What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.

lkwdblds

Crusader
Nibs always struct me as being truthful.

And we all instinctively believe everything that junior says, right?

Nibs always struck me as being truthful in his various video interviews. He always seemed to be focussed on obtaining money from his Dad's estate and he was pretty obviously damaged psychologically from his treatment or lack thereof from his Father. The man barely got to know his famous Father. He was born in 1934 and Pops seemed to be around until about 1937 or 1938 when LRH took off for New York City. After DMSMH came out, Nibs showed up in 1951 or 1952 and worked with his Father until 1959. Thus there were 3 early years when Dad was around which he could not remember and about 7 or 8 years from ages 18 to 25. Therefore in a life of 58 years, Dad was only present for 10 of those years.

Unlike other well known men, particularly religious leaders, such as Billy Graham, et al who groomed their Sons as seconds in command and set them up to take over the family business, Nibs was payed peanuts and was not given any special consideration.

I have no idea if he is telling the truth or not but he seems to be truthful just from a cursory view of his videos.
Lakey
 
Very nice story Roger, sort of a Hat Write Up on how to seek out and create a sane Second Dynamic Relationship! You say, "and yes she is pretty" but also she must have though, "yes. he's handswome with this stylish chin whiskers and mustache (if you had them then)" There is something called "chemistry" which seems to be some kind of animal magnetism on the genetic body line, plus there is a bit of magnetism on the thetan side too. Women often look for a certain "take charge" posture in their males and tend to judge men a lot by their position in business and their financial success and acumen. Men tend to look at women in the manner of their physical beauty and with a carnal type of desire and lust.

The bottom line is that if the chemistry is not there, it just seems to override and trump the logic of both people having the same goals and purposes. I have been on both sides of the coin. Take Carole Ferguson, the course supervisor at CCLA. We were perfect for each other the way you and V are and I sensed she liked me and would have a 2 D with me. There just was no where near enough physical attraction for me to make a move. I wouldn't even look at her and felt I was commiting an overt by overlooking her and offered the area up several times in auditing but to no avail.

I was 32 when I blew off the wonderful being and fine woman known as Carol Ferguson but now at 70 (assumimg she would have had me), and the woman I am interested in is about to turn 60, I thought that at these ages, chemistry would not be such an important part of the 2 D but I couldn't have been more wrong. Its not even looks, she thinks I am handsome but there are intangibles such that even though she is desparately looking for a 2 D, she will not even consider me as a 2 D though our goals and interests line up quite well.

So while I relate well to your story and consider your actions with V as an ideal approach for intelligent and mature people and look at your story as sound hatting material on the subject, I would like you to address the subject of chemistry. Let's say that either you or V did not find the other's "chemistry" exciting but all other things were as you stated in your story. How do you think your relationship with V would have proceeded?
Lakey

This post intrigued me for a couple of reasons.

A. I remember Carol Ferguson well. She was smart, hard working, and a darn nice person.

B. Chemistry is a physical universe word for a spiritual universe phenomena usually.

I think that when one analyses chemistry, one needs to look at how much of a body or how much of a being the individuals are being.

Person A can be obsessed with looks, Person B can be obsessed with intelligence, Person C may be more receptive to love and mind syncing, Person D may need a person who enjoys life risking sports, Person E may like speed, Person F may like order and on and on

When you get down closer to basics of spirituality, and away from superficial physical endowments, the "chemistry" is more based in primal core drives and one's ability to synchronize with another's primal drives. PLUS the ability to grant beingness to the other's reason for living.

If you're operating at human level, it is probably hard for a popular social clique person to make it with a waitress in a coffee shop.

If you're working on a spiritual level, wide variations in physical cultural differences can occur.

As a high school grad, age twenty, straight off the farm, I snagged a forty-six
year old blue blooded, master's degree in archaeology holding, ex wife of a fortune 500 company CEO, as my girl friend for several years.

We were both Clear and auditors. We were both literate and libertarian. On the horniness scale, we were off the top of the charts.

There are people, who are auditors and Clear, who are off the bottom of the horniness charts.

