Possibly Helpful Advice


Including what we found in Scientology before it became a cult
Vista

How to Win an Argument – by Plain Old Thetan

Some Confront Required  :(

[Guest author Plain Old Thetan has come up with another well-researched article that shows how the CofS has morphed into the kind of group that LRH despised.]

I have now watched the Anderson Cooper 360 interview series five times. While I have yet to transcribe them and go through the whole set of interviews enumerating the outpoints and pluspoints, the thing that struck me first brought to mind this FREEDOM magazine article that L. Ron Hubbard published 16 June 1969.

You can find it in the Tech Volumes. Ironically, you can also find it at http://www.lronhubbard.org/eng/fightrae/page078.htm

How to Win an Argument

by L. Ron Hubbard

It is not entirely just to say that psychiatrists and psychologists have no technology.

True, they can cure nothing and cannot change anyone for better or worse and as a result have to kill “difficult patients.”

But they do have one piece of technology.

This is concerned with winning arguments.

Anyone who disagrees with their planned totalitarian rule is pronounced “insane.” He is seized quietly, conveyed to a prison, tortured and usually permanently injured or killed.

People they cannot get their hands on but who exist in literature or legend they also pronounce “insane

Barry Goldwater was labeled a ”paranoid schizophrenic” by psychiatrists employed by the opposing party. Whitaker Chambers was dubbed a ”psychopathic personality.” Woodrow Wilson was declared a “megalomaniac,” and even Jesus Christ, when the psychiatrists decided religion barred their way to world control, was called a “born regenerate” with a “fixed delusional system” manifesting a “paranoid clinical picture (so typical) it is hardly conceivable people can even question the accuracy of the diagnosis.”

In other words, psychologists and psychiatrists do have a piece of technology. Anyone who has any other idea than total social control is labeled” crazy.” This at once disposes of the fellow of course. It invalidates his views and so gets them out of the road of “psychiatric progress” toward the Total State.

There are only two things odd about this technology.

One is that it is only used on people who speak of freedom or whose views oppose psychiatric ambitions.

The other is that it cannot be called new. Even though a lot of Latin is employed to make the point, it is very difficult to find any difference between this technology and that employed by little boys.

As almost anyone has always known, devoid of all Latin terms, when two little boys can’t agree on some vague point little boys disagree about, one or the other since caveman times has always tried to end the argument by saying:

You’re crazy!”

Could it be their whole technology has never really advanced beyond that of the neighborhood bully?

L. RON HUBBARD

Founder

In the CNN interviews, the Church-based respondents repeatedly resorted to this tactic. I watched the entire interview series several times, each time looking for a now-outside accuser to resort to this tactic. And I didn’t find it.

Then I remembered the conditions under which the little boy begins to use this approach.

It’s when he’s losing.

– written by Plain Old Thetan

Number of views:888
  

4 Comments

Fellow Traveller  on April 6th, 2010

Not So Plain –

That is pretty damned insightful!

You have expressed once more something I could not and in a way far senior to what I could.

Thanks!

one of those who see  on April 6th, 2010

brilliant analysis!

lunamoth  on April 8th, 2010

“Your crazy” or “He’s crazy,” uttered against an opponent in an argument, sounds like the epithet
it is.

Contrast that to the conclusion one comes to oneself when examining the actions and words of miscavige; the utter certainty that you’ve witnessed true insanity.

No contest. When you’ve got real insanity right there to compare things to, the falseness of td’s or the witches club’s accusations are just glaringly obvious.

They really should get a different “accusation” to throw. The falseness of this one is just too obvious when uttered in the context of dm.

John Doe  on April 10th, 2010

Back in the 1970s and ’80s, when one left the Sea Organization, a goldenrod colored issue about you was published. As I recall, there was some policy or rule that when one left staff before his/her contract was up, they “had” to be declared either incompetent or psychotic, for wanting to leave a decent group.

I think few people, staff included, really bought the idea that a person was truly psychotic. It was just a way to introvert the person leaving and basically, was a cheap shot, just another way to make leaving as unpleasant as possible.

Leave a Comment


+ six = 10