Ortega Calls Bullshit on Miscavige

Tony Ortega has done a comprehensive article critiquing David Miscavige’s latest Scientology Inc L Ron Hubbard Annual Birthday Celebration.  While I don’t particularly cotton to Tony’s anti-Scientology tone and joking and degrading digs, he has done a splendid job of chronicling the fraud and insanity that pass for Scientology Inc events.

Later today I intend to complete and post an article on why Tony’s work is so skilled and important. I am going to connect some dots on how it evidences that Miscavige is L Ron Hubbard’s worst enemy. In the interim, I highly recommend people read and watch and listen to Tony’s presentation.

Ortega Calls Bullshit on Miscavige

By the way, thanks Tony.  I have a copy of the full event too, but get nauseous watching more than two or thee minutes at a any given time, and finally just chucked the thing in the trash.

By By the way, someone just pointed out to me that Scientology Inc has been circulating the following statement about me this morning:

 Rathbun knows that his back-and-forth with a third rate hack, Tony Ortega, who profits from pimps engaged in sex trafficking, tries to make it appear that Ortega is an unbiased reporter when in fact Ortega has made vile statements about L. Ron Hubbard and the Scientology religion which shows him to be an anti-religious extremist.

I guess they didn’t want me linking to Tony’s article.  Too late, and had I seen this infantile OSA statement beforehand, I would have linked earlier.

50 responses to “Ortega Calls Bullshit on Miscavige

  1. Benjamin Cisco

    I wish someone would post a leaked video from that last event. More recent fodder from Miscavige would be nice to illustrate his squirreling and also to confirm what the latest ex-members have been saying.

    • Your humble servant

      This was really just a bit too much, if you ask me. Just as I could not have stomached the event itself, so I could not stomach Mr. Ortega’s treatment of it. His savage scorn not only for DM but for Ron and Scientology as a whole is quite dismaying.

      David Miscavige has shown himself to have a lot staying power. No other insane dictator, lacking the power to actually shoot and hang his enemies, has been able to do what he has done in terms of keeping an entire organization befuddled and suppressed and hanging in there himself. His power to do so lies not within himself but in the inherent beauty and power of the subject, which he has treacherously perverted.

      • I wouldn’t get too worked up about Tony disparaging Hubbard. That is a natural reaction to this video. Remember that Ron himself said that self importance is about as welcome as a dead cat at a wedding. You would think that the man who created this event was intending to further damage Hubbard’s reputation.

        A true applied religious philosophy will still be workable even if its founder or the philosophy itself is denigrated. Ron is not my God and Scientology is not my social group. However, Scientology seems to be working for me so I will keep getting auditing.

  2. Benjamin Cisco

    Ooops to my comment above. I just saw the video at the link you gave. Tony Ortega has a lot of good evidence on his site. Miscavige, you are done, done, done.

  3. Funny how despite not letting event dvd’s out of sight from staff, they still get leaked! I’m sure the little twerp goes even more nuts. Sorry Davey boy, your world isn’t nearly as safe or secure as you wish it was. It is only a matter of time before the rest of your inner circle outs you, and then you will have nobody left to yell at, threaten and coerce into doing your evil bidding. I think I may take a calendar and use it like a Super Bowl grid, taking bets on which day will be the one you go down for good!

    • Quentin — You are right. They send them out with super security, demanding that the discs be logged and kept under lock and key and then returned two days after the “event.” Miscavige’s problem is that he thinks because he gets a standing ovation when he walks onto stage and all his sycophants tell him how brilliant he is (for fear of being beaten, imprisoned, separated from family etc etc) that everyone in Scientology actually loves him. They don’t. And while not everyone is willing to stand up and shout their disagreements from the rooftops, there are a lot of people who are willing to act in defiance of his regime in other ways. Like sending out the videos. And they arrive in the mail anonymously — it used to be jsut one copy. Now there are numerous copies that show up after the events….

