Ron the Hypnotist

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
Cross-posted from the Bunker:



“I hypnotized, one time, the staff of St. Elizabeth’s. Told them they’d heard a good speech and left the stage. They all came around afterwards saying, ‘What a good speech that was you gave!’ That was a mean thing to do. That was certainly backing out of it, wasn’t it? But it was in the early career of Dianetics and I felt very much like backing out of it. I was preceded by someone who told all of them how bad it was over ‘Ron-ward.’ They might afterwards have suspected my knowledge of the mind, but certainly not my knowledge of hypnotism. It’s very easy to hypnotize groups.”
— L. Ron Hubbard, November 1, 1956
 

Karakorum

The most ethical being in the gullibxy
It is bizarre. I mean I heard this repeated from several sources, so I'm not gonna dismiss it just like that.

But I have never seen anything remotely similar in my life and I've seen my fair share of brainwashed people who spent too many hours doing TR0s
 

Karakorum

The most ethical being in the gullibxy
Hubbard himself talks in a lecture about hypnotizing and making someone see a little kangaroo.
True, but when does "Hubbard himself talking" about anything make it more credible? ;)

I'm not bashing you guys, its just me being sceptical about any claims about Hubbard being extremely good at anything. Such claims have been made a lot about him and not all of them proved to be as true as he wanted them to be..
 

Harold#1

Well-known member
Hubbard's ideas about hypnotism included delusional bullshit like this:

Letter from L. Ron Hubbard to Helen O’brien

Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document title: Letter from L. Ron Hubbard to Helen O'brien
Document date: 1953, 19 July
Document type: letter
Description: Hubbard puts in an order for "Device No. 5."

July 19-53
Spain
Dear Helen –
You have many times mentioned the “electronics eager beavers” around there. Well, here is a vital project for advanced research which I must have.
I have tried three times to get this gadget, simple as it is, and three times the person who engaged upon it suddenly decided it was “too terribly deadly” and although they had it almost complete, stopped work on it in something like horror.
War, according to Klausewitz, is the art of inducing “a more agreeable and reasonable frame of mind in an adversary.” Our adversary, insanity, is far from reasonable. I have been licking the problem of insanity with mechanical aids. You may have wondered why I keep telling auditors to lay off the insane – It is because it is too tough on the auditor when I have, in development stage, five mechanical aids which, anyone of them, lick the problem without destroying the person, the last being the favored method today in psychiatry. If I come over for a series of lectures, I will want to have these five mechanical aids to demonstrate and a means to manufacture them to hand. We can “take Richmond” if I can put in psychiatric use, these simple aids. They are four of them, nothing to build. The fifth is another matter. It is the fifth we want to finish this step of the “mechanical aids project”. If we spring any of this before I can demonstrate and we can manufacture and supply, the squirrels will ruin the entire show with unworkable gimmicks re Howes. So this is secret. It is also secret that the 5th aid, the one requested here, will never be released generally and must remain secret. The other four are simplicity. One is reduction of charge by grounding. Two is release of charge by double terminaling with mirrors. Three is reduction of charge with B1 and protein in quantity (already tested, never understood by our “public”). Four is attention shifting by mechanical aid. Five is the induction in the insane of instantaneous hypnosis and theta clearing while tranced – very effective but very hard to do without a mechanical aid. The work I am doing here is assisted by the fact that in Spain I have an unlimited freedom to practice on the insane.
There are so many insane in the US and so few auditors that only mechanical aids plus group processing, can get us over this hump. We really can solve insanity in the U.S. but not with individual auditing at 2 or 3 weeks per insane patient. They go crazy faster than we can audit.
The 5th aid uses a type of hypnosis not generally known. It is physical hypnosis. The (thetan) agrees with the body. The body is pretty crazy. When the thetan agrees too much thetan + body are crazy = insanity. The body goes easily into a somnolence. If the body can be made not to interfere for a short time, the (thetan) can be exteriorized and worked. Drugs and shock hit the ?n too as these connect with the brain control centers. The body can be hypnotized via the vagus nerve in the stomach. By creating a regulated series of impacts against this nerve, it may be possible to hypnotize the body and leave the (thetan) fairly free in many cases.
In order to accomplish this the device must not be suspected. Either by sanitarium officials or the insane.
The device must be packaged in a very ordinary tan brief case of the type lawyers use and which has yet enough room to permit papers being carried in it, taken out and put in casually before witnesses. The “trigger” must be part of the lock of the case so that it can be turned on and off at will.
The device itself is a super-sonic, alternately directed and dispersed, beam, dry battery operated, without recoil upwards or backwards against the user.
The device must not make audible noises or howls. It must, to the human ear, be silent. It must deliver an impact of considerable force on a small target with a concentrated beam. This beam must go on and off and alternate with a dispersed but directed beam on a slighter greater area target. At five feet the beam should strike a target about 2″ in diameter. The second beam should strike a target, same direction and area, about 8″ or 10″ in diameter. The number of times the beams strike, each, a minute, should be variable from 12 to 84 at the control of the operator. He could then set the machine for 12 narrow beams per minute and increase it to 84 narrow beams per minute.
Narrow beams always followed by broad beams without variation and control. (These numbers approximate the breathing and heart rate; by bringing these into outward control, hypnotism is induced.) The force of impact of the beams should be as great as possible. They should emanate from one of the narrow ends of the brief case, horizontally.
The Japanese have registered many patents on such devices and have even, I think, killed a goat with one at 300 yards. The device is not, however, practical as a weapon as it uses too much time. If the feeling that such a device as #5, being deadly, should not be built or placed in anyones hands deters its construction, recall that it already exists and could be built for murderous purposes by anyone.
I want to be able to walk into a sanitorium, confront an insane patient, quiet him in a few seconds, exteriorize him, change his mind, wake him up physically. And I want a few auditors to be able to do it. This would mean the immediate end of psychiatric resistance to Scientology. Then we would take aids 1 to 4 and demonstrate and widely install them.
I need then, here, soon, the 5th aid. I am testing and improving the others. Only good engineering can build # 5. Can you have it built and airfreighted to me quickly. I need it.
The Soundscriber came through fine and is working well, thanks to you – I am organizing material for 2 more large issues in the Journal. I expect you will get out filler issues on their scheduled dates.
All is well here.
My love to you both –
<signature>

