I noticed this some time ago, but had not gotten around to doing anything with it. Another brilliant analysis from the experts at STAND: who of course know absolutely nothing, including what Hubbard had to say…
He kicks his piece off with a witty description of how to “wash a brain” before prattling on about how brainwashing is a hoax:
How to wash a brain:
-
- Carefully remove the brain.
- Gently immerse it in a bowl of lukewarm soapy water.
- Scrub the brain gently with a fine bristled brush.
- Rinse the brain.
- Wrap the brain in plastic wrap to prevent further soiling.
Though washing brains is not recommended for individuals prior to their actual demise (when the brain will no longer be in use), the procedure for washing brains is simple and can be a rewarding way to pass an otherwise dull evening.
He continues in this vein for some time, seeking to persuade the world that scientologists are NOT brainwashed, because there is no such thing. It’s impossible. Just cannot be done.
Thus, the term “brainwashing” can be safely swept into the same pile of other vagaries as casting spells, lucky charms, signs and omens.
Of course, he should be asking himself whether being convinced that the words of one man, ALL the words, are absolutely true and should never be doubted would fall into the description of brainwashing… Whether he is in fact able to “think for himself” or simply goes along with the words of Hubbard no matter how crazy or false they may be is an indicator that someone has given up their ability to think critically.
So, what does Hubbard say on this subject? Remember, he wrote a whole book (Brainwashing Manual) he falsely claimed was sourced to the Russian secret police chief Beria. It was just another of Hubbard’s stunts to convince the world that only scientologists could understand and undo brainwashing. Chris Owen took this apart in an excellent 2 part piece on Tony Ortega’s blog:
How L. Ron Hubbard tried to hoax the FBI, and “brainwashed” politicians of the far-right
Hubbard’s “Brainwashing Manual” — how a crude scientology joke became a far-right touchstone
Hubbard really wanted the world to believe in brainwashing, as detailed in Chris’ expose, and here he is delivering one of his rambling lectures on the subject. Boldface is mine.
EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAINWASHING
GC-12, 2 September 1956
It did happen. There was a record. Billions of years ago they knew how to do it. And the only result that a modern practitioner could get on the subject of brainwashing would be to restimulate it, but that at that time the fellow would know more about it, and he’d be smarter than he was before.
Fac One was a Sunday school picnic. Fac One was so mild that I wonder that anybody ever bothered to let himself get aberrated with it. Boy, he must have been short of problems. No, there are methods of brainwashing people, and you could do them right this minute. You can brainwash a man thoroughly in twenty seconds. And the HGC could undo it in about an hour. And we could knock him down to being totally blank, in a complete amnesia, and then brightened right up and looking good.
A brainwashing could be done, but Russia does not know how to do it. There are records of brainwashing on the whole track, but the only person that would be able to understand it or do anything about it’s a Scientologist, and I never met a Scientologist who was so stupid as to brainwash anybody.
All the psychiatrist is doing with psychiatric treatments is dramatizing later day brainwashing. He isn’t doing a good job of it, it’s just a dramatization not a treatment. I say that advisedly, not to be wicked. I mean, that’s a technical fact, because the second you try to put him in the patient valence he goes mad, boom, as is learned by institutions. But the whole subject of brainwashing is too complicated or too simple for anybody to grasp. He’d have to know all about engrams, he’d have to know all about the electronic phenomena of the body, and he’d have to be able to group the whole works suddenly and quickly so that it was indecipherable. You got it? But then of course, an auditor could come along, run over and under which is the process that straightens it out, and his track would go back together again.
It’s not really odd that scientologists don’t know their Hubbard these days. They tend to focus more on the COB now.
Nor is it odd that Hubbard noted that only a scientologist could understand this subject.
What is remarkable is how often Hubbard said the quiet part out loud.
Just for the record, the author of the piece:
His bio is fascinating: “Rodger Clark. Contractor, history buff, compulsive learner, currently in recovery from authoritarian education.”
I can certainly relate to the “history buff” bit as I have earned two degrees in the subject (on two continents for a bit of added diversity). Naturally, along with that came reading hundreds of books, archival research of primary sources, dozens of papers composed and read, a thesis and the defense of it before my academic betters. And my passion remains: To this day I can’t watch or read something of historical interest without delving into doing background research of my own. Even something contemporary as this blog usually sends me off into doing my own investigation. Rabbit holes, here I come! Sure, that’s how a “compulsive learner” rolls. They don’t just talk; they do.