      His ship is sinking. He still thinks he is captain of the biggest baddest ship on the ocean. Meanwhile, no matter how much braid he wears and how well tailored his Captain’s uniform is, he is commanding a rust-bucket with a gash down the Port side, a crippled engine and an outbreak of swine flu amongst the crew, who are leaping over the side and swimming to shore while he lies in his cabin eating peeled grapes.

      • So descriptive – I still laugh when you use such detailed analogies, especially when you speak of clubbed seals in the audience!

      • “And they arrive in the mail anonymously — it used to be just one copy. Now there are numerous copies that show up after the events…. ”

        The case of the missing strawberries …. (“The Caine Mutiny”, starring Humphrey Bogart. The clip is a little lengthy, 5+ mins.; no violence, PG suggested; contagion of abberation.) This is prinicpally for those who have had the misfortune of being in “the board room” over the past three decades … maybe it will blow a little charge. And for those of us who have not been there, maybe a bit of the flavor of it.

      • Nah, Mike. He knows in his heart of hearts, they’re all agin him, deep down, they are…I am, you are, we are, all of us…agin him.
        Lost, lonely soul…fighting the world…on his own…not even Ron can help…

      • I’ll try to reply again.
        Mike, That was a great moving picture of the ship sinking, funny, still laughing.

        They have been showing the video at Flag almost every day. If you don’t come in, you’re in trouble. A sifting for renegades. If they call again, doubtful, will let them know I saw it on VV.

  4. *blank stare*

  5. Marty — I too thank Tony. I just could not make it through the thing. I watched the “rolling whimper” (he is getting more careful about what he says, though still trots out nutball “figures”) and then saw the Sherminator slink onto stage and when he opened his mouth and uttered two “sentences” I couldn’t take any more. So, I fast forwarded to see Guillaume (no longer even introduced as “from International Management” and certainly not introduced as “ED Int” as he once was) who looked like he needed to wheel in an IV drip to keep him breathing, flash forwarded through the predictable winners (funny how Melbourne Day overtook LA Org in THE LAST WEEK when they were behind by 80 points going into it — no doubt a “stat correction” was done so the event would be “more interesting” and validate the newest Ideal Org). Then I saw that the big “release” was the Ron Mags put into book format for $720 and threw it in the trash too.

    So, thank you Tony. Your constitution is formidable.

    • Mike, you’re right, when you consider that Scientology correctly applied helps people improve their survival, you have to wonder how someone can look the way Gillaume looked. There’s a seminar on surviving well, being advertised at the Seattle Org, to be delivered by a guy we all know is not surviving very well. How do people BUY it? Oh, yes, it’s because staff never gets auditing, so they don’t have to show the results of the tech. In fact, I would say most of the Seattle staff actually enjoy wearing the martyr look. LOL

    • OK, I gotta ask:

      1) Were the film clips indeed voiced by Hubbard?

      2) Are these anecdotes really from LRH lectures?

      3) Looking back on these, do you still believe LRH was telling the truth?

      4) How, if at all, has your perspective changed from going through the last few years?

      Just curious,
      Mr. F

  6. LOL at OSA BS. They’ve managed to get a lot of people worked up over VV backdoor sex trade adverts. The usual outraged suspects. Thing is VV advvertising is closely monitored. Take this claim by those who campaign against VV sex trade adverts:

    The adverts use adults in the photos but switch them for minors at the point of trade. They use code words like “petite”

    How do these people know? The only way they could know is if there were a pattern of prosecutions for paedophiles linked to VV advertising. Such instances aren’t going to documented public knowledge otherwise.

    Someone’s imagination is running wild and OSA is there to stir the pot because Tony Ortega sounds off about the church of scientology.

    • Not to be the devils advocate, but I do know that there is a problem with backpage ads offering minors for sex. Also a problem with craigslist ads doing the same thing.

