Here is a comment from Jeffrey Augustine (under the pseudonym J Swift) written at The Underground Bunker.
I released a Scientology Money Project article entitled The Church of Scientology Sees Bigots Hiding Under Every Bed. https://scientologymoneypro...
There are 40 articles on the STAND League website that use the words "bigot", "bigotry", "hate", or "hater" in their titles. Some of the articles are written by fake nonexistent Scientologists such as Alicia Selverson and Rebecca Blair. The compilation shows what buttons OSA thinks it has to keep pressing to do what? Convince the public that Scientology is not a malicious, hateful, bigoted, greedy, and dangerous cult?
Here are the forty hysterical headlines from Scientology’s STAND League website:
1. News.com.au—The New Mouthpiece for Leah Remini, American Bigot-at-Large?
2. The Accidental Bigot
3. Confessions of a Bigot
4. One Method of Handling a Bigot
5. Bigot-at-large Housed at THR.com
6. Is Disney Now the “Bigot” Network?
7. The Rabbi and the Bigot—A Story of Redemption
8. Gridiron Capital Siding with Bigot Remini?
9. Expose the Bigot
10. Frank Scheck Meets All Criteria of a Religious Bigot
11. Themaven.net—Wake Up! Don’t Forward the Agenda of a Proven Bigot
12. Tracey McManus of Tampa Bay Times—a Shameless Bigot
13. Bigot Mike Rinder to Headline Again for Disney/A&E Networks
14. Lenscrafters, Tell Your Ad Agency to Skip A&E Bigot Central
15. IPC—Funding Leah Remini’s Bigot Show Should Not Be Part of Your Resume
16. Hollywood Reporter Caught with Puff Piece for Bigot Leah Remini
17. LinkedIn—It Can’t Be True, You’re Supporting Pro Bigot Leah Remini? 18. Five Easy Ways to Tell If Your Post Is Bigoted
19. Slanted.com, Instead of Promoting Lies About Scientology, Why Not Get The Truth?
20. Nestlé, Please Tell A&E You Are Unwilling to Support Their Religious Hate Programming
21.A&E pouring hatred against Scientology
22. Huff Post, Posting Hateful Bigotry is Unacceptable
23. Horrible Bigotry at HuffPost
24. Decider.com, You Still Don’t Get the Message on Religious Bigotry
25. Religious bigotry and discrimination rampant at NBC Universal.de
26. Cheatsheet, Cover the Truth About Leah Remini’s Religious Discrimination
27. The Federalist: Your article is anti-religious and bigoted
28. What Is It That Bigots Hate? That You Communicate.
29. Bigotry of Hemant Mehta’s at Patheos.com
30. A&E–Profiting Off Religious Hate Campaign
31. Disney should look into A&E Networks’ Leah Remini Aftermath
32. Tampa Bay Times Harboring Bigotry and Discrimination
33. Michael Rubin, IPC’s Funding of Religious Hate Is an Injustice
34. Applebee’s—No More Support for Religious Bigotry
35. Twenty Minutes From Hate
36. Stop Hate—Don’t Discriminate
37. Stop Religious Hate Before It’s Too Late
38. What I’ve Learned About Bigotry as an Arab-American Scientologist
39. Haters Gonna Hate
40. An Inside Look at Fighting Televised Bigotry
2. The Accidental Bigot
3. Confessions of a Bigot
4. One Method of Handling a Bigot
5. Bigot-at-large Housed at THR.com
6. Is Disney Now the “Bigot” Network?
7. The Rabbi and the Bigot—A Story of Redemption
8. Gridiron Capital Siding with Bigot Remini?
9. Expose the Bigot
10. Frank Scheck Meets All Criteria of a Religious Bigot
11. Themaven.net—Wake Up! Don’t Forward the Agenda of a Proven Bigot
12. Tracey McManus of Tampa Bay Times—a Shameless Bigot
13. Bigot Mike Rinder to Headline Again for Disney/A&E Networks
14. Lenscrafters, Tell Your Ad Agency to Skip A&E Bigot Central
15. IPC—Funding Leah Remini’s Bigot Show Should Not Be Part of Your Resume
16. Hollywood Reporter Caught with Puff Piece for Bigot Leah Remini
17. LinkedIn—It Can’t Be True, You’re Supporting Pro Bigot Leah Remini? 18. Five Easy Ways to Tell If Your Post Is Bigoted
