked by the police examiner if the directive to avoid 'unnecessary hardships' was not a bit ironic, in view of the fact that the destination of these people was certain death anyhow, did not even understand the question, so firmly was it still anchored in his mind that the unforgivable sin was not to kill people but to cause unnecessary pain.”
― Hannah Arendt




“The member of the Nazi hierarchy most gifted at solving problems of conscience was Himmler. He coined slogans, like the famous watchword of the S.S., taken from a Hitler speech before the S.S. in 1931, “My Honor is my Loyalty”—catch phrases which Eichmann called “winged words” and the judges “empty talk”—and issued them, as Eichmann recalled, “around the turn of the year,” presumably along with a Christmas bonus. Eichmann remembered only one of them and kept repeating it: “These are battles which future generations will not have to fight again,” alluding to the “battles” against women, children, old people, and other “useless mouths.” Other such phrases, taken from speeches Himmler made to the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen and the Higher S.S. and Police Leaders, were: “To have stuck it out and, apart from exceptions caused by human weakness, to have remained decent, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written.” Or: “The order to solve the Jewish question, this was the most frightening order an organization could ever receive.” Or: We realize that what we are expecting from you is “superhuman,” to be “superhumanly inhuman.” All one can say is that their expectations were not disappointed. It is noteworthy, however, that Himmler hardly ever attempted to justify in ideological terms, and if he did, it was apparently quickly forgotten. What stuck in the minds of these men who had become murderers was simply the notion of being involved in something historic, grandiose, unique (“a great task that occurs once in two thousand years”), which must therefore be difficult to bear. This was important, because the murderers were not sadists or killers by nature; on the contrary, a systematic effort was made to weed out all those who derived physical pleasure from what they did. The troops of the Einsatzgruppen had been drafted”

― Hannah Arendt


“The same ingenious application of slogans, coined by others and tried out before, was apparent in the Nazis' treatment of other relevant issues. When public attention was equally focused on nationalism on the one hand and socialism on the other, when the two were thought to be incompatible and actually constituted the ideological watershed between the Right and the Left, the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (Nazi) offered a synthesis supposed to lead to national unity, a semantic solution whose double trademark of "German" and "Worker" connected the nationalism of the Right with the internationalism of the Left. The very name of the Nazi movement stole the political contents of all other parties and pretended implicitly to incorporate them all. Combinations of supposedly antagonistic political doctrines (national-socialist, christian-social, etc.) had been tried, and successfully, before; but the Nazis realized their own combination in such a way that the whole struggle in Parliament between the socialists and the nationalists, between those who pretended to be workers first of all and those who were Germans first, appeared as a sham designed to hide ulterior sinister motives—for was not a member of the Nazi movement all these things at once?”
― Hannah Arendt




“The net effect of this language system was not to keep these people ignorant of what they were doing, but to prevent them from equating it with their old, "normal" knowledge of murder and lies. Eichmann's great susceptibility to catch words and stock phrases, combined with his incapacity for ordinary speech, made him, of course, an ideal subject for "language rules.”
― Hannah Arendt



“The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.”

― Hannah Arendt




“To be sure, the judges were right when they finally told the accused that all he had said was 'empty talk'--except that they thought the emptiness was feigned, and that the accused wished to cover up other thoughts which, though hideous, were not empty. This supposition seems refuted by the striking consistency with which Eichmann, despite his rather bad memory, repeated word for word the same stock phrases and self-invented clichés [ ] each time he referred to an incident or event of importance to him. Whether writing his memoirs in Argentina or in Jerusalem, whether speaking to the police examiner or to the court, what he said was always the same, expressed in the same words. The longer one listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else. No communication was possible with him, not because he lied but because he was surrounded by the most reliable of all safeguards against the words and the presence of others, and hence against reality as such.”
― Hannah Arendt




“Nothing really known, can continue to be acutely fascinating.”
― H.P. Lovecraft





“By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth.”
― George Carlin


“If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.”
― Eric Hoffer



“There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer. He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hair-splitting and scholastic tortuousness.”

― Eric Hoffer



“In all major socializing forces you will find an underlying movement to gain and maintain power through the use of words. From witch doctor to priest to bureaucrat it is all the same. A governed populace must be conditioned to accept power-words as actual things, to confuse the symbolized system with the tangible universe. In the maintenance of such a power structure, certain symbols are kept out of the reach of common understanding – symbols such as those dealing with economic manipulation of those which define the local interpretation of sanity. Symbol-secrecy of this form leads to the development of fragmented sub-languages, each being a signal that its users are accumulating some form of power.”
― Frank Herbert




“If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true or false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced. – The Open-Ended Proof from the Panoplia Prophetica Leto’s”
― Frank Herbert




“All persons act from beliefs they are conditioned not to question, from a set of deeply seated prejudices. Therefore, whoever presumes to judge must be asked: "How are you affronted?" And this judge must begin there to question inwardly as well as outwardly."
― Frank Herbert

“Do actions agree with words? There's your measure of reliability. Never confine yourself to the words.”
― Frank Herbert



“The gift of words is the gift of deception and illusion.”
― Frank Herbert




“Beware jargon. It usually hides ignorance and carries little knowledge.”
― Frank Herbert




“The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy.”
― Frank Herbert


“Beware of the truth, gentle Sister. Although much sought after, truth can be dangerous to the seeker. Myths and reassuring lies are much easier to find and believe. If you find a truth, even a temporary one, it can demand that you make painful changes. Conceal your truths within words. Natural ambiguity will protect you then.”
― Frank Herbert


“The proper teaching is recognized with ease. You can know it without fail because it awakens within you that sensation which tells you this is something you’ve always known.”
― Frank Herbert



“That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything.”
― Noam Chomsky



“Among the many symbols used to frighten and manipulate the populace of the democratic states, few have been more important than "terror" and "terrorism." These terms have generally been confined to the use of violence by individuals and marginal groups. Official violence, which is far more extensive in both scale and destructiveness, is placed in a different category altogether. This usage has nothing to do with justice, causal sequence, or numbers abused. Whatever the actual sequence of cause and effect, official violence is described as responsive or provoked ("retaliation," "protective reaction," etc.), not as the active and initiating source of abuse. Similarly, the massive long-term violence inherent in the oppressive social structures that U.S. power has supported or imposed is typically disregarded. The numbers tormented and killed by official violence-wholesale as opposed to retail terror-during recent decades have exceeded those of unofficial terrorists by a factor running into the thousands. But this is not "terror," [...] "security forces" only retaliate and engage in "police action."

