What's new

Did L. Ron Hubbard have a healthy second dynamic?

wogwog

Patron
No need to answer the question in the thread title -- we already know that answer is NO.

But I am getting ready to talk to some Scientologists about this, and I was hoping I could get some advice on how they would answer these questions, given their Scientology indoctrination and the propaganda they are fed like LRH biography materials and OSA dead agent packs:
  • How many wives did he have?
  • How many children did he have?
  • Who was Sara Northrup?
  • Who was Alexis Hubbard?
  • Who was L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. and how was his relationship with his father?
  • Who was Quentin Hubbard and what happened to him?
  • How was his relationship with Mary Sue at the end?
From Going Clear and A Piece of Blue Sky, I know the truth about these already, but I am interested in how fully indoctrinated Scientologists (many decades in) would attempt to answer these (assuming they actually attempt to, not just go into "SP handling" mode by "attacking the attacker" or avoiding the question).

Thanks!
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
No need to answer the question in the thread title -- we already know that answer is NO.


Thanks!
Hello,

You stole words out of my fingers.
:)

Howeer that's a good question since $cientology is based on worshipping it's founder Ron Hubbard as a master of all subjects, including high moreal and ethical conduct in family and sex matters..for which he obvioulsy failed in terms of morality.

In case of one is in need of enlightement and teachings, he better find another master...
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
One should scarcely give any credence either to the opinions of those who would exalt the man nor those who condemn him.

Furthermore:

"First rate people talk about ideas, second rate people talk about things and third rate people talk about people"
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
One should scarcely give any credence either to the opinions of those who would exalt the man nor those who condemn him.

Furthermore:

"First rate people talk about ideas, second rate people talk about things and third rate people talk about people"

Lol! I think you forgot to mention the most important one Birdie ... "fourth rate people talk complete shite and try to sell it to first, second and third rate people".


:cool:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
One should scarcely give any credence either to the opinions of those who would exalt the man nor those who condemn him.
Brilliant. That means one should only give credence to people who are manifestly unable to form an opinion. That would narrow the list down to . . .Scientologists. Because Ron already eliminated all the DevT research and thought necessary to form an opinion by ordering Scientologists to simply adopt his ideal opinions.

Your post (above) reminds me of that deliciously deluded quote by Hubbard's former butler. Here's commentary from another thread:

Originally Posted by HelluvaHoax!

Ken Urquhart, long-time Hubbard loyalist and Independent Scientology opinion leader stated: "There is no one of sufficient stature on this planet to stand in judgment of L. Ron Hubbard."

I agree, but I would very slightly re-word it: "L. Ron Hubbard was a pathological liar, viciously avaricious con man, sociopathic criminal and unrepentant predator whose tax-dodge "religion" spent an inordinate amount of time in worship and praying--worship of the Lord (Buddha) and preying upon the innocent (in order to be blessed with their power and money)."

It's okay, I was sitting when I wrote that.

.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
One should scarcely give any credence either to the opinions of those who would exalt the man nor those who condemn him.
One doesn't need anyone's opinion when it comes to answering the question in the thread title.

Anyone but a Hubbard apologist would realize that Hubbard's second dynamic was a disaster by looking at the facts.

And just several months ago you admitted that you fit the dictionary definition of a Hubbard apologist.

What a coincidence! :D
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
But I am getting ready to talk to some Scientologists about this, and I was hoping I could get some advice on how they would answer these questions, given their Scientology indoctrination and the propaganda they are fed like LRH biography materials and OSA dead agent packs:
Back when I was in I completely ignorant with regards to those questions about Hubbard, and I was under such a spell. Had someone asked me questions that seemed to imply anything negative about Hubbard or his life I'd probably write up a KR on them.

I would imagine that most if not all scientologists have doubts about certain things in Scientology but many who probably think the international management is criminal still love Hubbard. They're still under the spell.

Bringing up those kinds of things with many Scientologists could be like stepping on the third rail.

If you're wanting to plant some seeds in them, hoping that they'll WTFU, I would think there are better subjects to bring up.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
nor those who condemn him.
Hi birdie,

Saying the LRH was a pathologic liar, had mental illness, was paranoid, thriving for money, greed, sadistic, taking drugs, drinking alcohol , a polygamist, a child kidnaper, a small kids exploiter, a sadistic cruel are not at all condemning him....

These are true fact telling, (known for being true) in order to straighten the records. period.
 
Last edited:

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Lol! I think you forgot to mention the most important one Birdie ... "fourth rate people talk complete shite and try to sell it to first, second and third rate people".


:cool:
Ohhhhhhhhh youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

I would bet your have ever been a *$cientologist :p

* Scientologist : A $cientologist is someone who sells shit and owns a clipboard.
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
From Going Clear and A Piece of Blue Sky, I know the truth about these already, but I am interested in how fully indoctrinated Scientologists (many decades in) would attempt to answer these (assuming they actually attempt to, not just go into "SP handling" mode by "attacking the attacker" or avoiding the question).

Thanks!
They might try to answer the questions just for the sake of engaging you in communication but pretty soon they will decide you are looking like an enemy and they will tell you that you need to read the official scientology information on those subjects.
 

phenomanon

Canyon
One should scarcely give any credence either to the opinions of those who would exalt the man nor those who condemn him.

Furthermore:

"First rate people talk about ideas, second rate people talk about things and third rate people talk about people"
and some people just talk out of their ass. LOL!
 
Top