Ron

On shipping #5, give it a spurious use for the benefit of customs here. Send the instructions by letter, not with machine.
This handwritten document in PDF format.
 
Last edited:

Caroline

clerk #2
Here's Hubbard talking to Scientologists about how to use ARC to get what they want in interpersonal relations, by installing confusion to the depth of hypnosis, and by diversion tech. Later this would become Dissemination Drills, PR drills and Reporter TR drills.

In interpersonal relations, you will notice that when you have a person agreeing on a decision, you will get action. If a person agrees on a decision, you will get action if it's an action decision, and if it's a "not to be" or an inaction decision, you will also get the inaction.
In other words, you get what you want by bringing to pass an agreement. This is very, very important in interpersonal relations and is actually the one problem of interpersonal relations. You'll find all arguments are based upon an inability to agree. You will find that all friction which occurs between an individual and a group, an individual and another individual, or a group and a group, is simply on this basis of disagreement. And this disagreement comes about because of a divergence of decision.
Now, decision is very difficult, sometime, to reach. But this is one of these hidden things, actually, in an argument. You are arguing with somebody. If you will isolate out of the argument the decisions for action or inaction – you see, a decision can be for action or a decision can be for inaction – and if you have selected out the action and inaction decisions which you want effected, the argumentation will be minimal, because you have clarified the problem of interpersonal relations before you have tried to practice interpersonal relations on this problem. You've clarified the problem. "Exactly what do I want this person to do?" or "Exactly what do I want this person not to do?" And from there you base your arguments.
Now, if it comes to a pass where it's very important whether or not this person acts or inacts as you wish, in interpersonal relations one of the dirtier tricks is to hang the person up on a maybe and create a confusion. And then create the confusion to the degree that your decision actually is implanted hypnotically.
The way you do this is very simple. When the person advances an argument against your decision, you never confront his argument but confront the premise on which his argument is based. That is the rule. He says, "But my professor always said that water boiled at 212 degrees."
You say, "Your professor of what?"
"My professor of physics."
"What school? How did he know?" Completely off track! You're no longer arguing about whether or not water boils at 212 degrees, but you're arguing about professors. And he will become very annoyed, but he won't know quite what he is annoyed about. You can do this so adroitly and so artfully that you can actually produce a confusion of the depth of hypnosis. The person simply goes down tone scale to a point where they're not sure of their own name. And at that point you say, "Now, you do agree to go out and draw the water out of the well, don't you?"
"Yes-anything!" And he'll go out and draw the water out of the well.