These terminological devices serve important functions. They help to justify the far more extensive violence of (friendly) state authorities by interpreting them as "reactive" and they implicitly sanction the suppression of information on the methods and scale of official violence by removing it from the category of "terrorism." [...] Thus the language is well-designed for apologetics for wholesale terror.”
― Noam Chomsky



“The point of public relations slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don’t want people to think about that issue. That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy?”
― Noam Chomsky



“the terms of political discourse are designed so as to prevent thought.”
― Noam Chomsky





“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by eactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . . The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for commiting thought-crime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. . . . Has it ever occcured to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”
― George Orwell



“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell


“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.”
― George Orwell


“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
― George Orwell



“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements.”
― George Orwell


“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow. Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against. By this morning's post I have received a pamphlet dealing with conditions in Germany. The author tells me that he "felt impelled" to write it. I open it at random, and here is almost the first sentence I see: "[The Allies] have an opportunity not only of achieving a radical transformation of Germany's social and political structure in such a way as to avoid a nationalistic reaction in Germany itself, but at the same time of laying the foundations of a co-operative and unified Europe." You see, he "feels impelled" to write -- feels, presumably, that he has something new to say -- and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern. This invasion of one's mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one's brain.”
― George Orwell


“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”
― George Orwell


“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
― George Orwell


“To write or even speak English is not a science but an art. There are no reliable words. Whoever writes English is involved in a struggle that never lets up even for a sentence. He is struggling against vagueness, against obscurity, against the lure of the decorative adjective, against the encroachment of Latin and Greek, and, above all, against the worn-out phrases and dead metaphors with which the language is cluttered up.”
― George Orwell



“When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases - bestial atrocities, iron heel, blood-stained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder - one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy, the appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved”
― George Orwell


Margaret Singer in her book Cults In Our Midst provides a tremendous amount of essential information regarding cults. I believe it is one of the finest books ever on Scientology and is by one of the greatest cult experts to have ever walked the earth. Margaret Singer has qualifications and experience second to none. I will present several quotes in an extensive analysis. I have none of her academic or professional achievements. I do however have twenty five years experience as a Scientologist to consider. For ease of understanding I will present quotes in blue and my comments in black.

First a quote that struck me instantly. It reminded me of an analysis of Scientology written by a class XII auditor. She said Hubbard's writings can seem contradictory and paradoxical. That is actually intentional.

"The more complicated and filled with contradictions the new system is and the more difficult it is to learn, the more effective the conversion process will be." ( page 67 )Margaret Singer

The contradictions serve to thoroughly confuse Hubbard's victims and help to increase their suggestibility. With hundreds or thousands of contradictions in millions of words of doctrine the effect is compounded by unimaginably immense repetition.

"In cultic groups, the individual member is always wrong, and the system is always right ."( page 68 )Margaret Singer

This is a key component of cults - the individual always must submit to a position as an intellectual subordinate to the group, doctrine or leader. A relationship based on mutual respect and human rights has no place in a cult. The leader is always above any accountability and without humility or compassion. The system is always totalistic and without means of reform and progress. If it lacks these qualities it fails to be cultic.


"You affirm that you accept and understand the ideology by beginning to talk in the simple catchphrases particular to the group. This "communication" has no foundation since, in reality, you have little understanding of the system beyond the catchphrases. " ( page 69)Margaret Singer

This is particularly relevant to Scientology as Hubbard used many thousands of new words. Many of which are the opposite of their original meaning or used to state something the exact opposite of the truth to hide Hubbard's intentions and crimes. He used phrases twisted and turned to fool people. Many of his terms lack clear meaning because he uses far too many new terms with reference to one another and multiple contradictory definitions. The amount of terms and definitions to attempt to learn and coordinate is simply overwhelming and often absorbs so much of the cult member's attention that clear understanding and thought are severely inhibited.


"Loading the language. As members continue to formulate their ideas in the group's jargon, this language serves the purpose of constricting members' thinking and shutting down critical thinking abilities. At first, translating from their native tongue into "groupspeak" forces members to censor, edit, and slow down spontaneous bursts of criticism or oppositional ideas. " ( page 70)Margaret Singer

Of all cult methods this may be the one Hubbard focused on the most. With his extensive new language drummed into his victims' minds through extreme repetition. The beliefs within the language replace the Scientologists' own. And often nearly entirely replace critical thinking.
Getting almost complete control over cultists' minds is one of the main intentions Hubbard had in his chosen methods.

By continuosly adding new terms and concepts and redefining old ones with explicitly contradictory definitions Hubbard tried to perpetually maintain the overwhelming confusion cult members usually experience when first joining a cult . This is compounded by Scientology's extensive decades long indoctrination process. It keeps the translation process ongoing rather than temporary. This helps to heighten confusion, anxiety and suggestibility.


"One international group, for example, has dictionaries for members to use. In one of these dictionaries, criticism is defined as "justification for having done an overt." Then one looks up overt and the dictionary states: "overt act: an overt act is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics." Then the definition of dynamics says: There could be said to be eight urges in life...." And so, one can search from term to term trying to learn this new language. " (page 70 )Margaret Singer

Obviously to any veteran Scientologist this refers to Scientology and Hubbard's methods of defining new terms with mountains of others in never ending chains of words to look up.