      THAT SAID, this is the internet. Trying to keep ahead of illicit activity on it is like playing whack a mole. There is a HUGE difference between a website that can’t police thier want ads right and a website “profiting on pumps” implying that sex trade is vv’s only source of revenue.

      To quote the great David Eddings, “two parts truth to one part lie. Get the mix right and they’ll swallow it whole.”

  7. one of those who see

    Watched the into to the event on Tony’s site. Beautiful intro from LRH. Then you think of the gall of Miscavige to open with it. “In a cruel and Materialistic world…” That is Miscaviges world – cruel and materialistic: The Hole and The Buildings.

  8. Are the performers (both live and on video) in the event Scientologists? Or are they too afraid of defections to use Scientologist performers anymore?

    • A few of the the people you see in the audiences are low level staff at Gold. They used to use Ronnie Rathbun (who has been in the galley for 20 years at Gold) as the “LRH” figure because of his building and that he already had red hair. Hard to tell if its still him as of course you never see the face. The “main” characters are all hired actors. They have had pretty bad luck with films/videos featuring Jason Beghe, Michael Fairman, Dan Koon, Larry Anderson etc etc and events with me or Marty or even Heber…

      • Mike,
        The musicians are different too, I don’t recognize any of them. Perhaps Peter Schless and Rick Cruzen aren’t allowed to be out of the Hole, like Guillaume.

        • Sinar — probably right. You know Guillaume travels with a personal security guard to make sure he doesnt head for the hills. But there are not that many security guards that can be trusted, so it gets hard when you have a band…

  9. Oh and I don’t think anyone is trying to make out Tony is unbias. His opinions are plain to read and when he makes factual claims it’s usually backed up by evidence.

    Few reporters are unbias but the good ones dot their I’s and cross their t’s and don’t make up wild claims and nonsense just because it fits their world view like, say, OSA do.

  10. The same old LDW

    What’s interesting to me is that I can evaluate Tony’s words and data and wade though what I think he’s got right, what he’s lacking data on and what he’s refusing to confront himself. I find myself easily able to just look and see where he’s coming from. It doesn’t really bother me reading his wholesale dismissal of the workablility of the tech and the fact that this workability is the only thing that had kept the subject alive. He just doesn’t get it. Face to face, I could easily confront and possibly even get him to see a thing or two.

    HOWEVER…when I watch miscavige I feel like I want to puke. I get infuriated at his duplicity. I can’t watch two minutes without wanting to throw solid objects at my computer screen. miscavige is definitely infiitely more enturbulative than Ortega. And, he seems infinitely more obtuse. Talking to him would be like being lost in a swamp and trying to get directions from a very hungry alligator.

  11. Scientology at the Church is dead. All that is left are loud events and 1.1 comments from SO’s still in office. How pathetic! If LRH was still alive, he would have been heading an independent movement himself!

    LTC -> Look, Think, Communicate

    • “Scientology at the Church is dead”…RIP
      But very alive, out of it !

      Eugene

    • Dead?

      It’s been MIA at MythCavige Inc. for a very long time.

      That’s the trouble with some of the folk still stuck inside, they keep thinking they’ll find Scientology there.

  12. Benjamin Cisco

    I don’t have to read Ortega’s text when there are juicy videos and pictures that say it all. The Scientology machine, a la Miscavige, is broken.

  13. Random Stranger

    MISCAVIGE’S SECRET HAND SIGNALS DEFINED

    1) SALUTE: “You %@$#ing reges had better bleed this %@$#ing crowd dry I’ve just hypnotized! Grrrrrr!!!”

    2) HAND WAVE: “Goodbye, you %@$#ers who dozed off tonight, I’m going to expel you for that. Grrrrrr!!!”

    3) INDEX FINGER RAISE: “Don’t any of you %@$#ers forget who the %a#@ing leader of leaders is! Grrrrrrr! HA! PTOOIE! Grrrrrrr!!!”

    4) INDEX FINGER EMPHASIS FLICK: “Wow man, did I just put on the greatest %@$#ing event or what??!! I really AM the %@$#ing leader of %@$#ing leaders! Ha! Grrrrrr!!!”