19. Slanted.com, Instead of Promoting Lies About Scientology, Why Not Get The Truth?
20. Nestlé, Please Tell A&E You Are Unwilling to Support Their Religious Hate Programming
21.A&E pouring hatred against Scientology
22. Huff Post, Posting Hateful Bigotry is Unacceptable
23. Horrible Bigotry at HuffPost
24. Decider.com, You Still Don’t Get the Message on Religious Bigotry
25. Religious bigotry and discrimination rampant at NBC Universal.de
26. Cheatsheet, Cover the Truth About Leah Remini’s Religious Discrimination
27. The Federalist: Your article is anti-religious and bigoted
28. What Is It That Bigots Hate? That You Communicate.
29. Bigotry of Hemant Mehta’s at Patheos.com
30. A&E–Profiting Off Religious Hate Campaign
31. Disney should look into A&E Networks’ Leah Remini Aftermath
32. Tampa Bay Times Harboring Bigotry and Discrimination
33. Michael Rubin, IPC’s Funding of Religious Hate Is an Injustice
34. Applebee’s—No More Support for Religious Bigotry
35. Twenty Minutes From Hate
36. Stop Hate—Don’t Discriminate
37. Stop Religious Hate Before It’s Too Late
38. What I’ve Learned About Bigotry as an Arab-American Scientologist
39. Haters Gonna Hate
40. An Inside Look at Fighting Televised Bigotry
End quote
To understand Scientology you can look at the ideas from Scientology founder Ron Hubbard
"’Psychiatry’ and ‘psychiatrist’ are easily redefined to mean ‘an anti-social enemy of the people‘. This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of professions...The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended...Scientologists are redefining ‘doctor‘, ‘Psychiatry’ and ‘psychology’ to mean ‘undesirable antisocial elements‘...The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda."
- Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words"
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them."
- Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
Hubbard wrote: "The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible."
That is why STAND keeps using the terms "bigot" , "bigotry" , "hate" , and "Hater." They want people to know that Scientology critics ARE bigots who hate. It is irrelevant that this is not true. They want people to believe it is true to control people by lying to them.
Hubbard had long considered changing DEFINITIONS and changing CERTAINTIES as the way to influence people.
SHSBC-402 Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lectures tape number 402
Of course, we go on a tradition "if you learn anything about man that will help him,
you help him with it." ...
"If you learn anything about man that you can manipulate him
You're going to manipulate men,
you've got to change their definitions
and change their goals
and enslave them and do this and do that. "
SHSBC-447 Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lectures tape number 447
"Now, brainwashing simply is the trick of mixing up certainties.
All you have to do if you want to know and develop the entire field
of brainwashing as developed by Pavlov,
is simply to make somebody ..... into a confused or hypnotic state in which he can believe anything."
Hubbard described this in the gamesmaker lecture from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures in 1952, the 39th lecture
"Now here’s a process that has to do with the making of games, and all this process adds up to, is you just address to those factors which I just gave you, oh, run and change postulates and any creative process that you can think of and shift postulates around, you get a whole process."
POSTULATES in Scientology include, decisions, goals and purposes.
Hubbard encouraged controlling people by redefining terms, using repetition of the new meanings and associations.
He also encouraged NEVER addressing criticism of Scientology but instead attacking the critic ALWAYS.
HCO PL 15 Aug 1960, "Department of Governmental Affairs"
To put a fine point on this here is an excerpt from a comment by Vistaril (a pseudonym which is the name of a psychiatric drug found in Ron Hubbard during his autopsy despise his alleged objections to psychiatric drugs), a commenter at The Underground Bunker:
" Of all the words used to describe Scientology, perhaps the one which Scientologists rail against most is "brainwashing". But look how the term is defined in L Ron Hubbard's Administrative Dictionary . . .