From chapter 22 of Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism


Ideological Totalism



Loading the Language
The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. In [Chinese Communist] thought reform, for instance, the phrase "bourgeois mentality" is used to encompass and critically dismiss ordinarily troublesome concerns like the quest for individual expression, the exploration of alternative ideas, and the search for perspective and balance in political judgments.

And in addition to their function as interpretive shortcuts, these cliches become what Richard Weaver has called "ultimate terms" : either "god terms," representative of ultimate good; or "devil terms," representative of ultimate evil. In [Chinese Communist] thought reform, "progress," "progressive," "liberation," "proletarian standpoints" and "the dialectic of history" fall into the former category; "capitalist," "imperialist," "exploiting classes," and "bourgeois" (mentality, liberalism, morality, superstition, greed) of course fall into the latter.

Totalist language then, is repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical, relentlessly judging, and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull: in Lionel Trilling's phrase, "the language of nonthought."


To be sure, this kind of language exists to some degree within any cultural or organizational group, and all systems of belief depend upon it. It is in part an expression of unity and exclusiveness: as Edward Sapir put it, "'He talks like us' is equivalent to saying 'He is one of us.'" The loading is much more extreme in ideological totalism, however, since the jargon expresses the claimed certitudes of the sacred science. Also involved is an underlying assumption that language - like all other human products - can be owned and operated by the Movement. No compunctions are felt about manipulating or loading it in any fashion; the only consideration is its usefulness to the cause.




For an individual person, the effect of the language of ideological totalism can be summed up in one word: constriction. He is, so to speak, linguistically deprived; and since language is so central to all human experience, his capacities for thinking and feeling are immensely narrowed. This is what Hu meant when he said, "using the same pattern of words for so long…you feel chained."

Actually, not everyone exposed feels chained, but in effect everyone is profoundly confined by these verbal fetters. As in other aspects of totalism, this loading may provide an initial sense of insight and security, eventually followed by uneasiness. This uneasiness may result in a retreat into a rigid orthodoxy in which an individual shouts the ideological jargon all the louder in order to demonstrate his conformity, hide his own dilemma and his despair, and protect himself from the fear and guilt he would feel should he attempt to use words and phrases other than the correct ones.

Or else he may adapt a complex pattern of inner division, and dutifully produce the expected cliché's in public performances while in his private moments he searches for more meaningful avenues of expression. Either way, his imagination becomes increasingly dissociated from his actual life experiences and may tend to atrophy from disuse.

"A discussion of what is most central in the thought reform environment can lead us to a more general consideration of the psychology of human zealotry. For in identifying, on the basis of this study of thought reform, features common to all expressions of ideological totalism, I wish to suggest a set of criteria against which any environment may be judged - a basis for answering the ever-recurring question: "Isn't this just like 'brainwashing'?"


These criteria consist of eight psychological themes which are predominant within the social field of the thought reform milieu. Each has a totalistic quality; each depend upon an equally absolute philosophical assumption; and each mobilizes certain individual emotional tendencies, mostly of a polarizing nature. In combination they create an atmosphere which may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which at the same time poses the gravest of human threats. "
Robert Jay Lifton
 
From Mockingbird's post ...On Loaded Language.


“Do actions agree with words? There's your measure of reliability. Never confine yourself to the words.”
― Frank Herbert"


View attachment 2990
I found this idea regarding actions and words being good for evaluating Scientology.

Hubbard in references designed for propaganda such as The Way To Happiness described a moral code but in Scientology organizations and the Sea Org especially Hubbard demanded ruthlessness, cruelty and the gross violation of human rights.

His propaganda doesn't match his orders, not even a little.

The use of claims that you do one thing and the reality that you do another is a foundation of cults. They don't work without deception in my opinion, including self-deception by the leader.
 
I found this idea regarding actions and words being good for evaluating Scientology.

Hubbard in references designed for propaganda such as The Way To Happiness described a moral code but in Scientology organizations and the Sea Org especially Hubbard demanded ruthlessness, cruelty and the gross violation of human rights.

His propaganda doesn't match his orders, not even a little.

The use of claims that you do one thing and the reality that you do another is a foundation of cults. They don't work without deception in my opinion, including self-deception by the leader.

Yes, it's 'ouch' think. The thinking hurts like twisting a wet towel into knots when your're a Scientologist. Today I saw The Way To Happiness art had been used as propaganda throughout history to mean different things. I don't know what 'chord' this is supposed to hit within the individual, but it seems we're always being tuned or played.

Impressions and Ideas


I listen to the news each day and the stories are loaded with the language of identity.

"And in addition to their function as interpretive shortcuts, these cliches become what Richard Weaver has called "ultimate terms" : either "god terms," representative of ultimate good; or "devil terms," representative of ultimate evil. In [Chinese Communist] thought reform, "progress," "progressive," "liberation," "proletarian standpoints" and "the dialectic of history" fall into the former category; "capitalist," "imperialist," "exploiting classes," and "bourgeois" (mentality, liberalism, morality, superstition, greed) of course fall into the latter."

The repetitive language swipes with a broad brush across our cache of memes and emotions. We too seldom inspect to see if the chords ring true any more.
The Way to Happiness booklet..... logo on its cover.
1587282164890.png1587282215967.png\1587282369695.png
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't know anything about that logo itself.

Regarding what Barack Obama said and what he did I found the book Listen Liberal! by Thomas Frank laid out the case extremely well.

Others such as Noam Chomsky and Cornel West and Glen Ford have criticized him quite well. We can and many others like Chris Hedges and Richard Wolff have added further strong criticism.
 
