👌 Mental slavery by conditioning your mind : to see and hear what “they ” want to…

Todd,

He’s what we in Australia call a fuckwit and arse wipe.

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.

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.

He forgot a few vagaries: “clearing”, “tech”, “operating thetan”, “body thetan” or “homo novis.” And there’re plenty more where these came from.

The first (1962) version.

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.

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 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!