As every “history buff” or other “compulsive learner” knows, rule #1 is: You never ever trust a single source to hold “the truth.” Rule #2: You consider an argument critically, i.e. whether the author managed to substantiate the point they claimed they would. Whether the sources were interpreted correctly. Whether there are any impermissible leaps made in the arguments, any logical fallacies present or any overreach occurred. Whether the author displays bias or even seeks to manipulate. And most importantly, whether the author “shows their work”, meaning provides sources and explains their method to where others can check their work.
I think it’s fairly easy to imagine what happens when a “history buff” applies these mere basics to hubbard’s writings, let alone biography. When they look in vein where elron “shows his work”, even just once, or provides evidence that he even spent a day on what would qualify as “research” in anyone’s eyes but his. When said buff gets a few texts that were not authored by elron or questions his cult hagiography. Or when they set off in search of “clears”, “OTs” or even seek to substantiate the “millions” of cult members. Not only will they come up dry but Ethics is sure to step in and issue life-changing threats and ultimatums.
In that light, it’s more than a little puzzling what this “history buff”/”compulsive learner” means when he claims to be “in recovery from authoritarian education.” He’s allowed to read just one author, obligated to venerate him as “Source” and never ask any critical questions or seek corroborating data. The internet or independent reviews of hubbard, his bio and his “work” are forbidden territory. Where this crosses the line from mere narrow-mindedness and cultishness to “authoritarian” is where he himself as well as others are compelled to report on any doubts of elron’s absolute wisdom he may have. Where he’s willing to endure discipline and punishment for such doubts.
If this is “recovery from authoritarian education” it boggles the imagination what he endured before discovering the “recovery” scientology is offering. A North Korean gulag? This kind of “recovery” sounds like permanently moving into a crack house in order to “recover” from compulsive overeating.
The only thing credible about this guy’s bio is the “contractor” part. And I have no doubt who benefits from his business’s proceeds more than he (or his family) does.
Todd,
He’s what we in Australia call a fuckwit and arse wipe.
“Thus, the term “brainwashing” can be safely swept into the same pile of other vagaries as casting spells, lucky charms, signs and omens.”
He forgot a few vagaries: “clearing”, “tech”, “operating thetan”, “body thetan” or “homo novis.” And there’re plenty more where these came from.
I remember multiple times when OSA briefed all the Sea Org members at Flag about how it was ridiculous for people to call Scientology a cult. The argument made was that a cult is a closed group and of course Scientology is open to everyone (willing to submit to it’s information control). We didn’t know what really made a group a cult so we missed the obvious. All cults have information control as a central trait.
👌 Mental slavery by conditioning your mind : to see and hear what “they ” want to…
What’s ironically beautiful about these is that a big control mechanism of Scn is making words mean different things, not what the average folk think they mean. If they can just convince their own that it is not brainwashing, because brainwashing doesn’t mean what those people say, somehow they think they’ll come out the other end with clean brains.
Take away the word “brainwashing”, though, and we can use manipulation, coercion, control, peer pressure, and many other words to describe the continuous process used to create followers who cannot challenge or question or think for themselves.
Sometime during my 37 years in scientology, my idea of the human brain resembled STAND author Rodger Clark’s instructions for “washing a brain.”
The human body is, I deduced as a scientologist, nothing more than a lump of clay, and would sit rather lifeless until a thetan came along. So, if only a thetan could think and act accordingly, what good is a brain?
For washing, what else!
A bit of personal history. I once saw The Manchurian Candidate when it was shown at the Parkway Theatre here in Minneapolis. My companion for the evening was shocked at the laughter of some members of the audience at the ending of the film.
There were two versions of The Manchurian Candidate – one from 2004 starring Denzel Washington & Meryl Streep and another from 1962 (in B&W) starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansberry. To which one are you referring?
I am asking because I have seen both films several times and have some strong feelings about the differences between them.
The first (1962) version.
The 1962 version is generally rated much higher than the 2004 version.
You can see the ratings for both films on the IMDB site.
I doubt the 2004 version would cause hardly anyone to laugh at the endiing.
It follows Russian neurologist Ivan Pavlov principles, which is taught not only psychology but also part of business management.
How to control instincts be it human or non human.
A first step towards Stockholm syndrome.