Part of chemistry is knowing who to choose to hit on.

The way I see it, when looking, you hit on others using the shotgun approach. When you get a response of comparable magnitude to YOUR magnitude of sexual interest, your magnitude of altruism, connectiveness, selfishness, family interest, sports (doing) activity, out of the box thinking, cognitive skills, and organizational skills.

When THOSE sync or are mutually benefitting, then you have a good match.

ie. chemistry

moving right along:

jees, what seems to be the problem with having a female for a good friend?

Having good friends, who you want to spend time with is a blessing no matter what.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
"The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain"

Remember Pygmalion. When Professor Higgins got done redoing Eliza Doolittle he fell for her. :wink2:

I better start practicing my elocution, "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the Plain." Edey as Professor Higgins might fall in love with the redone Eliza Doolittle in the form of Lakey. The clumsy, awkward, unstylishly clad and quaffed Lakey will undergo a total make over and will emerge as a suave, stylishly clad, man's man, a take charge no non sense type of guy and will sweep the creator of his new persona off her feet and into the sack. I better watch out, if I have actually postulated this, it will come to pass in my universe.
Lakey
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Nibs always struck me as being truthful in his various video interviews. He always seemed to be focussed on obtaining money from his Dad's estate and he was pretty obviously damaged psychologically from his treatment or lack thereof from his Father. The man barely got to know his famous Father. He was born in 1934 and Pops seemed to be around until about 1937 or 1938 when LRH took off for New York City. After DMSMH came out, Nibs showed up in 1951 or 1952 and worked with his Father until 1959. Thus there were 3 early years when Dad was around which he could not remember and about 7 or 8 years from ages 18 to 25. Therefore in a life of 58 years, Dad was only present for 10 of those years.

Unlike other well known men, particularly religious leaders, such as Billy Graham, et al who groomed their Sons as seconds in command and set them up to take over the family business, Nibs was payed peanuts and was not given any special consideration.

I have no idea if he is telling the truth or not but he seems to be truthful just from a cursory view of his videos.
Lakey


All I have ever seen from him in relation to Scientology is/are masses of ad hominem attacks on the father and a claim that he developed/discovered repetitive processing - a claim of which I dubious. The present post that Veda made seems more like some sour-grapes bellyaching about the impression his father made on others than any real contribution to anything
 
All I have ever seen from him in relation to Scientology is/are masses of ad hominem attacks on the father and a claim that he developed/discovered repetitive processing - a claim of which I dubious. The present post that Veda made seems more like some sour-grapes bellyaching about the impression his father made on others than any real contribution to anything

Jack Horner was responsible for repetitive processing commands.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Thanks Carmelo for the fine analysis!!

This post intrigued me for a couple of reasons.

A. I remember Carol Ferguson well. She was smart, hard working, and a darn nice person.

B. Chemistry is a physical universe word for a spiritual universe phenomena usually.

I think that when one analyses chemistry, one needs to look at how much of a body or how much of a being the individuals are being.

Person A can be obsessed with looks, Person B can be obsessed with intelligence, Person C may be more receptive to love and mind syncing, Person D may need a person who enjoys life risking sports, Person E may like speed, Person F may like order and on and on

When you get down closer to basics of spirituality, and away from superficial physical endowments, the "chemistry" is more based in primal core drives and one's ability to synchronize with another's primal drives. PLUS the ability to grant beingness to the other's reason for living.

If you're operating at human level, it is probably hard for a popular social clique person to make it with a waitress in a coffee shop.

If you're working on a spiritual level, wide variations in physical cultural differences can occur.

As a high school grad, age twenty, straight off the farm, I snagged a forty-six
year old blue blooded, master's degree in archaeology holding, ex wife of a fortune 500 company CEO, as my girl friend for several years.

We were both Clear and auditors. We were both literate and libertarian. On the horniness scale, we were off the top of the charts.

There are people, who are auditors and Clear, who are off the bottom of the horniness charts.

Part of chemistry is knowing who to choose to hit on.

