What's new
By:
Filters

FCDC circa 1970

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alanzo said:
I understand what you are saying, Sparrow, that you can not determine someone else's intentions. But I disagree in the case of LRH.

Patterns of behavior are evidence of intention. Especially patterns of behavior over decades.

And because "To FREE PEOPLE" and "TO ENSLAVE PEOPLE" are so obviously different in their manifested behaviors, I think you can step back, look at decades long patterns of LRH's behaviors and AT LEAST conclude that his intention was not to FREE PEOPLE.

If it were then there would be no long-standing policies that limited free speech, that threatened expulsion for who you associated with, that coerced people to do things against their own self-interests.

In fact, if LRH's intention was really to free people, what you are doing on the streets of DC would not be considered suppressive by Scientology - the subject he formed. You would simply be expressing your freedom to think as you wish.

Scientology would be a very very different thing if LRH's intention was really to free people.

So - can we agree that with LRH's long patterns of decades long behavior, that we can use that as a basis to discern that his intention was not to free people?
Click to expand...

I can't - no. I don't know what his intention(s) was/were. There are too many contradictory data for me to be sure.

And it's interesting to listen to people who KNOW Scientology is an intentional trap because they can't be sure either. And I find their insistence familiar to the sort of insistence that Scientologists have defending Scientology.

Both sides KNOW even though they don't. A safe assumption is to agree that we don't know what Hubbard's intentions were on any given day or life.

If I had to guess, which I don't, I'd say that Hubbard started off with good intentions and then deteriorated mentally over time to end up with this awful thing called Scientology as it existed in the early 80's. (RTC is a different story altogether.)

I doubt he was such an evil genius that he "pre-planned" everything in advance. He was smart but he wasn't that smart.

But again, I'm content with the conclusion that I don't know and that I will never know. That much I can say for sure.

For someone to say they know it was an intentional trap makes me suspect that they are grasping at that idea to make sense out of the thing that messed them up.
 
sparrow said:
I can't - no. I don't know what his intention(s) was/were. There are too many contradictory data for me to be sure.

And it's interesting to listen to people who KNOW Scientology is an intentional trap because they can't be sure either. And I find their insistence familiar to the sort of insistence that Scientologists have defending Scientology.

Both sides KNOW even though they don't. A safe assumption is to agree that we don't know what Hubbard's intentions were on any given day or life.

If I had to guess, which I don't, I'd say that Hubbard started off with good intentions and then deteriorated mentally over time to end up with this awful thing called Scientology as it existed in the early 80's. (RTC is a different story altogether.)

I doubt he was such an evil genius that he "pre-planned" everything in advance. He was smart but he wasn't that smart.

But again, I'm content with the conclusion that I don't know and that I will never know. That much I can say for sure.

For someone to say they know it was an intentional trap makes me suspect that they are grasping at that idea to make sense out of the thing that messed them up.
Click to expand...

You might be right.

The need to make sense out of things can be a big mistake.

And I generally agree with you. He started off with good intentions (even though he was telling everyone he was blinded and crippled in combat and he cured himself with dianetcs), and then his mental state deteriorated over time until we have this contradictory mess called Scientology.

That conclusion can be factually defended.

But in court trials, one of the things they have to establish is "motive".

Do you think it is impossible to establish motive in a court case, then, too?
 
Ron *told* us His intentions in His 'affirmations', although, we weren't intended to 'hear' them.

Ron *told* us His intentions all throughout His promulgations about Scientology, although He disguised it as 'this is what 'they' do'. Amazingly so.

And, having *told* us His intentions, unsurprisingly, if we look at Scientology's *products*, which Ron had 30 years to 'dial in' and 'improve' to His liking, the only *consistent* product is just what Ron covertly and backhandedly *promised*; slavery, with the only limitation being how successfully His intention was realized. Not everybody fell into the trap; most people who did eventually escaped. However, the most *successful* results of His intentions are those most thoroughly enslaved.

As to the bits and pieces that 'work', well, hava metaphor :)

Ron gave us a snazzy, futuristic looking car. It's on rails. It has no reverse gear. The rails go over a cliff. The doors have 'thetan-safe' locks. There are no brakes. The accelerator pedal has no spring.

Yes; the motor works, but, in order to start it, you have to bring your own gas. Yes, the spark plugs work. The seat is comfy. The windows are tinted to opaqueness and only roll up. And, yes, the radio 'works'.

But, it only plays 'Thank You For Listening'.

Bon Voyage!

Zinj
 
Alanzo said:
You might be right.

The need to make sense out of things can be a big mistake.

And I generally agree with you. He started off with good intentions (even though he was telling everyone he was blinded and crippled in combat and he cured himself with dianetcs), and then his mental state deteriorated over time until we have this contradictory mess called Scientology.