    5) SLAP PODIUM: “Dammit! Why isn’t MY %@$#ing birthday celebrated like this?? Stupid suppressive %@$#ing podium!!! Grrrrr!!!”

  14. I admire the way Tony holds his position about the lunacy of the CoS, but in this article I feel he is not “calling bullshit” on Miscavige, but he still basically thinks he is “calling bullshit” on LRH.

    I feel that for the time being he is doing a great and fearless service by exposing and debunking the bullshit of the CoS and I give him credit for that. I simply hope someday he does look at the positive side of LRH’s production and at least grudgingly admits that there might be a positive side.

    But that time is not yet, and it is probably best that he continues exactly as he is doing. So there’s my (perhaps) theetie-wheetie for the day.

  15. Pingback: L Ron Hubbard’s Worst Enemy – Part II | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  16. Marty, my thoughts on joking and degrading of LRH in particular, from the perspective of a non-Scientologist. It’s clear that Hubbard was a smart guy in a number of ways. He was clearly curious about and intrigued with many things in life. Most people are fairly content to explore a small number of aspects of the richness of life. I am likewise curious, so I’m very open to respecting somebody that likes to poke his nose into many different areas of life on Earth.

    But what invites J&D of Hubbard from non-Scientologists is how his claims of greatness in every field he attempted anything in don’t hold water when subjected to even common-sense scrutiny. And further contempt comes from how strenuously some people try to argue for LRH’s perfection, denying his human failings in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. The most inspiring leaders in human history have accomplished much in spite of weaknesses and shortcomings that they were well aware of as they struggled to make a mark in the world. Gandhi comes to mind.

    An example of LRH’s self-aggrandizing narrative that brought this out very clearly to me was the video about Hubbard visiting an early computer that was embedded in Tony Ortega’s article today. The narration is LRH himself from some old lecture.

    I happen to know something about the early history of the computer industry, since I spent many years in the 1970s and 1980s working around computer technology, and I learned from a lot of people who learned in that era. Hubbard’s own words in the video about his visit to a company to check out their “electronic brain” use terms that would never have been used by people actually working with computers of the time even in the early 1950s — the only people that would have talked about “electronic brains” would be those people writing articles for the popular press (“Mechanix Illustrated”, etc) about the dramatic potential of computers to transform life. The ignorance shown in calling computers “electronic brains” would have been especially sharp if Hubbard gave the lecture after the founding of Scientology in 1960, which may have been the case, since he specifically uses the word “Scientology” in the narration. By 1964, computers were no longer mystically powerful devices of science fiction; with the introduction of the IBM System/360 family of computers in that year, they were well on their way to becoming part of the landscape of any good-sized company in the world. So even if computer professionals called them “electronic brains” in the 1950s (which they didn’t) they certainly would not have called them that in the 1960s when LRH probably gave that lecture.

    The whole scene, that he would scribble a question to the “electronic brain” that would cause it to crash (i.e., develop “neuroses”), is simply not possible in the technology of the time; it’s barely possible that a computer could answer an arbitrary question today, even fifty years and hundreds of billions of dollars of research in software engineering later.

    Hubbard was clearly and obviously lying in his claims of what he was able to do in the story. This can be established by many different details he provides, none of which are not consistent with the reality of computer research any time from 1950 to 1970. It is not clear that he is simply exaggerating a couple details; the number of bogus terms and wrong concepts on the one hand and the lack of credible details that can be tied with specific technologies and products available at that time suggest with a reasonable degree of certainty that he made the whole story up.

    The lies are so pervasive that they, sadly, obscure the fundamental message of the story, which contains some actual truth: in the 1960s and 1970s, it seemed like machines were taking over and the place of humans as the rulers of the world might have seemed much less certain. So it was, and is, appropriate to think about the role of Man in a world where machines can do so much. Hubbard correctly noted that concern, a concern that persists to this day, as machines get unimaginably more powerful and capable than they were fifty years ago.