For an individual person, the effect of the language of ideological totalism can be summed up in one word: constriction. He is, so to speak, linguistically deprived; and since language is so central to all human experience, his capacities for thinking and feeling are immensely narrowed. This is what Hu meant when he said, "using the same pattern of words for so long…you feel chained."

Actually, not everyone exposed feels chained, but in effect everyone is profoundly confined by these verbal fetters. As in other aspects of totalism, this loading may provide an initial sense of insight and security, eventually followed by uneasiness. This uneasiness may result in a retreat into a rigid orthodoxy in which an individual shouts the ideological jargon all the louder in order to demonstrate his conformity, hide his own dilemma and his despair, and protect himself from the fear and guilt he would feel should he attempt to use words and phrases other than the correct ones.

I think the key difference between Hubbardian language and communist chinese language was scale.
Chinese communism tended to simplify everything as far as possible (down to creating a new simplified alphabet). Hubbard's method was to produce so much volume and complex, multi-layered interlined policies, bulletins, orders, advices etc as to utterly confuse and dazzle the cult member.

In short:
- Communist slogans are so short and simple they become ambiguous
- Hubbard's language is so voluminous and complex that it becomes ambiguous.

One thing that the text on totalitarian language failed to mention is that in some instances it may serve as a weapon for the one lower in the hierarchy to be used against those above him/her.

[ Warning! Megalomaniac, self-aggrandizing bragadocio content ahead! Proceed with caution! ]

Back in my day I had a whole barrage of Hubbard text about the evils of abortion. There were times when some displeasure was expressed from the top with regards to how I handled these sort of 2D cases. Once that happened I would fire this barrage as quickly as possible using tone 40 and then just smash people again and again over the head with it.

The one good thing with the SO is that I could get away with making CMO people as uncomfortable as possible. They were supposed to be just the go-betweens and were expected to be the elites, above the masses unaffected by what we said. So, shouting and angry or not, they would choose to stand their ground and take all this-is-the-word-of-Hubbard-abuse I sent their way.
After several such instances, most people were visibly unwilling to bring these issues to me. My "track record" included making one messenger simply run out of our room crying.

So yes, weaponized loaded language is a double edged sword.

[/ Warning! Megalomaniac, self-aggrandizing bragadocio content ahead! Proceed with caution! ]
 
Last edited:
I think the key difference between Hubbardian language and communist chinese language was scale.
Chinese communism tended to simplify everything as far as possible (down to creating a new simplified alphabet). Hubbard's method was to produce so much volume and complex, multi-layered interlined policies, bulletins, orders, advices etc as to utterly confuse and dazzle the cult member.

In short:
- Communist slogans are so short and simple they become ambiguous
- Hubbard's language is so voluminous and complex that it becomes ambiguous.

One thing that the text on totalitarian language failed to mention is that in some instances it may serve as a weapon for the one lower in the hierarchy to be used against those above him/her.

[ Warning! Megalomaniac, self-aggrandizing bragadocio content ahead! Proceed with caution! ]

Back in my day I had a whole barrage of Hubbard text about the evils of abortion. There were times when some displeasure was expressed from the top with regards to how I handled these sort of 2D cases. Once that happened I would fire this barrage as quickly as possible using tone 40 and then just smash people again and again over the head with it.

The one good thing with the SO is that I could get away with making CMO people as uncomfortable as possible. They were supposed to be just the go-betweens and were expected to be the elites, above the masses unaffected by what we said. So, shouting and angry or not, they would choose to stand their ground and take all this-is-the-word-of-Hubbard-abuse I sent their way.
After several such instances, most people were visibly unwilling to bring these issues to me. My "track record" included making one messenger simply run out of our room crying.

So yes, weaponized loaded language is a double edged sword.

[/ Warning! Megalomaniac, self-aggrandizing bragadocio content ahead! Proceed with caution! ]
I have written a lot on how Hubbard used language in Dianetics and Scientology.

I defer to Robert Jay Lifton regarding Chinese communism. I think he covered it quite well.

Regarding Hubbard I looked at his extensive use of his policy of propaganda by redefinition of terms.

I can post a couple links to give my impression of how he did this.





 
I think the key difference between Hubbardian language and communist chinese language was scale.
Chinese communism tended to simplify everything as far as possible (down to creating a new simplified alphabet). Hubbard's method was to produce so much volume and complex, multi-layered interlined policies, bulletins, orders, advices etc as to utterly confuse and dazzle the cult member.

In short:
- Communist slogans are so short and simple they become ambiguous
- Hubbard's language is so voluminous and complex that it becomes ambiguous.

One thing that the text on totalitarian language failed to mention is that in some instances it may serve as a weapon for the one lower in the hierarchy to be used against those above him/her.

[ Warning! Megalomaniac, self-aggrandizing bragadocio content ahead! Proceed with caution! ]

Back in my day I had a whole barrage of Hubbard text about the evils of abortion. There were times when some displeasure was expressed from the top with regards to how I handled these sort of 2D cases. Once that happened I would fire this barrage as quickly as possible using tone 40 and then just smash people again and again over the head with it.

The one good thing with the SO is that I could get away with making CMO people as uncomfortable as possible. They were supposed to be just the go-betweens and were expected to be the elites, above the masses unaffected by what we said. So, shouting and angry or not, they would choose to stand their ground and take all this-is-the-word-of-Hubbard-abuse I sent their way.
After several such instances, most people were visibly unwilling to bring these issues to me. My "track record" included making one messenger simply run out of our room crying.

So yes, weaponized loaded language is a double edged sword.

[/ Warning! Megalomaniac, self-aggrandizing bragadocio content ahead! Proceed with caution! ]
I just noticed your quote at the bottom. It of course comes from the games maker tape. I wrote a few posts on that too.

 
I just noticed your quote at the bottom. It of course comes from the games maker tape. I wrote a few posts on that too.