Hubbard, L. Ron, (1952-05-20) Decision. Technique 80 Lectures. Phoenix, AZ
Emphasis added.
 

KKS

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
Scientology Video: What is Scientology? (part 1)


Scientology Video: What is Scientology? (part 2)


 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
IMO, this topic should also include some historical context.

1. in his early days, he got involved with Jack Parsons (and "Moonchild")

2. then he got involved with using hypnotic techniques

3. then he "developed" Dianetics without using hypnotic techniques (but dianetics was failing)

4. then Hubbard adopted the use of the Volney Matthison e-meter (to solve the failure).

When it's mentioned that Hubbard was once involved in using hypnosis it should be discussed in terms of historical context.
(I'm just talking some history. I am not defending Hubbard nor defending Dianetics/Scientology. And I don't mean to derail this thread.)

Carry on... :)
 
Last edited:

pineapple

On the Dole
IMO, this topic should also include some historical context.

1. in his early days, he got involved with Jack Parsons (and "Moonchild")

2. then he got involved with using hypnotic techniques

3. then he "developed" Dianetics without using hypnotic techniques (but dianetics was failing)

4. then Hubbard adopted the use of the Volney Matthison e-meter (to solve the failure).

When it's mentioned that Hubbard was once involved in using hypnosis it should be discussed in terms of historical context.
(I'm just talking some history. I am not defending Hubbard nor defending Dianetics/Scientology. And I don't mean to derail this thread.)

Carry on... :)
Is that "without using hypnosis" a typo, @programmer_guy? Hubbard himself said he used hypnosis during the development stage of dianetics, in DMSMH.

Don Rogers, who was there during the development stage, said the original technique was straight hypnosis. (See the Don Rogers letters at the Underground Bunker.)

In Alec Nevala-Lee's recent book "Astounding" (2018), he quotes from John W. Campbell, who says Hubbard gave him phenobarbitol and scopolamine to overcome his resistance to hypnosis, and when he refused to take it a second time, rigged up a strobe-like device to induce hypnotic trance.
1576228195497.png
Thread about the book on ESMB 1:

Hypnosis was essential to the development of dianetics.
 

KKS

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
Is that "without using hypnosis" a typo, @programmer_guy? Hubbard himself said he used hypnosis during the development stage of dianetics, in DMSMH.

Don Rogers, who was there during the development stage, said the original technique was straight hypnosis. (See the Don Rogers letters at the Underground Bunker.)

In Alec Nevala-Lee's recent book "Astounding" (2018), he quotes from John W. Campbell, who says Hubbard gave him phenobarbitol and scopolamine to overcome his resistance to hypnosis, and when he refused to take it a second time, rigged up a strobe-like device to induce hypnotic trance.
View attachment 1049
Thread about the book on ESMB 1:

Hypnosis was essential to the development of dianetics.
L. Ron Hubbard (Secret Lives: 1997, UK, Channel Four, 51 minutes)

 

KKS

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”

pineapple

On the Dole
Here's Jon Atack reading his paper "Never Believe A Hypnotist." (New video posted Feb 4, 2020.)


You can read the paper yourself here, useful as you can see the many references Jon cites.


I found the entire paper interesting, and thought this was one of the high points:

In lectures given in 1950, Hubbard recommended three books on hypnotism to his followers: "Anyone in doubt as to how hypnotism works need only consult the authoritative books on the subject by Estabrooks [George Hoben Estabrooks, Hypnotism]. In fact, this (R&D 4, p.345); "There is a little book by a man by the name of Young written about 1899, which contains in it about as much hypnosis as one ever wants. It is called Twenty-Five Lessons in Hypnosis ... Practically everything in that book works, and clairvoyance, mesmerism and so forth are also delineated” (R&D 1, p.307); the third, and most significant, work recommended is Wolfe and Rosenthal's Hypnotism Comes of Age(R&D2, p.12).​
I find it ironic that Hubbard says that Estabrooks' Hypnotism "is recommended as a means of proving that Dianetics and hypnotism are total strangers,” since as I've noted before, I think it likely this book was one of the sources of Hubbard's Dianetic theory. Anyone who has read DMSMH will recognize the similarity in the following quote.