    To someone who never met Hubbard personally as you and many of your readers did, all we know of him is his words. And when those words are easily proven to be lies, not just in details of one story but in details over and over and over and over in so many different areas of his life, it is difficult to for someone not already practicing Scientology to open one’s self up to whatever truth may lie beneath Hubbard’s lies.

    It’s easy to forgive LRH mis-remembering some of the details in a single story that a man told in one lecture one time in a career that spans decades. But when there is a pattern of frequent lies, of untested assertions about how the world works, and when the sole justification for Scientology being true and revolutionary and worth following is the infallibility of a man where the details of his life can’t be trusted, there aren’t many people who would be willing to follow such a man who hadn’t experienced his charisma in person. When the appeal of Scientology, starting with the very name of the “tech,” is supposed to be that it’s based on science, rather than on faith, but then it’s impossible to find the science in the distortions, it’s hard for many people to be willing to look deeply at what LRH was trying to do.

    On the other hand, suppose Hubbard had said (in about 1955, say), “I’ve been reading about these new electronic computers. Today, they seem to be able to solve computational problems like computing the trajectories for firing missiles, or analyzing data from physics experiments. But these article say that at some point in the future, we will be able to program these machines to use language to interact with us and that they will be able to mimic some of the functions of the human brain. When these machines become that powerful, people will start to worry about their role in the universe. And I think it is possible to discover a science and technology of the mind that helps people cure problems and helps them to find a place in this new mechanical age.”

    This statement expresses the same idea as the over-the-top video posted on the Village Voice. But it humble and it is focused on the larger problem and the hope for a solution. It’s not about whether Hubbard is the greatest human in history or even whether he’s any smarter than the average bear. The message makes sense, and it is credible whether or not the details about computers are right, or even whether LRH is a really smart guy or not. I would find that message one I could listen to and appreciate. And I’d be interested in more of what LRH had to say as a result of a simple, humble idea like that. And my interest in LRH and respect for his ideas wouldn’t be hurt later on if he turned out to have human foibles. In fact, sometimes, people learn more from grinding failure than they do by leaping from peak to peak of endless success. Edison’s development of the incandescent light bulb is a case in point.

    So when LRH worked so hard to put himself on a pedestal as an incredible genius and as a world-class success at everything he tried, he has set himself up for the “wog” world to treat him with scorn and derision, and for the world to doubt the validity of Scientology as a spiritual practice when he is caught lying. Tommy Davis once famously said in an interview (I’m paraphrasing) that if Hubbard lied about his war record, then he would not have been injured enough to have to discover Dianetics, and if he had not used Dianetics to recover as miraculously as he did from his near-mortal war wounds, then Scientology was a fraud. Davis was probably saying this to underscore his certainty in the accuracy of the Church’s version of Hubbard’s war record. But the problem is that what he said is a double-edged sword, since there is abundant, credible evidence that says Hubbard’s military record was anything but what LRH claimed.

    And when the truth comes out, as it increasingly will in the Internet age, LRH’s credibility with non-Scientologists is worse than if he stood up and said, “I tried to serve my country in the Navy as best I could, but even though I liked the traditions of the Navy, I wasn’t really cut out for Naval life, so my war record isn’t a big deal. In fact, in trying to understand why I fell short of my own expectations despite the best of intentions and despite hard work, that I tried to uncover the limitations in my own mind that kept me from success. And that led to Dianetics.” Again, in that narrative, failure strengthens credibility, which means it’s more likely to endure than the “invincible infallible LRH” version.

    Are people singling out LRH for lying about his war record? No. There have been several CEOs of big companies who have been fired in the last 10-15 years for lying about their military service, claiming to be fighter pilots, etc. when they were something else entirely (google “Jeff Papows IBM” for example). These were people regarded as good managers and effective leaders. But they were fired because their lies about something that wasn’t necessary for their success (but which they did to inflate their own sense of self-importance) undermined their credibility with their fellows and with their customers. It is a natural (and appropriate) human reaction to distrust the message if the messenger lies about stuff like this; LRH is not being singled out.