Thanks. For the color patterns I adopted for quotes as such, you might want to take a quick look at the top of this thread. The thread is humorous, but it does explain my "headspace" when it comes to color-coding communication on the forums. I've also spread out some of my own opinions about Ron's game theory, but it is a bit disjointed and I'll probably at some point make a separate thread just about games.


The game aspect of Scientology is something I've been able to notice while still inside. In my last 6 months of my time at Inv or so, I have went over all the lectures that had "game" in their title. This lead me to conclude that Scientology was in fact a game.
Ron was the game-maker, the Int execs were the players, the rest of the management were the assistant players. Everyone else was just pieces.

I was the person tasked with braking the pieces. I'm still not sure if by Ron's definition I was an "assistant player" or some specialized piece. I would assume the latter, though the old clam didn't really want to write in depth about different types of pieces or for that matter the process of braking these.

Understanding the "game aspect" was one of many of my "stepping stones to total freedom from Scientology".
 
Last edited:
Thanks. For the color patterns I adopted for quotes as such, you might want to take a quick look at the top of this thread. The thread is humorous, but it does explain my "headspace" when it comes to color-coding communication on the forums.

The game aspect of Scientology is something I've been able to notice while still inside. In my last 6 months of my time at Inv or so, I have went over all the lectures that had "game" in their title. This lead me to conclude that Scientology was in fact a game.
Ron was the game-maker, the Int execs were the players, the rest of the management were the assistant players. Everyone else was just pieces.

I was the person tasked with braking the pieces. I'm still not sure if by Ron's definition I was an "assistant player" or some specialized piece. I would assume the latter, though the old clam didn't really want to write in depth about different types of pieces or for that matter the process of braking these.

Understanding the "game aspect" was one of many of my "stepping stones to total freedom from Scientology".
I saw an article by Jon Atack at the Underground Bunker Scientology Mythbusting series on the games maker tape and then read the transcript and a lot of other stuff including the Skipper letter, just about every article Jon Atack wrote on Scientology and th Affirmations and studied hypnosis and rhetoric and cognitive biases and logical fallacies and realized that Scientology was a game for Hubbard and his effort to covertly mentally enslave humanity using hypnosis disguised as enlightenment.

A lot from psychology and neuroscience and several other subjects has helped along the way.

I think realizing that Hubbard made Scientology to appear to be one thing to people while actually hiding that it was something else entirely, something completely dishonest and harmful, is often essential for recovery from Scientology.

I was helped by the fact that Jon Atack has gone through many references to find hundreds of statements on hypnosis which he quoted in his Never Believe a Hypnotist article and in several other articles. He also wrote an excellent article on where Hubbard plagiarized ideas from. The Hubbard Is Bare is a superb article by another author as well.

I dug through the ESMB posts and found JAX had posted hundreds of OTHER quotes from Hubbard on hypnosis in the B.C. and PDC tapes.

I was lucky that a lot of other people including Arnie Lerma had already been working on this for years.
 
This reminds me of some of the traits discussed in the subject dealing with malignant narcissism. The confusion they cause generates chaos these parasites absorb. It's as if the prime spiritual energy bestowed to life in the universe is there's to feed off of. Cult leaders will try to destroy any Being who rises up in competition for their power or food source.

I've experienced the double intentioned-ness. Their techniques get you envisioning in one direction, while the opposite scenario is engineered. Why this insidious disintegration of one person's elan so to be absorbed by manipulators. Some agents in this universe resent human beings or any appearance of competitive awareness. If we're going to think in terms of players and games, I suppose Alan Walter's term, paradigm crasher, could fit.

 
I saw an article by Jon Atack at the Underground Bunker Scientology Mythbusting series on the games maker tape and then read the transcript and a lot of other stuff including the Skipper letter, just about every article Jon Atack wrote on Scientology and th Affirmations and studied hypnosis and rhetoric and cognitive biases and logical fallacies and realized that Scientology was a game for Hubbard and his effort to covertly mentally enslave humanity using hypnosis disguised as enlightenment.

A lot from psychology and neuroscience and several other subjects has helped along the way.

I think realizing that Hubbard made Scientology to appear to be one thing to people while actually hiding that it was something else entirely, something completely dishonest and harmful, is often essential for recovery from Scientology.

If you want to have the rest of puzzle to complete the picture, I would very strongly suggest you look into neoplatonism and classical gnosticism. Maybe not to the point of reading the whole enneads, but at least to get a general idea of how gnostics view the universe, time and matter.

Hubbard's ideas about the 8 dynamics, the MEST universe, reincarnation, the notion how spiritual beings became trapped in the material universe - all this is taken directly from classical gnosticism.

If there is one idological connection none of the ex-scientologists really talks about, it is the gnostic connection. Scientology is a modern gnostic religion.

Heck, even its very name is gnostic. Gnosis is the greek word for a specific type of knowledge. Hubbard's term: "knowledge of knowingness" is actually a very good translation into english of the term "gnosis".

Heh, now I'll need to make two separate threads: One about game, the other about gnosticism.
 
If you want to have the rest of puzzle to complete the picture, I would very strongly suggest you look into neoplatonism and classical gnosticism. Maybe not to the point of reading the whole enneads, but at least to get a general idea of how gnostics view the universe, time and matter.

Hubbard's ideas about the 8 dynamics, the MEST universe, reincarnation, the notion how spiritual beings became trapped in the material universe - all this is taken directly from classical gnosticism.

If there is one idological connection none of the ex-scientologists really talks about, it is the gnostic connection. Scientology is a modern gnostic religion.

Heck, even its very name is gnostic. Gnosis is the greek word for a specific type of knowledge. Hubbard's term: "knowledge of knowingness" is actually a very good translation into english of the term "gnosis".

Heh, now I'll need to make two separate threads: One about game, the other about gnosticism.

