Richard, I´ve read some of the works Hubbard would have you believe he did, and can tell you he didn’t have that level of familiarity with them, even from reading a secondary source – he just knew what you’d pick up from talking to others, like the second wife who was his source for Korczybski’s non-Aristotelian logic, or the Berners who provided the ideas for ¨study tech¨ and other things.

As a science fiction writer, he was very adept at spinning tall tales about sciency-sounding stuff. He was quite practiced at sounding like he knew, or had studied, more than he had.

As for hypnosis, he might have mentioned one general book on the subject – which once again I’m not sure he even read, or did more than skim. Having a bit of experience with that, too, it’s clear from some of the old accounts that he had picked up stage hypnosis tricks, most likely by working under someone during the mysterious ‘swami’ period he references, but once again he gives no credit to whoever he actually learned from. He also seems to have gotten experience some therapeutic hypnosis techniques during at least two stays at psychiatric facilities, which he spins as if he was working and studying there, when he was actually a patient and being treated.

Betrayed,, ripped-off, angry, fooled, tricked, disbelief, mental pain, fell off a cliff, hit by a bonb, cut with a knife, jilted, but now finally free.

“If a writer cannot take his reader to the end chapter then he is a flop.” I like the analogy! I like keeping things simple when possible and that rather sums things up regarding scn. 😇

Many people have posted, “If only it worked the way it was supposed to.”

Your point well taken .

In my opinion, being a fiction writer he knew how carry reader with his plot. If a writer cannot take his reader to the end chapter them he is flop.

Second , he copied things very sources with out due acknowledgement ,which come under plagerisim. This is what exposed him with the dawn of www ( world wide web) era in 90’s.

Only a mad man create Cult with objective of having total control over followers life. A common denominator with all the Cult .

Does he have skill or knowledge ? Definately not.
His so called technology ,is as effective or workable as long as followers believe it. IT hasn’t got Validation from any University, professional scientific organization, professional business organization and last but not the least medical professional.

End result : if you succeed it’s the Tech ,if failed , it’s your fault.
Doesn’t it sounds familiar with Cults modus operandi . If successful it’s the leader blessing otherwise it’s followers fault.

All his Tech now getting exposed as Fake and Fraud.
May be it meant to retain public / followers with less effort, in era pre www.

May be he has other aim and gaining time from such quackery.

Great Responses George White !
I can only *Imagine* how you felt on the original OT 8 when you read
the Hubbard declaration of being the anti-Christ….

Madame Blavatsky – not enough time to edit – lol

I disagree that Hubbard was not “well-read. He had something to say about damn near everything and it didn’t come from original thinking. He must have read or studied many things and added his own think to it. Whether it was from original sources or secondary information who knows?

It’s unlikely that he became a master at hypnosis, rhetoric and crowd psychology (or the psychology of groups in his case) unless one assumes he was just a natural.

There are a few chapters of Le Bon’s book printed on the Amazon website.

Someone once posted an online full copy of Le Bon’s book and I browsed over it and it was interesting. Hubbard would have a high interest in the psychology of “crowds”.

People like George M. White have done extensive investigation into the Occult aspects of scn and much of that appears to be almost direct quotes from people like Madame Blovotsky and other theosophists and Occultists. Certainly he could have drawn from secondary sources or maybe he just read the Encyclopedia Britannica. Lol

Richard, I doubt Hubbard really studied anything; rather he picked things up in conversation, either from his more erudite and scholarly friends, or people who did his ghostwriting and “research.” His second “never had” wife said he was not one with the patience to sit down and work through others’ writing and ideas; she provided him with a lot of the material for parts of scientology, and apparently for one or more of his better known later short stories, too. Mrs. Berner, of study tech fame, who along with her husband was part of an inner circle at Saint Hill in the 1960s, also said nothing came from Hubbard, it was all others around him.

Once again he turns out to be a lazy but devious fraud, just with a certain gift for grift like deceiving people, making it sound as if he knew and did more than he had, and taking credit for others’ work – and getting followers to build up his hagiography.

However, you cite some good sources that certainly were influences one way or another, directly or indirectly, and which help to explain what he was up to (and that he knew that he was manipulating people). I also often find it hard to tell whether something came directly from someone like LeBon, or from a derivative author writing about LeBon; for example, about the only author Hubbard credits is Will Durant, who is know for writing about philosphers so that people would not have to try to tackle their original work, and Hubbard may have read some Durant in college (his work was used as textbooks back then), so when Hubbard talks about some philosopher it’s not because he’s read them, though he drops references in a way that makes it sound as if he is erudite and well-read.

WHY Hubbard created his subject is a discussion. HOW he advanced it and gained the interest and participation of perhaps a few hundred thousand people over the years is another discussion. Hypnosis, rhetoric and crowd psychology are components in that discussion.

While I’m at it I’ll include a statement once made by a long time and respected participant on the scn blogs, that being, “Most of us were intellectual adolescents when we entered Scientology having little or no background in science, religion or philosophy.”

My final conclusion was that Hubbard had very bad intentions while I had very good intentions. The steps of the Bridge were nonsense. The deception was that he was leading me to worse than fascism while I was looking at goodness. Hubbard was an idiot because he had a weak mind with a very limited range. Hubbard refused to follow Pythagoras with a wholesome view with only imagined entities. Crowley wanted free sex from the Victorian women. Hubbard was always malevolent as well.