The way I see it, when looking, you hit on others using the shotgun approach. When you get a response of comparable magnitude to YOUR magnitude of sexual interest, your magnitude of altruism, connectiveness, selfishness, family interest, sports (doing) activity, out of the box thinking, cognitive skills, and organizational skills.

When THOSE sync or are mutually benefitting, then you have a good match.

ie. chemistry

moving right along:

jees, what seems to be the problem with having a female for a good friend?

Having good friends, who you want to spend time with is a blessing no matter what.

Thanks for answering Carmelo, I am really confused in this area. You wrote some very inciteful comments. Thanks a lot.

Your comments on having a close friend of the opposite sex are very helpful to me. I seem to be in power in this area. I wanted romance and accepted friendships with so many beautiful women, starting with Bev Carter and Susan Todhunter at CCLA and continuing on today with Edey and Kadriya and several others. I am glad I chose to create those friendships when I found out romance was not there for me. So many people say that if the woman won't sleep with you then dump her and move on because you are just wasting your time. In my universe, this is and always has been bunk.

Carmelo astutely points out the various components which make up friendships, both spiritual and physical. With my first such friend, Susan Todhunter, our mutual love of classical music and all music in general made the decision a no brainer. To be invited to a recital by Susan and then have here sing an aria just for me, put me into some sort of state of ecstacy and unlike a sexual climax, this climax of that aria being sung for me is still climaxing. About 4 years after meeting Susan, I met her kid Sister, Joan. We had more alignment of personalities than I had with Susan. I wanted her for a lifelong friend regardless of what happened as regards any potential romance. After 8 or 9 years of friendship, we lost touch because of arbitraries introduced by the Church of Scientology. Just 3 days ago, that friendship was rekindled and I sure hope it lasts the rest of my life.

The fact that Edey says I am her best friend and I can do massages on her and give her sessions which help her out means a lot to me. It is easier to forego romance and have a female friend at 70 than at 30 and the fact that I have already had a family and have adult children also makes things a lot easier because the urge to create a family is no long a pressing factor. What it boils down to is sexual expression and at 70, that is easier to deal with than at 25 or 30. Nevertheless, I am surprised how strong the urge still is in me. It is no longer the pressing driving force which it once was. Purple Haze is a lady friend of mine where we can do enriching activities together from time to time without having a romantic affair. Why would anyone want to throw relationships such as these out the window. I treasure every one of them. I was able to bag a young beauty, Evy, and have children and raise a family with her. I admire her greatly and love the kids we raised together. Now that our marriage is broken up, I would be crushed if she was not still my friend, one of my best friends. I am making sure that we remain the best of friends whatever it takes, we are in new territory as friends just feeling out what we need and want from the other person in our new status as "just friends".

Carmelo says, "Having good friends who you want to spend time with is a blessing." What a neat and tidy summary of what to some is a very complex area. Thanks again Carmelo for helping so much to clarify this area of life!!
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Thanks for answering Carmelo, I am really confused in this area. You wrote some very inciteful comments. Thanks a lot.

Your comments on having a close friend of the opposite sex are very helpful to me. I seem to be in power in this area. I wanted romance and accepted friendships with so many beautiful women, starting with Bev Carter and Susan Todhunter at CCLA and continuing on today with Edey and Kadriya and several others. I am glad I chose to create those friendships when I found out romance was not there for me. So many people say that if the woman won't sleep with you then dump her and move on because you are just wasting your time. In my universe, this is and always has been bunk.

Carmelo astutely points out the various components which make up friendships, both spiritual and physical. With my first such friend, Susan Todhunter, our mutual love of classical music and all music in general made the decision a no brainer. To be invited to a recital by Susan and then have here sing an aria just for me, put me into some sort of state of ecstacy and unlike a sexual climax, this climax of that aria being sung for me is still climaxing. About 4 years after meeting Susan, I met her kid Sister, Joan. We had more alignment of personalities than I had with Susan. I wanted her for a lifelong friend regardless of what happened as regards any potential romance. After 8 or 9 years of friendship, we lost touch because of arbitraries introduced by the Church of Scientology. Just 3 days ago, that friendship was rekindled and I sure hope it lasts the rest of my life.