Yup. I started a post on neoplatonism and the qualities contained in the division of souls yesterday. It disappeared when my laptop shut down and I couldn't find it. I'd long ago come to realize I had adopted an entire cosmology which I somehow just naturally accepted. I was complacent with it or just too lazy to compare it or criticize. It just felt like an old shoe, this idea of Spirit spiraling downward into MEST.

 
Last edited:
Thanks. For the color patterns I adopted for quotes as such, you might want to take a quick look at the top of this thread. The thread is humorous, but it does explain my "headspace" when it comes to color-coding communication on the forums. I've also spread out some of my own opinions about Ron's game theory, but it is a bit disjointed and I'll probably at some point make a separate thread just about games.


The game aspect of Scientology is something I've been able to notice while still inside. In my last 6 months of my time at Inv or so, I have went over all the lectures that had "game" in their title. This lead me to conclude that Scientology was in fact a game.
Ron was the game-maker, the Int execs were the players, the rest of the management were the assistant players. Everyone else was just pieces.

I was the person tasked with braking the pieces. I'm still not sure if by Ron's definition I was an "assistant player" or some specialized piece. I would assume the latter, though the old clam didn't really want to write in depth about different types of pieces or for that matter the process of braking these.

Understanding the "game aspect" was one of many of my "stepping stones to total freedom from Scientology".

It took me awhile, but what I finally realized from my 3 or 4 interactions with Hubbard, was this:

#1 Yes, he believes his own shit. (I.M.O.)

#2 Which is my point here.
He will try to help you. He tried to really and actually help me, (I refused that" help" each time) But - and this is the important thing, he will only help you in the context of HIS game. Believe me, I could have made a fucking career out of meeting him and chatting. I guess he liked me, but I refused his invitation to the Creston ranch. (I got no dog in this fight)

If you're playing your game, i.e. NOT furthering his agenda, Hubbard. is. not. interested.
Null. Nothing. Less than nothing.

If he likes you, and you wanna play his game, he'll make you CO of CMOAOLAHGC M.O.U.S.E. EUS.......... if and only if you're playing his game.


...that's my 2 peso's
fwiw, YMWV, etc.
 
If you want to have the rest of puzzle to complete the picture, I would very strongly suggest you look into neoplatonism and classical gnosticism. Maybe not to the point of reading the whole enneads, but at least to get a general idea of how gnostics view the universe, time and matter.

Hubbard's ideas about the 8 dynamics, the MEST universe, reincarnation, the notion how spiritual beings became trapped in the material universe - all this is taken directly from classical gnosticism.

If there is one idological connection none of the ex-scientologists really talks about, it is the gnostic connection. Scientology is a modern gnostic religion.

Heck, even its very name is gnostic. Gnosis is the greek word for a specific type of knowledge. Hubbard's term: "knowledge of knowingness" is actually a very good translation into english of the term "gnosis".

Heh, now I'll need to make two separate threads: One about game, the other about gnosticism.
I have seen a few people, a scholar or two, describe Scientology as Gnostic. Scholars who are Scientology apologists sometimes call it a Gnostic system.

Jon Atack and a couple experts on the occult have mentioned it in interviews with Chris Shelton. So, a few Scientology critics have mentioned it too.

I ended up reading a tiny description of Gnosticism and realized that Madame Blavatsky and Crowley and hundreds of others used the basic model of a mass movement that believes in a mythic past, a degraded present and a glorious future. The mass movement may have a racial claim, like Nazis, a class claim like Stalinist communism, a religious claim like many, many others have.

It feeds our ego to think we are special people in a special time with special knowledge. It gives our lives meaning. If we see ourselves as one in seven billion people today and a hundred billion people as existing before us and all our lives as coming and going no matter what religions we have or what race we are or how much money we have, we can feel unimportant.

But, if we are the special people who will save humanity, whether literally physically or spiritually or in any other way we can feel special and know our lives have value and meaning. We can also ignore our flaws and failures because only the future can judge our mission.

Hubbard plagiarized the idea from someone, which appears in Gnostic systems, of a pure free spiritual state and contact with the physical universe as degrading the spiritual state and needing rehabilitation and separation from the physical universe to free spiritual beings and to restore a better state.

We can see it in 1951 in Science of Survival and in many earlier systems. Lots of people claim a better past, the degraded present and heavenly future. Hubbard plagiarized it and then repackaged it as MEST theta theory.

I don't see Scientology as a religion in that it is a variation on the Santa Claus story. Adults know the Santa Claus story is false. They tell children it to control them via lying. They don't consider it a religion.

Similarly, Hubbard told Scientologists all sorts of things including his Gnostic ideas to control them via lying. To me that is a fraud and not a religion.

A system that the originator knows is entirely a pack of lies to control people is my mind a harmful fraud and I don't want to put it in the same category as a religion which the members and leaders sincerely believe.

It is important to uncover the origins of Scientology to show that Hubbard took other subjects and cherry picked ideas he felt could be used to control and enslave people. He wanted content that is popular enough to grab and hold attention and persuasive enough in how he indoctrinated people to enslave them.

He was true to his pathology. He wanted to confuse people to control them then become their master. Plenty of human predators share these drives and goals but most don't study hypnosis and the occult and plagiarize the "successful actions" of other cult leaders. He had a much larger tool chest than most abusers but ultimately he thrived on abusive relationships with his followers like so many people before him.
 
It took me awhile, but what I finally realized from my 3 or 4 interactions with Hubbard, was this:

#1 Yes, he believes his own shit. (I.M.O.)

#2 Which is my point here.
He will try to help you. He tried to really and actually help me, (I refused that" help" each time) But - and this is the important thing, he will only help you in the context of HIS game. Believe me, I could have made a fucking career out of meeting him and chatting. I guess he liked me, but I refused his invitation to the Creston ranch. (I got no dog in this fight)

If you're playing your game, i.e. NOT furthering his agenda, Hubbard. is. not. interested.
Null. Nothing. Less than nothing.