That conclusion can be factually defended.

But in court trials, one of the things they have to establish is "motive".

Do you think it is impossible to establish motive in a court case, then, too?
Click to expand...

No not at all. But it helps when you have a live person there that you can ask questions of.

And I agree that it does seem that Hubbard intentionally lied about his war record and war injuries and recovery. As long as though scanned documents that I saw were legit., then it does seem that he blatantly lied about these things.

He was a blatant liar and exaggerator. However, this does not mean that everything he said was a lie nor does it certainly define his intentions.

But regardless of his lies, exaggerations, intentions, etc., Scientology the subject matter is unrelated. If one is purely interested in the workability of some of his ideas, Hubbard is not part of the equation.

Of course it's nearly an impossible task to separate these two because of how the material is presented (by Hubbard) but it can be done.

And if people insist on making Hubbard part of the equation when evaluating the ideas, to that degree they aren't doing it right.
 
it's fun---

To hear others opinions on the evilness or not of scn-lrh- and the cos. It's like a pinball-slashing and dashing all around the bumpers--sometimes it's more evil than it was yesterday. I like to see it moving all around this board with all sorts of different spins.
One test---Imagine your 18 year old son/daughter whom just graduated High School also inherited $500,000. What do you do? Do you take this child right down to the local org and tell the reg that this kid wishes to be an OT? Or- do you take this child to the nearest university and enroll him/her?
 
wow, sparrow, anabaptist, zinj, uncle sam and whoever else!

This line of not being able to discern LRH's intent is getting a little out of hand. There is no question in my mind that he was a master manipulator even more sinister than Jonestown, Ghana's Jim Jones. That he wrote all this high minded CRAP is not the issue. His intent was to decieve as many "marks" as possible into believing there is a bridge to ultimate enlightenment.

We all know (inhabitants of ESMB) he was a jerk. Ask Mystic, probably THE most experienced person here, who actually knew LRH.

There is NO reason to give LRH the benefit of reasonable doubt. He was a bastard, pure and simple.
 
Winston Smith said:
This line of not being able to discern LRH's intent is getting a little out of hand. There is no question in my mind that he was a master manipulator even more sinister than Jonestown, Ghana's Jim Jones. That he wrote all this high minded CRAP is not the issue. His intent was to decieve as many "marks" as possible into believing there is a bridge to ultimate enlightenment.

We all know (inhabitants of ESMB) he was a jerk. Ask Mystic, probably THE most experienced person here, who actually knew LRH.

There is NO reason to give LRH the benefit of reasonable doubt. He was a bastard, pure and simple.
Click to expand...


"We all know" - nice. Your passion is evident.
 
sparrow said:
"We all know" - nice. Your passion is evident.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the generality that cannot possibly be true. I just figured anyone on this site has a reason for being here. In case that is not evident, this site is dedicated to people who have left the cult, not defenders of LRH.

Given the massive pain that man has inflicted upon this world, I do not consider one syllable of his writing to be valid. I remember well being on staff at FCDC, where my cohorts Uncle Sam, Mystic, Anabaptist and others had to "get our minds right."

But I have the last laugh...a wonderful life.
 
I think sparrow's overall point is a good one: that there is a tendency in human beings to seek comfortable conclusions which align with our existing beliefs, and which allow us to put Hubbard in a box of "HE WAS EVIL" that can be safely tucked away and never thought of again.

Saying "we don't know" is not comfortable. It leaves you with a big void.

There's no truthiness there.

But - to say that there is NO EVIDENCE for Hubbard's intent is saying something different.

And I don't think that is true. I think there is a lot of evidence for Hubbard's intent. And I'm not going to look away from that evidence.

Whether that evidence amounts to PROOF is debatable.

Whether it exists, is not.
 
Winston Smith said:
Ah yes, the generality that cannot possibly be true. I just figured anyone on this site has a reason for being here. In case that is not evident, this site is dedicated to people who have left the cult, not defenders of LRH.

Given the massive pain that man has inflicted upon this world, I do not consider one syllable of his writing to be valid. I remember well being on staff at FCDC, where my cohorts Uncle Sam, Mystic, Anabaptist and others had to "get our minds right."

But I have the last laugh...a wonderful life.
Click to expand...

I have left the cult. And one of the things that makes the cult a cult is the intolerance of "other" ideas.

I'm not defending Hubbard; I'm merely pointing out what I know to be true. Sorry if it upsets you. Actually I'm not sorry but I'm trying to be civil.

Some days it's difficult to switch back and forth between troll and gentleman.

Also L.Ron Hubbard raped me.
 
sparrow said:
Do you know how queer that sounds? "all just links on the slave's chains" Maybe try communicating with precision instead of metaphor.

There are plenty of things in Scientology that are self-evident and that demonstratively "work". And there's plenty of rubbish.