The fact that Edey says I am her best friend and I can do massages on her and give her sessions which help her out means a lot to me. It is easier to forego romance and have a female friend at 70 than at 30 and the fact that I have already had a family and have adult children also makes things a lot easier because the urge to create a family is no long a pressing factor. What it boils down to is sexual expression and at 70, that is easier to deal with than at 25 or 30. Nevertheless, I am surprised how strong the urge still is in me. It is no longer the pressing driving force which it once was. Purple Haze is a lady friend of mine where we can do enriching activities together from time to time without having a romantic affair. Why would anyone want to throw relationships such as these out the window. I treasure every one of them. I was able to bag a young beauty, Evy, and have children and raise a family with her. I admire her greatly and love the kids we raised together. Now that our marriage is broken up, I would be crushed if she was not still my friend, one of my best friends. I am making sure that we remain the best of friends whatever it takes, we are in new territory as friends just feeling out what we need and want from the other person in our new status as "just friends".

Carmelo says, "Having good friends who you want to spend time with is a blessing." What a neat and tidy summary of what to some is a very complex area. Thanks again Carmelo for helping so much to clarify this area of life!!
Lakey

This wouldn't be an ex scio response without a little funky tech.

There are people, marvelous people, with held down 7s, with odd ball quirks.

I had a girl friend once, who, so long as I was cheating on her, or thinking of dropping her, she was loyal and true blue. The moment I told her that I loved her, she dropped me like a hot potato. She told me, as she was moving out, that she had tried to warn me. Essentially, she needed to be abused. As long as I filled that role, she was steadfast. The moment I cleaned up my act, she was gone. She is still a friend, and, most telling, she is still in the Co$.

Bill and Hillary Clinton probably have some sort of variation on that scene. Either way, she knows he cheats, and it's apparently OK.

The Kennedy brothers weren't known for their fidelity. A woman, who hooked up with them, had to have a specialized view. Back around 1970, a person we knew went out to dinner with Frank Gifford. (now married to Kathy Lee Gifford). Frank brought along his mistress, Ethel Kennedy (Bobby's wife).

Different strokes for different folks.

On the other side of the scale, there are people who don't want touching. They have a potential mate somewhere out there too.

There are both women and men, who are victims, and ditto for dominators. They each need to find their opposite number.

There are gentle people who need gentle people. There are hard hitting types, who need someone, that can take and give back with the same force.

All of the above is part of the chemistry equation too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSoMTEPBNNo
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
This wouldn't be an ex scio response without a little funky tech.

There are people, marvelous people, with held down 7s, with odd ball quirks.

I had a girl friend once, who, so long as I was cheating on her, or thinking of dropping her, she was loyal and true blue. The moment I told her that I loved her, she dropped me like a hot potato. She told me, as she was moving out, that she had tried to warn me. Essentially, she needed to be abused. As long as I filled that role, she was steadfast. The moment I cleaned up my act, she was gone. She is still a friend, and, most telling, she is still in the Co$.

Bill and Hillary Clinton probably have some sort of variation on that scene. Either way, she knows he cheats, and it's apparently OK.

The Kennedy brothers weren't known for their fidelity. A woman, who hooked up with them, had to have a specialized view. Back around 1970, a person we knew went out to dinner with Frank Gifford. (now married to Kathy Lee Gifford). Frank brought along his mistress, Ethel Kennedy (Bobby's wife).

Different strokes for different folks.

On the other side of the scale, there are people who don't want touching. They have a potential mate somewhere out there too.

There are both women and men, who are victims, and ditto for dominators. They each need to find their opposite number.

There are gentle people who need gentle people. There are hard hitting types, who need someone, that can take and give back with the same force.