BRAINWASHING, 1. brainwashing is a very simple mechanism. One gets a person to agree that something might be a certain way and then drives him by introverting him and through self-criticism to the possibility that it is that way. Only then does a man believe that the erroneous fact was a truth . . .
. . . now, contrast and compare L Ron Hubbard's "Shattering Supression" Tech™. One will find it is littered with instructions on how to introvert people and organizations. A stark example can be found in L Ron Hubbard's HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960 Dept. Of Government Affairs . . .
. . . The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order . . .
. . . that HCOPL is compulsory reading for all Scientologists involved in Scientology's public relations and "special affairs". Yet how many Scientologists reading it realise that what L Ron Hubbard is telling them to do is to apply what he also defines as "brainwashing"? Not only that, L Ron Hubbard tells his Scientologists that applying such practices against people and organizations, regardless of the effects on individuals and their families, is not a sin (overt). Watta guy. Note also, that the general practice of Scientology is all about control and overwhelming a person and getting them so introverted they come to believe material which is demonstrably false - from the existence of Engrams right through to Xenu." End quote
HCO PL 15 Aug 1960, "Department of Governmental Affairs"
"In the face of danger from government or courts, there are only two errors one can make: (a) do nothing and (b) defend. The right things to do with any threat are to (1) find out if we want to play the offered game or not (2) if not, to derail the offered game with a feint or attack upon the most vulnerable point which can be disclosed in the enemy ranks (3) make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail (4) don't try to get any money out of it (5) make every attack by us also sell Scientology and (6) win. If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend. Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best.
...
The goal of the department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high-level ability to control and in its absence by low-level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. "
To put a fine point on this here is an excerpt from a comment by Vistaril (a pseudonym which is the name of a psychiatric drug found in Ron Hubbard during his autopsy despise his alleged objections to psychiatric drugs), a commenter at The Underground Bunker:
" Of all the words used to describe Scientology, perhaps the one which Scientologists rail against most is "brainwashing". But look how the term is defined in L Ron Hubbard's Administrative Dictionary . . .
BRAINWASHING, 1. brainwashing is a very simple mechanism. One gets a person to agree that something might be a certain way and then drives him by introverting him and through self-criticism to the possibility that it is that way. Only then does a man believe that the erroneous fact was a truth . . .
. . . now, contrast and compare L Ron Hubbard's "Shattering Supression" Tech™. One will find it is littered with instructions on how to introvert people and organizations. A stark example can be found in L Ron Hubbard's HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960 Dept. Of Government Affairs . . .
. . . The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order . . .
. . . that HCOPL is compulsory reading for all Scientologists involved in Scientology's public relations and "special affairs". Yet how many Scientologists reading it realise that what L Ron Hubbard is telling them to do is to apply what he also defines as "brainwashing"? Not only that, L Ron Hubbard tells his Scientologists that applying such practices against people and organizations, regardless of the effects on individuals and their families, is not a sin (overt). Watta guy. Note also, that the general practice of Scientology is all about control and overwhelming a person and getting them so introverted they come to believe material which is demonstrably false - from the existence of Engrams right through to Xenu." End quote
Quotes from Ron Hubbard on the Confusion Technique:
[Quote]
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.
[End Quote]
Ron Hubbard Lecture, 20 May 1952 "Decision."
source Lermanet.com
[Quote]
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.
[End Quote]
Ron Hubbard Lecture, 20 May 1952 "Decision."
source Lermanet.com
Also, even earlier, in 1950:
[Quote]
One error, however, must be remarked upon. The examination system employed is not much different from a certain hypnotic technique. One induces a state of confusion in the subject by raising his anxieties of what may happen if he does not pass. One then "teaches" at a mind which is anxious and confused. That mind does not then rationalize, it merely records and makes a pattern. If the pattern is sufficiently strong to be regurgitated verbatim on an examination paper, the student is then given a good grade and passed.
[End Quote]
Ron Hubbard lecture 29 August 1950, "Educational Dianetics."
source Lermanet.com
[Quote]
One error, however, must be remarked upon. The examination system employed is not much different from a certain hypnotic technique. One induces a state of confusion in the subject by raising his anxieties of what may happen if he does not pass. One then "teaches" at a mind which is anxious and confused. That mind does not then rationalize, it merely records and makes a pattern. If the pattern is sufficiently strong to be regurgitated verbatim on an examination paper, the student is then given a good grade and passed.