    A similar example of the unintended consequences of making a choice to inflate one’s image via propaganda is the news story years ago from North Korea about Kim Jong Il. They reported that he played his first round of golf, and shot 11 holes-in-one out of 18, with a total score of 34, then got bored and never played the game again. Kim Jong-Il the golfer sounds exactly like L. Ron Hubbard the computer scientist. Kim Jong-Il’s security forces could have prevented the country from learning about his failed round of golf, and nobody would have cared. But when he lied so obviously about his accomplishments, he became a laughingstock, at least outside the borders.

    I submit that the “wog” world would be more willing to respect LRH more and to adopt his ideas more broadly if he didn’t lie so totally and completely and obviously about his experiences. But now in the world of the Internet and the tens of thousands of pages of his words in “The Basics,” it is too late to hide the lies that distract people from the truth. And it’s hard to un-publish all LRH’s words that provide evidence of his misstatements at this point to replace them with more humble versions that don’t get in the way of larger truths he might have to offer.

    • martyrathbun09

      You are so literal. I only heard the same excerpt of the ‘computer’ lecture you did, and did not think for a second he was being anything other than tongue in cheek. That is the problem with cherry picking and condemning without looking. You don’t even begin to understand the man – and frankly, I don’t believe you care to. And that is your prerogative.

      • I acknowledged the truth in the story that came out later on, early in my posting. I’m hardly literal in that I easily got the import of the philosophical question and agreed completely with it.

        My point is that the way LRH told the “electronic brain” story is at least as much about LRH proving how brilliant he was, by walking into a room full of computer experts and instantly discovering a massive flaw in the system that caused it to crash in an unprecedented manner, showing that he was smarter than all those so-called experts with their fancy degrees as it is about the philosophical question at the end. When the details LRH provides in his own words call into question whether the incident could have possibly happened at all, it’s hard to get past the skepticism. And, as I said, I’m not going to judge LRH on the details of a single story set down in a single lecture, when he was probably speaking off the cuff and without any real notes.

        I’m a careful researcher, and believe in using source documents wherever possible to avoid getting tangled in deliberate slanting of evidence, as you accuse DM and Dan Sherman of doing with the story of the Caltech physicist meeting. I don’t want to fall for the trick, so common in politics today, of seizing on a single small data point, and saying, “Obama stopped the Keystone XL pipeline so he is blocking all domestic oil drilling.” That ignores the fact that for the first time since 1986, domestic oil production has gone up under Obama — up 15% in three years over the end of the Bush administration. The truth is way more complex than one data point.

        So I’m going form an opinion on LRH based on a wide variety of his stories and works. And from source documents available, there is a frequent and consistent credibility gap between what he said and what can be independently ascertained to have been happening.

        I’m actually reasonably willing to try and understand the man, probably more so than most skeptical non-Scientologists. Skepticism, to me, implies a willingness to believe if one’s skeptical questions are answered. I am not an opponent of LRH the way that I am (and all of your readers are) of the current Church of Scientology organization and the evil it wreaks in the world. I am indeed a skeptic about Hubbard.

        But it is very hard to stay open to understanding LRH when one has to do a lot of work to understand what’s actually true and what is self-aggrandizing embellishment. The amount of effort to overcome the skepticism that Hubbard himself engenders in outsiders, even those with relatively open minds, makes it an uphill battle to come to a conclusion that he is worth respect. While I approached the start of process being willing to do so, the effort involved may not ultimately be worth it.