All of the above is part of the chemistry equation too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSoMTEPBNNo



Good one, Carmelo!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Jeez, you guys are such cream puffs. I love it. Reading about your stories looking for true love. Never thought I'd be reading this here. I'm gettin all marshmellowy. :p

I figured after men and women get a reprieve and their hormones finally die down they wouldn't much go out of their way to deal with each other. As a bartender for 30 yrs I nightly got to see couples interact....and how they act continually with each other as the years go by. My observations ranged from pleasantly surprised to total disgust. I did see that men are mostly not monogamous. My final observation is that good men are very RARE. Women compete ferociously over them. Especially if the womean are over 45. I can say that every female friend I have over 50 is looking for a real relationship. I never caught why they want to do it all over again. But it is refreshing to see that so many guys are such softies desiring a genuine partner...and want to do it all over again too. Who'da guessed.:wink2: This sorta makes me :):):):):):)happy. There is balance in the world .
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
This wouldn't be an ex scio response without a little funky tech.

There are people, marvelous people, with held down 7s, with odd ball quirks.

I had a girl friend once, who, so long as I was cheating on her, or thinking of dropping her, she was loyal and true blue. The moment I told her that I loved her, she dropped me like a hot potato. She told me, as she was moving out, that she had tried to warn me. Essentially, she needed to be abused. As long as I filled that role, she was steadfast. The moment I cleaned up my act, she was gone. She is still a friend, and, most telling, she is still in the Co$.

Bill and Hillary Clinton probably have some sort of variation on that scene. Either way, she knows he cheats, and it's apparently OK.

The Kennedy brothers weren't known for their fidelity. A woman, who hooked up with them, had to have a specialized view. Back around 1970, a person we knew went out to dinner with Frank Gifford. (now married to Kathy Lee Gifford). Frank brought along his mistress, Ethel Kennedy (Bobby's wife).

Different strokes for different folks.

On the other side of the scale, there are people who don't want touching. They have a potential mate somewhere out there too.

There are both women and men, who are victims, and ditto for dominators. They each need to find their opposite number.

There are gentle people who need gentle people. There are hard hitting types, who need someone, that can take and give back with the same force.

All of the above is part of the chemistry equation too.

I really liked your post. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

Veda

Sponsor
All I have ever seen from him in relation to Scientology is/are masses of ad hominem attacks on the father and a claim that he developed/discovered repetitive processing - a claim of which I dubious. The present post that Veda made seems more like some sour-grapes bellyaching about the impression his father made on others than any real contribution to anything

I don't think that Nibs claimed to have discovered repetitive processing. I think that was Jack Horner:

http://suppressiveperson.org/spdl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=290&Itemid=30

Nibs (Ron Jr.) was Fair Gamed for decades though. After his youngest son (he had a large family) was born with Down Syndrome (in the early 1970s), Scientology moved in for the kill.

The "buttons" used on Nibs were "money" (Scn covertly messed with his credit rating and had him fired from jobs: standard LRH Fair Game Tech), plus "children and family" (harassed his wife and children, etc.)

Nibs was successfully "handled" (for a while - i.e. He kept his mouth shut), then started talking again in the early 1980s, only to be silenced several years after that, when unpaid hospital bills, and the needs of his now teenage Down Syndrome son, made him vulnerable to a Scientology $$$ offer.

Nibs was the only Hubbard offspring to speak out, and he was honest, and when he told of his father's drug use he was widely ridiculed by Scientologists, and when he told of his father's fascination with Aleister Crowley, he was ridiculed further.

Throughout his entire life he struggled to recover from having been the number one son of the founder of the cult of Scientology. His father told him so many tall tales. For example, Nibs witnessed someone in an overcoat going into a garage next to his (and his dad's) house. His father told him that the person was an agent of the KGB, and the - 17 year old - Nibs believed his father. Years later, when recounting such stories, what he (Nibs) observed would sometimes mix with the tall tales told by his father.

For example, Nibs witnessed his father's drug use and fascination with Crowley's Magick, but his father told him that he [Hubbard Sr.] was taking Crowley's place (Crowley died in 1947), etc., and - as he also ("jokingly") told the first 'PDC' course students at the beginning of the first 'PDC' lecture of 1952 - was the "Prince of Darkness."
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
In 1976 I moved in with an older man who worked with Nibs on developing CCH processes...or at least some of them. From his statements at the time, I got the impression that Nibs was a straight shooter.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
It really isn't about Nibs as a person, nor is it about LRH as a person. They both had their faults - no doubts about that. It's about the quality of their utterences.