[End Quote]
Ron Hubbard lecture 29 August 1950, "Educational Dianetics."
source Lermanet.com
He also knew that when one is confused they can feel relief (i.e. brighter TEMPORARILY) when they get an "answer", even if it doesn't address the confusion!
“A confusion can be defined as any set of factors or circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate solution. More broadly, a confusion is random motion.”
“Until one selects one datum, one factor, one particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The one thing selected and used becomes the stable datum for the remainder.
“Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from one datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” – Ron Hubbard [ref]
“Any time anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude…if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject…he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as a hypnotic suggestion….With parity, such as occurs between acquaintances, friends, fellow students and so on, there is no hypnotic suggestion” (Education and Dianetics, 11 November 1950, Research and Discovery, volume 4). Source Jon Atack
Okay, let us look at this and sum it up.
Hubbard tried to control people via lying. He described a process of getting hypnotic control over people by changing their certainties, getting them thoroughly confused by shifting from what they talk about to something else subtly so as to confuse them, and when they criticize Scientology to shift to attacking the attacker.
He also wanted to change the goals and certainties people have. He saw subtly ignoring what they say and confusing people by getting attention put on something else as essential to controlling them.
This fits his concept of brainwashing in getting people to shift to looking inward and not criticizing Scientology or Hubbard himself. It also fits his concept of brainwashing as overwhelming people with introversion to distract and confuse them.
Hubbard wrote on using repetition to redefine terms and again shift associations. By changing emotional associations Hubbard wanted to again control people. If you could get people to like the things you wanted them to like and hate the things you wanted them to hate, especially very strongly, you could easily control them. Imagine getting them to love you and trust you and to hate and distrust your critics. That would be powerful and was Hubbard's goal. He wanted to make it his followers' goal as well.
Of course in Scientology indoctrination Hubbard combined having people spend hundreds of hours, sometimes thousands, getting definitions for normal English words and phrases and simultaneously accepting hundreds and hundreds of definitions from Hubbard's loaded language. His terms contain stereotypes and appeals to emotion. These are used in again a covert attempt to shift certainties by changing associations via changing emotional associations. His trick was trying to make accepting his terms, phrases, mottos and concepts as EQUALLY valid in comparison to simply learning English words. If you have people who think the ideas in Scientology are as valid as learning that the word "over", can mean "above" , in some contexts then you have gotten them to falsely equate Scientology terms to truth.
Wikipedia defined loaded language for us:
"This is a type of loaded language .
In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as loaded terms or emotive language) is wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes. Such wording is also known as high-inference language or language persuasive techniques.
Loaded words and phrases have strong emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. For example, the phrase tax relief refers literally to changes that reduce the amount of tax citizens must pay. However, use of the emotive word relief implies that all tax is an unreasonable burden to begin with. Examples of loaded language are "You want to go to the mall, don't you?" and "Do you really want to associate with those people?"
I am trying to illustrate that Hubbard felt you need to covertly persuade and cannot be honest. He wanted to confuse people and then insert his definitions as stable data to resolve the confusion and be grasped as stable data, not true data. That is his approach in Scientology indoctrination via word clearing and in public relations via introversion as brainwashing in his own terms terms and using altitude as an authority to control them as well.
Hubbard felt redefinitions and repetition were essential to this whole process.
STAND in my opinion attempts to follow this tradition. Just calling someone a bigot is confusing. It doesn't explain why you are calling someone a bigot or how they are a bigot. That inspires confusion in itself.
Then the confused person (audience for your message) must choose whether to support the alleged victims of bigotry or support the bigot, even if the bigotry alleged is itself bogus. Scientology thrives on claims that are vague, unverifiable and unintelligible. These are synonymous with confusing.
“If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.” ― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.
With all these references I hope it is clear that STAND is just practicing Scientology. They lie. They repeat the lies and try to use emotional language to shift the emotions people associate with Scientology and the emotions people associate with Scientology critics. They want to shift associations with Scientology to become only positive and with critics to become only negative.