From G. H. Estabrooks "Hypnotism," originally published in 1943:

"... the kleptomaniac and the pyromaniac are really working under a posthypnotic suggestion -- minus the hypnotist. They act in exactly the same way as if they had been hypnotized and given their instructions in the trance. As a matter of fact we will see that they have been hypnotized at some time in their life and given the suggestion in question. The fact that no hypnotist was involved, that they may never have seen a hypnotist in all their life, we will see, has no bearing on the question." -- page 95.

"We will see that emotional shock produces exactly the same results as hypnotism, that hypnotism may in reality be a form of emotional shock. We are not clear on this point, but we do know that shock gives us the phenomena of hypnotism and vice versa." -- page 110.

More about this at the link below, in the thread "Has Anybody Run An Engram?" on ESMB 1:
 
Last edited:

Zertel

Well-known member
Here's Jon Atack reading his paper "Never Believe A Hypnotist." (New video posted Feb 4, 2020.)


You can read the paper yourself here, useful as you can see the many references Jon cites.


I found the entire paper interesting, and thought this was one of the high points:

In lectures given in 1950, Hubbard recommended three books on hypnotism to his followers: "Anyone in doubt as to how hypnotism works need only consult the authoritative books on the subject by Estabrooks [George Hoben Estabrooks, Hypnotism]. In fact, this is recommended as a means of proving that Dianetics and hypnotism are total strangers.” (R&D 4, p.345); "There is a little book by a man by the name of Young written about 1899, which contains in it about as much hypnosis as one ever wants. It is called Twenty-Five Lessons in Hypnosis ... Practically everything in that book works, and clairvoyance, mesmerism and so forth are also delineated” (R&D 1, p.307); the third, and most significant, work recommended is Wolfe and Rosenthal's Hypnotism Comes of Age(R&D2, p.12).​
As I've noted before, I think it likely Estabrooks' Hypnotism was one of the sources of Hubbard's Dianetic theory.

From G. H. Estabrooks "Hypnotism," originally published in 1943:

"... the kleptomaniac and the pyromaniac are really working under a posthypnotic suggestion -- minus the hypnotist. They act in exactly the same way as if they had been hypnotized and given their instructions in the trance. As a matter of fact we will see that they have been hypnotized at some time in their life and given the suggestion in question. The fact that no hypnotist was involved, that they may never have seen a hypnotist in all their life, we will see, has no bearing on the question." -- page 95.

"We will see that emotional shock produces exactly the same results as hypnotism, that hypnotism may in reality be a form of emotional shock. We are not clear on this point, but we do know that shock gives us the phenomena of hypnotism and vice versa." -- page 110.

More about this at the link below, in the thread "Has Anybody Run An Engram?" on ESMB 1:
Thanks for the post. I think that as long as humanity exists there will be continuing questions like "What is the mind?" and "How does the mind work?" I wasn't interested in listening to the video or reading Jon's lengthy (1995) article but someone interested in examining these two questions might be.

The esmb1 thread was interesting with people giving some of their experience or subjective reality. A similar thread might be "Has anyone experienced God, Universal Intelligence, Prime Mover Unmoved, or other such description?" People would express their own experience or subjective reality. Some people might attempt to apply some scientific explanation and others would allow the experience to be as it is or was, similar to "Has anybody run an engram?"

P.S. pineapple - My Scientology time frame was the same as yours, around 1975-1981. :)
 
Last edited:

Zertel

Well-known member
I think most people entered Scientology with little or no background in science, religion or philosophy, although there would of course be exceptions. The basic idea of body - mind - spirit would be a new concept to someone who had not previously considered that philosophical concept.

Likewise Hubbard's theoretical idea of analytical mind - reactive mind - somatic (body) mind is understandable and would be acceptable to people who had no basis for comparison.

This has been covered many times on Scientology blogs and forums but maybe worth restating.

Also, with the internet and knowing the overall picture of Scientology the public justifiably asks, "How can they (Scientologists) be so gullible and/or stupid?" The above is a bit of an explanation.

In my Scientology experience which ended in 1981 I had no reason to investigate or compare Scientology to anything else. Myself and the people I audited were getting to the Examiner with a floating needle and "cognitions".
 
Last edited:

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
IMO, no hypnotic trance induction techniques are required to produce brain-endorphin effects (cog, VGIs, F/N).

(BTW, I am not defending Hubbard's DMSMH.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KKS

KKS

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
Mind Control - Hubbard explains Scientology

 
Top