I'm sure LRH took drugs and was a devotee of Crowely's - this does not detract from the quality of the work he did. Nibs, by asserting that his father was on cocaine when he delivered the lectures, tries to devalue them and his father. But the lectures and the data in them stand on their own merits, and as a description of the state of man and the human condition I don't know of any piece of work which is remotely comparable to it. certainly nothing Croweley wrote compares to it for quality and for the intensity and depth of understanding revealed in it.

Nibs certainly did have a difficult life living in his father's shadow. All of his children did. But nearly all of Nibs's communications about his father are attempts to pull him down, to portray him as nothing more than a drug taking Crowelyite. Anyone who is content with this as a full portrayal of LRH as a person is massively deluded, and anyone who offers this as an adequate bio of him is trying desperately to delude others.

My only complaint about Nibs is that he played only his one-note tune ad nauseum and to total excess. LRH the villain, me the victim, sob sob. Has he nothing of his own to contribute?

LRH was an immensely complicated person. Multi-sided to an extreme. In order to understand Scientology one needs to unravel the subject itself out of the complex morass that LRH was. Veda quotes the gag about him calling himself the Prince of Darkness. On that same tape LRH makes the point very strongly that any student of Scientology needs to be able to differentiate between the subject itself and LRH's opinions on the subject and the randomities he indulges in in life, between when he is explaining fundamentals and when he is cracking jokes.

Anyone who fails to do this winds up in a confused mess of thinking that every HCOB and P/L and Order that he gave are all of equal value and are all valid "tech", and he never achieves any understanding of what Scientology really is. And these are not of equal value. Many things he wrote are complete rubbish and are 180 degrees the reverse of what Scio is. One needs to examine the data, evaluate it, and so on, and not fall into the trap of thinking that if LRH wrote it then it must be true and good, even when he presented them as being "Scientology". (which they often weren't)

Surely all this is fundamental. I can't believe that I'm the only one who recognises this.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

I'm sure LRH took drugs and was a devotee of Crowely's - this does not detract from the quality of the work he did. Nibs, by asserting that his father was on cocaine when he delivered the lectures, tries to devalue them and his father. But the lectures and the data in them stand on their own merits, and as a description of the state of man and the human condition I don't know of any piece of work which is remotely comparable to it. certainly nothing Croweley wrote compares to it for quality and for the intensity and depth of understanding revealed in it.

-snip-

Maybe Nibs was just truthfully describing what he witnessed. He described his father as "brilliant" many times. However, he considered that his father has ulterior motives, other than what were presented.

I do not share your appreciative awe over the 'PDC' lectures. Tractor beams, presser beams, Cat people, some tedious demonstrations of "Creative Processing," "You can always use a slave," etc., and lots and lots of Hubbardian gaseousness.

When I first heard them (I purchased the set and listened to them at home), I was a year into reading pretty much everything by Crowley that I could find, and owned most of his books. These days, some of them are on line.

My only complaint about Nibs is that he played only his one-note tune ad nauseum and to total excess. LRH the villain, me the victim, sob sob. Has he nothing of his own to contribute?

-snip-

Maybe you should get a hold of the materials (revealed as a result of the serving of search warrants by the FBI in July 1977) that expose (some of) the Fair Gaming of Nibs. He was Fair Gamed for decades. Isn't that "real" to you?

Have you listened to, or read a transcript of 'Nibs to the Field' from 1984? I know that Nibs also audited Roland Barkley, and others (in '85), and Roland told me he was very pleased with the results. Mostly Nibs just told the truth as best he could, and concentrated on taking care of his wife and children.

LRH was an immensely complicated person. Multi-sided to an extreme. In order to understand Scientology one needs to unravel the subject itself out of the complex morass that LRH was. Veda quotes the gag about him calling himself the Prince of Darkness. On that same tape LRH makes the point very strongly that any student of Scientology needs to be able to differentiate between the subject itself and LRH's opinions on the subject and the randomities he indulges in in life, between when he is explaining fundamentals and when he is cracking jokes.