If he likes you, and you wanna play his game, he'll make you CO of CMOAOLAHGC M.O.U.S.E. EUS.......... if and only if you're playing his game.


...that's my 2 peso's
fwiw, YMWV, etc.
Regarding your point on Hubbard believing his own shit.

I looked at this for a long time.

We have a lot of contradictory evidence on the topic including the Skipper letter in which Hubbard claims immortality doesn't exist. He also reportedly told Executive Director for Life Bill Franks that he knew the overt-motivator sequence is bullshit and that people don't leave Scientology because of overts but that you could never tell anyone, because then they would all leave.

There are a lot of other things that show Hubbard knew Scientology was bullshit. He had scientists volunteer to verify the abilities of clears but sent them away and refused to let them test anyone, including himself. They were there, ready to cover the expense and volunteer their time to prove Dianetics worked and he refused them any access to his clears.

He used conventional espionage for operation snow white and all other operations when OTs should have been much more effective, because there are no OTs.

He lied about his finances and hid them in complex schemes from government agencies, which is what a fraud would do.

I think that the models of malignant narcissist and traumatic narcissist from Daniel Shaw are accurate regarding Hubbard and further the fractured mind model from Robert Jay Lifton is the best one I have seen.

Lifton has described how a guru or cult leader can at the furthest level reach solipsistic reality. He in one part of his mind knows he is lying but in another part simultaneously wants to will his lies into reality. It as if he is the only real person in the world and when he absolutely has to he deals with reality but only reluctantly and asserts his preferred reality as much as possible.

His reality is based on as Shaw described repudiation of denied aspects of self. He has an inner identity of a worthless, incompetent, degraded, weak and shameful self that he cannot stand, so he ruthlessly projects these traits into his enemies. His enemies include people who remind him of repudiated aspects of self by displaying them in themselves, by disagreement with his assertion of his perfection and godlike infallible character and by pointing out his flaws. These are unacceptable sins to him.

He pretends to be the opposite of his inner identity. He feels weak so he acts strong, he feels incompetent so he acts superhuman, he feels like he has no value, so he acts like he has unique unequalled importance and value, he feels undeserving of love and even life so he acts like he deserves unlimited admiration and eternal life.

His negative feelings are not based in reality as no one is truly infinitely bad, worthless, stupid, incapable and so on but it is based on his past trauma in theory and not a sane self assessment.

I can include a few links to articles by Robert Jay Lifton and Daniel Shaw describing the fractured and dissociated mind of the cult leader.






 
Yup. I started a post on neoplatonism and the qualities contained in the division of souls yesterday. It disappeared when my laptop shut down and I couldn't find it. I'd long ago come to realize I had adopted an entire cosmology which I somehow just naturally accepted. I was complacent with it or just too lazy to compare it or criticize. It just felt like an old shoe, this idea of Spirit spiraling downward into MEST.

This is an interesting idea as one of the hidden sources Hubbard plagiarized.

It seems like he never had an original idea - meaning not stolen - in his life.
 
This reminds me of some of the traits discussed in the subject dealing with malignant narcissism. The confusion they cause generates chaos these parasites absorb. It's as if the prime spiritual energy bestowed to life in the universe is there's to feed off of. Cult leaders will try to destroy any Being who rises up in competition for their power or food source.

I've experienced the double intentioned-ness. Their techniques get you envisioning in one direction, while the opposite scenario is engineered. Why this insidious disintegration of one person's elan so to be absorbed by manipulators. Some agents in this universe resent human beings or any appearance of competitive awareness. If we're going to think in terms of players and games, I suppose Alan Walter's term, paradigm crasher, could fit.

I don't know how familiar you are with my work but I too have looked at materials on malignant narcissism and written on Hubbard and the Scientology organizations as fitting that model.

 
I have seen a few people, a scholar or two, describe Scientology as Gnostic. Scholars who are Scientology apologists sometimes call it a Gnostic system.
I had been reckoned amongt the transgressors and apologists! :melodramatic:

Jon Atack and a couple experts on the occult have mentioned it in interviews with Chris Shelton. So, a few Scientology critics have mentioned it too.
I had listened to some of the vids of Jon Atack with Chris, but there's something like 7 of them in total - I might have missed the one when gnosticism is brought up.

I ended up reading a tiny description of Gnosticism and realized that Madame Blavatsky and Crowley and hundreds of others used the basic model of a mass movement that believes in a mythic past, a degraded present and a glorious future. The mass movement may have a racial claim, like Nazis, a class claim like Stalinist communism, a religious claim like many, many others have.
Gnosticism is one of the foundations of European mysticism. So you will find traces of it in many later philosophies. Though I think it is present in Scientology to a far greater extent than it is in Crowley or Nazism or other modern movements.
For Blavatsky it was a rather peripheral part of her cosmology. For Hubbard the notion of spiritual beings who imprisoned themselves in the material world is a core concept. To me it seems Hubbard was much more in line with classical gnostics than Crowley, or Blavatsky or conteporary 1960s and 1970s new age movements.
The other guys took some parts here and there, Hubbard took the central ontological framework and then filled it out with his own details. But the key parts are all there:

  • There are several layers of existence in the universe, with the material universe contained within the spiritual universe with all ultimately contained in the infinite, single undifferentiated "divine" universe (8th dynamic - God).
  • God is the impersonal, passive ideal sphere on top. He's not a person or active participant who will liberate you.
  • Humans are purely spiritual eternal beings
  • Through a natural, but destructive process these being have trapped themselves in the material universe
  • They had "forgotten/lost knowledge" of the fact that this is so.
  • There are other destructive/demonic/careless beings in this universe who further help to keep the spiritual beings more and more trapped (in scn its the implant creators, Xenu bringing them down to BT etc. In gnosticism it could be Yaldabaoth, Pistis Sophia etc).
  • The way to liberation is gnosis the Hubbardian "knowledge of knowingness"
  • You can liberate yourself, God or other higher beings will not do it for you. Praying to God is pointless.
  • The radical dichotomy - matter is all bad, spirit is the thing that is good.
  • Humans are naturally good, just ignorant in their current state.
  • The lower you go in the spheres of existence, the more "degraded" you are.
  • You can become even more degraded than the default human state - lose even more knowledge or go down to pure matter level ("being objects" - remember this weird tone scale thing? This is where it comes from! Its a very old gnostic idea)
It is also interesting to note that out of the plethora of Neoplatonist traditions, Hubbard seems to have went with gonsticism, which is de facto a very extreme and radical version of neoplatonism. Gnostics are the "taliban of neoplatonism" so to speak.