So for someone to summarily dismiss it all as an intentional trap seems silly to me. Again, unless you can read minds, I'd say you cannot know for sure what Hubbard had in mind.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything about his intentions. I don't care what his intentions were nor could I know. But I know a trap when I see one.

If I see a mouse trap I don't need to know the intentions of the person who built it to know it is a mouse trap. Nor does the fact that there is cheese present make it not a mouse trap.

If you want precision on how Scientology is a trap there are thousands posted on this board by individuals who were trapped. The part that demonstrably works, as you say, was the cheese on the trap.

Making the claim that no one can really know Hubbard's intention is a dead red herring in the moonlight (sorry for the mixed-metaphor); it shines, but it still stinks.

Based on my 37+ years of experience in and around Scientology I don't need to prove anything to you to validate my experiences. It is a trap as far as I know.

In my travels I have interviewed several individuals who lived under Joseph Stalin (I am not comparing L Ron Hubbard to Stalin, so don't freak out).

These people truly appreciate Joseph Stalin. They had wins living under Joseph Stalin and are nostalgic.

So who can really say what Joseph Stalin's intentions were? Would I be correct in saying that?
And if I am, so what? That is not the issue with Stalin.

Neither is it the issue with Hubbard.

Determining what Hubbard's intentions were is thrown on after the evidence; it comes from looking at the actions and results. It is for people who want to determine some motive. It is not the starting premise as you seem to imply.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
The mouse trap is a good example of demonstrating the intent of a person.

A mouse trap is a device which has the purpose to trap mice.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that a person who purchases a mouse trap, who takes the time to set the mouse trap, who places bait on the mouse trap, and who intentionally sets the mouse trap down near a mouse hole: that guy's intention is to trap a mouse!

What he does after the mouse has been trapped also shows his intent.

Does he look at the mouse whose eyes are bulging out and whose neck has been snapped, and cry and cry?

Or does he squeal with glee and yell, "I got him!"

Then, does he re-set and re-bait the mouse trap and put it back down near the hole?

My point is that there is abundant evidence for Hubbard's intent that is as clear as this mousetrap example.

To look away from that evidence is not good, in my opinion.
 
"My point is that there is abundant evidence for Hubbard's intent that is as clear as this mousetrap example.

To look away from that evidence is not good, in my opinion."



You assume that I'm looking away because I don't have the same conclusion as you. You've made a decision that there's something wrong with me and it's "not good".

This is the same sort of thinking trap that Scientology poses. If you already have everything figured out (Hubbard for example) then any new contradictory data must be mentally manipulated in some fashion to fit your construct.

I'm happy to look at anything and evaluate it accordingly. It's quite nice.
 
sparrow said:
"My point is that there is abundant evidence for Hubbard's intent that is as clear as this mousetrap example.

To look away from that evidence is not good, in my opinion."

You assume that I'm looking away because I don't have the same conclusion as you. You've made a decision that there's something wrong with me and it's "not good".

This is the same sort of thinking trap that Scientology poses. If you already have everything figured out (Hubbard for example) then any new contradictory data must be mentally manipulated in some fashion to fit your construct.

I'm happy to look at anything and evaluate it accordingly. It's quite nice.
Click to expand...

So you would be open to examining the evidence for Hubbard's intent, and you might even conclude that his intent was to enslave people after examining it?
 
Whoda thunk that the FCDC thread would go all Vienna Circle-ish and shit.

The threads got a life of its own I tell ya.

It's alive!

itsalive.jpg


How will we ever return to hotties?
 
Alanzo said:
So you would be open to examining the evidence for Hubbard's intent, and you might even conclude that his intent was to enslave people after examining it?
Click to expand...


Like I said, I'm happy to look at anything. I doubt I would be able to arrive at your desired conclusion though.

Plus it's hardly a relevant question anymore. He's dead. The cult will be done by year's end. (fingers crossed)

So I'm not overly inclined to make a conclusion as to what his intentions were. And even if I did, what good is it? What can I gain from having concluded what Hubbard's intentions were? Nothing. It would only be so much mental bric a brac.

I'd rather be honest with myself and stick with "I don't know." It's not very exciting but it's true at least.
 
sparrow said:
Like I said, I'm happy to look at anything. I doubt I would be able to arrive at your desired conclusion though.

Plus it's hardly a relevant question anymore. He's dead. The cult will be done by year's end. (fingers crossed)

So I'm not overly inclined to make a conclusion as to what his intentions were. And even if I did, what good is it? What can I gain from having concluded what Hubbard's intentions were? Nothing. It would only be so much mental bric a brac.

I'd rather be honest with myself and stick with "I don't know." It's not very exciting but it's true at least.
Click to expand...

So anything arrived at by logical reasoning is not true?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top