        Hubbard had a choice in how he presented the material, even if he were being tongue in cheek and telling a story for the joy of spinning a good yarn. By staying more focused on the philosophical question and avoiding putting himself in a central role in the story he would have avoided entirely having his credibility challenged by skeptics. A good example of a short story about computers that is very tongue in cheek and that explores the role of Man in an electronic age is Arthur C. Clarke’s “The Nine Billion Names of God.” Clarke doesn’t put himself into a central role in the story and it doesn’t rely on whether he got the details of computer technology right in order for the story to work brilliantly.

        • martyrathbun09

          Thanks. You’ve expended quite a few keystrokes in order to accomplish pretty much one thing: critique L Ron Hubbard’s story telling style.

          • Would you pass a student on a policy letter if said student assumed it was not literal and was only part of Rons story telling style? My brain hurts.

            • If you equate policy with anecdotal stories, you need to restudy the Data Series.

            • martyrathbun09

              Try some Scientology; properly applied it helps one’s powers of identification, association,and differentiation.

              • These tapes were made into courses which we meant to be duplicated exactly. No room, in my experience for saying, ah… whatever a “double datum” is, it was a joke.
                I actually don’t think I have ever seen scn properly applied to tell you the truth!

            • “not literal and was only part of Rons story telling style”
              Yes, there are many examples, like the 3rd Dynamic Power formula.
              It’s just the way Ron wrote about the subject.
              There are lots of people (obviously including DM) who never understood this formula.

    • Your humble servant

      You silly goose! Ron never claimed to be great in every field he attempted! Where do you get that hogwash? His many lectures actually evince a great humility concerning his own accomplishments. It is true that many of stories may be heard with an impression that he had great competence, but people who knew him and saw him in action can attest that in many instances he certainly did!

    • Dear John P. I must disagree about the use of the word “Electronic Brain” as in Italian for long time there was the word “Cervello = Brain Elettronico”.
      I made a little search on the web and I found:
      electronic brain = noun
      Definition of ELECTRONIC BRAIN: a large computing machine that depends primarily on electronic devices for its operation
      and,
      electronic brain = noun
      an electronic computer.
      Origin: 1940–45
      Dictionary.com Unabridged
      Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.

      I agree with Marty that the important thing is what LRH would like to communicate, and what was his intention and worries about the rising “Mechanical Age” point of wiew.

      whitematrix09

    • Hmmm…

      Well, here’s my point of view. If you’re going to claim to “know something” and then take apart another person as if they “didn’t know something”, don’t you think you ought to perform a little, a tiny, or even a miniscule bit of due diligence about researching the meat of what you’re refuting?

      Ten seconds on Google found me this;

      Quoted;
      “In the March 1949 issue of Radio Electronics there is a watershed article titled The Electronic Brain by W.R. Ashby, M.A., M.D.
      The author describes recent (for 1949) advances in electronics and how they can be applied to the development of an artificial intelligence. He correctly predicts the potential of the vaccum tube as it relates to action-result feedback.”
      http://www.vintagecomputer.net/electronic_brain.cfm

      A little more and…
      Quoted, “IBM has been shipping computers for more than 65 years, and it is finally on the verge of creating a true electronic brain.
      http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/17/ibm-cognitive-computing-chips/

      and hey, here’s some more…

      Building an electronic human brain
      http://www.israel21c.org/technology/building-an-electronic-human-brain

      A book hosted at Oxford’s University Press
      Alan Turing’s Electronic Brain
      The Struggle to Build the ACE, the World’s Fastest Computer
      http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryOther/HistoryofScience/?view=usa&ci=9780199609154

      Cognitive Computing: When Computers Become Brains
      Quoted, “IBM is setting out to build an electronic brain from the ground up.”
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2011/12/09/cognitive-computing-when-computers-become-brains/

      Apparently the use of “electronic brain” to describe a computer is far more common than you would have us believe.

  17. I liked and agreed with what you said John P. I do think Marty’s reply did not grant any beingness to your points of view, It was obviously well thought out and I thought you made valid points regarding how many “wogs” see LRH.

  18. Pingback: LRHs schlimmster Feind – Teil 2 | Der Treffpunkt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s