They want to use various confusing claims to influence people and repetition of those claims to make them more effective.
“A confusion can be defined as any set of factors or circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate solution. More broadly, a confusion is random motion.”
“Until one selects one datum, one factor, one particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The one thing selected and used becomes the stable datum for the remainder.
“Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from one datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned.” – Ron Hubbard [ref]
“Any time anybody gets enough altitude he can be called a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude…if the operator can heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject…he doesn’t have to put the subject to sleep. What he says will still react as a hypnotic suggestion….With parity, such as occurs between acquaintances, friends, fellow students and so on, there is no hypnotic suggestion” (Education and Dianetics, 11 November 1950, Research and Discovery, volume 4). Source Jon Atack
Okay, let us look at this and sum it up.
Hubbard tried to control people via lying. He described a process of getting hypnotic control over people by changing their certainties, getting them thoroughly confused by shifting from what they talk about to something else subtly so as to confuse them, and when they criticize Scientology to shift to attacking the attacker.
He also wanted to change the goals and certainties people have. He saw subtly ignoring what they say and confusing people by getting attention put on something else as essential to controlling them.
This fits his concept of brainwashing in getting people to shift to looking inward and not criticizing Scientology or Hubbard himself. It also fits his concept of brainwashing as overwhelming people with introversion to distract and confuse them.
Hubbard wrote on using repetition to redefine terms and again shift associations. By changing emotional associations Hubbard wanted to again control people. If you could get people to like the things you wanted them to like and hate the things you wanted them to hate, especially very strongly, you could easily control them. Imagine getting them to love you and trust you and to hate and distrust your critics. That would be powerful and was Hubbard's goal. He wanted to make it his followers' goal as well.
Of course in Scientology indoctrination Hubbard combined having people spend hundreds of hours, sometimes thousands, getting definitions for normal English words and phrases and simultaneously accepting hundreds and hundreds of definitions from Hubbard's loaded language. His terms contain stereotypes and appeals to emotion. These are used in again a covert attempt to shift certainties by changing associations via changing emotional associations. His trick was trying to make accepting his terms, phrases, mottos and concepts as EQUALLY valid in comparison to simply learning English words. If you have people who think the ideas in Scientology are as valid as learning that the word "over", can mean "above" , in some contexts then you have gotten them to falsely equate Scientology terms to truth.
Wikipedia defined loaded language for us:
"This is a type of loaded language .
In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as loaded terms or emotive language) is wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes. Such wording is also known as high-inference language or language persuasive techniques.
Loaded words and phrases have strong emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. For example, the phrase tax relief refers literally to changes that reduce the amount of tax citizens must pay. However, use of the emotive word relief implies that all tax is an unreasonable burden to begin with. Examples of loaded language are "You want to go to the mall, don't you?" and "Do you really want to associate with those people?"
I am trying to illustrate that Hubbard felt you need to covertly persuade and cannot be honest. He wanted to confuse people and then insert his definitions as stable data to resolve the confusion and be grasped as stable data, not true data. That is his approach in Scientology indoctrination via word clearing and in public relations via introversion as brainwashing in his own terms terms and using altitude as an authority to control them as well.
Hubbard felt redefinitions and repetition were essential to this whole process.
STAND in my opinion attempts to follow this tradition. Just calling someone a bigot is confusing. It doesn't explain why you are calling someone a bigot or how they are a bigot. That inspires confusion in itself.
Then the confused person (audience for your message) must choose whether to support the alleged victims of bigotry or support the bigot, even if the bigotry alleged is itself bogus. Scientology thrives on claims that are vague, unverifiable and unintelligible. These are synonymous with confusing.
“If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable.” ― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.
With all these references I hope it is clear that STAND is just practicing Scientology. They lie. They repeat the lies and try to use emotional language to shift the emotions people associate with Scientology and the emotions people associate with Scientology critics. They want to shift associations with Scientology to become only positive and with critics to become only negative.
They want to use various confusing claims to influence people and repetition of those claims to make them more effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.