It feeds our ego to think we are special people in a special time with special knowledge. It gives our lives meaning. If we see ourselves as one in seven billion people today and a hundred billion people as existing before us and all our lives as coming and going no matter what religions we have or what race we are or how much money we have, we can feel unimportant.

But, if we are the special people who will save humanity, whether literally physically or spiritually or in any other way we can feel special and know our lives have value and meaning. We can also ignore our flaws and failures because only the future can judge our mission.
All true.


I don't see Scientology as a religion in that it is a variation on the Santa Claus story. Adults know the Santa Claus story is false. They tell children it to control them via lying. They don't consider it a religion.

Similarly, Hubbard told Scientologists all sorts of things including his Gnostic ideas to control them via lying. To me that is a fraud and not a religion.

A system that the originator knows is entirely a pack of lies to control people is my mind a harmful fraud and I don't want to put it in the same category as a religion which the members and leaders sincerely believe.
I think Hubbard willingly dropped a lot of outright lies into the system. He also added some elements that do not fall into the "true or false" spectrum, but are merely useful ideas that help keep members controlled or helped him to secure funding.

But I also think that a lot of what he included in the system are things he himself believed in. What makes me think so is that Hubbard continued to receive auditing even in situations where he was isolated from his followers. He didn't do it "for show", he had his own purpose. I'm convinced that he believed at least in the gnostic parts of his system.

He wanted to be just a game-maker, but in the end the game clearly drew him in.


He was true to his pathology. He wanted to confuse people to control them then become their master. Plenty of human predators share these drives and goals but most don't study hypnosis and the occult and plagiarize the "successful actions" of other cult leaders. He had a much larger tool chest than most abusers but ultimately he thrived on abusive relationships with his followers like so many people before him.
I agree with all you say here. But this not necessarily mean that he considered everything he created to be simple BS.
 
I had been reckoned amongt the transgressors and apologists! :melodramatic:


I had listened to some of the vids of Jon Atack with Chris, but there's something like 7 of them in total - I might have missed the one when gnosticism is brought up.


Gnosticism is one of the foundations of European mysticism. So you will find traces of it in many later philosophies. Though I think it is present in Scientology to a far greater extent than it is in Crowley or Nazism or other modern movements.
For Blavatsky it was a rather peripheral part of her cosmology. For Hubbard the notion of spiritual beings who imprisoned themselves in the material world is a core concept. To me it seems Hubbard was much more in line with classical gnostics than Crowley, or Blavatsky or conteporary 1960s and 1970s new age movements.
The other guys took some parts here and there, Hubbard took the central ontological framework and then filled it out with his own details. But the key parts are all there:

  • There are several layers of existence in the universe, with the material universe contained within the spiritual universe with all ultimately contained in the infinite, single undifferentiated "divine" universe (8th dynamic - God).
  • God is the impersonal, passive ideal sphere on top. He's not a person or active participant who will liberate you.
  • Humans are purely spiritual eternal beings
  • Through a natural, but destructive process these being have trapped themselves in the material universe
  • They had "forgotten/lost knowledge" of the fact that this is so.
  • There are other destructive/demonic/careless beings in this universe who further help to keep the spiritual beings more and more trapped (in scn its the implant creators, Xenu bringing them down to BT etc. In gnosticism it could be Yaldabaoth, Pistis Sophia etc).
  • The way to liberation is gnosis the Hubbardian "knowledge of knowingness"
  • You can liberate yourself, God or other higher beings will not do it for you. Praying to God is pointless.
  • The radical dichotomy - matter is all bad, spirit is the thing that is good.
  • Humans are naturally good, just ignorant in their current state.
  • The lower you go in the spheres of existence, the more "degraded" you are.
  • You can become even more degraded than the default human state - lose even more knowledge or go down to pure matter level ("being objects" - remember this weird tone scale thing? This is where it comes from! Its a very old gnostic idea)
It is also interesting to note that out of the plethora of Neoplatonist traditions, Hubbard seems to have went with gonsticism, which is de facto a very extreme and radical version of neoplatonism. Gnostics are the "taliban of neoplatonism" so to speak.


All true.



I think Hubbard willingly dropped a lot of outright lies into the system. He also added some elements that do not fall into the "true or false" spectrum, but are merely useful ideas that help keep members controlled or helped him to secure funding.

But I also think that a lot of what he included in the system are things he himself believed in. What makes me think so is that Hubbard continued to receive auditing even in situations where he was isolated from his followers. He didn't do it "for show", he had his own purpose. I'm convinced that he believed at least in the gnostic parts of his system.

He wanted to be just a game-maker, but in the end the game clearly drew him in.



I agree with all you say here. But this not necessarily mean that he considered everything he created to be simple BS.
Two things.

I addressed the "did Hubbard believe Scientology" question with my other response.

I have examined something you might already know about. In fact the post on it has an unending interest and is by far my most popular post by an order of magnitude. It is probably ten times as read as anything else I have posted.

It is a three part series on the OAHSPE and points of similarity to Scientology.

For some odd reason people just keep reading this far more than anything else.





 
Back
Top