Anyone who fails to do this winds up in a confused mess of thinking that every HCOB and P/L and Order that he gave are all of equal value and are all valid "tech", and he never achieves any understanding of what Scientology really is. And these are not of equal value. Many things he wrote are complete rubbish and are 180 degrees the reverse of what Scio is. One needs to examine the data, evaluate it, and so on, and not fall into the trap of thinking that if LRH wrote it then it must be true and good, even when he presented them as being "Scientology". (which they often weren't)

Surely all this is fundamental. I can't believe that I'm the only one who recognises this.

Was it a gag? Or is the joke on you?, after all, you identify yourself with the Hubbardism, "they-tan," and still haven't figured out that "gag."

As for following Hubbard's instructions that one should differentiate between the subject itself and LRH's opinions, was that LRH's opinion, or was that the subject itself? :p

As for some things, written by Hubbard, being 180 degrees reverse of what Scientology actually is, quite true. Hubbard explained it succinctly in 'PR Series 7': "PR is overt (visible, advertized), Intelligence is covert."

That's why the PR piece 'What is Greatness?' which goes on about love and forgiveness (while, incidentally, also gloating over the assassination of John F. Kennedy) does not conflict with, or contradict, other (usually behind the scenes, not for display to "wogs" and "raw meat") writings. (See the 'Scientological Onion' and other descriptions of Scientology, as it actually was designed by its founder.)

And don't worry, you're not the "only one" Leon. Quite a few Scientologists have an understanding of Scientology that is equally ass backwards. :)

Here I make a futile attempt to convey, to a FZer, the "overt/covert" design of Scientology, with "covert" trumping "overt":

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392666&postcount=42
 
Nibs certainly did have a difficult life living in his father's shadow. All of his children did. But nearly all of Nibs's communications about his father are attempts to pull him down, to portray him as nothing more than a drug taking Crowelyite. Anyone who is content with this as a full portrayal of LRH as a person is massively deluded, and anyone who offers this as an adequate bio of him is trying desperately to delude others.

This is very true, Leon. Many of those most embittered and unwilling to acknowledge the positives as well as the negatives about Hubbard evidently do so out of a need to lessen their own responsibility for what they, as adults, put themselves and their families through and accordingly have endured.

An unwillingness to acknowledge and address ALL aspects of Hubbard marks such individuals out as not credible in their testimony. They are unreliable witnesses being caught up still by a primary need to deny their own level of responsibility for what has occurred. It is much more convenient to label Hubbard as an evil satanist crowleyite and abjure any responsibility for their own actions.


Mark A. Baker
 
BTW we have just had a bit of an earthquake here. All well so don't panic.

I think the most significant thing about it is a comparison to Haiti earlier this year. They had a 7.0 stregth quake, this one was 7.4, They had about a quarter million deaths - we have had none and only a few minor injuries.

The reason? Intelligent engineering and building regulations. Haiti was pretty much a build what you plesa city. Chch (and all of NZ) is tightly controlled in order to minimise and localise any damage from just these events.

This too is why places like China and Pakistan suffer so much from these things while we, the decadent democratic western infidels, get off lightly.

Yes, and the irony is how much screeching from the more ideological among us we are forced to endure about "intrusive socialist government regulation" over just such things as building codes. :coolwink:

Glad to hear you are well, Leon. Although as a SoCal lifer I actually wasn't too worried. 7s are hefty shakers but not necessarily devastating. From what I've seen of Kiwi's I'd no doubts that you guys were well prepared.


Mark A. Baker
 
My final observation is that good men are very RARE.

Yes, this is true. :yes:

Mostly because there is very little "market" for them. It's a matter of "suppy vs. demand". Women don't actually value men much. They prefer the sort about whom they can complain to their friends and thus elicit sympathy for themselves.

For a woman a man is only an accessory item.


Mark A. Baker
 

FoTi

Crusader
Yes, this is true. :yes:

Mostly because there is very little "market" for them. It's a matter of "suppy vs. demand". Women don't actually value men much. They prefer the sort about whom they can complain to their friends and thus elicit sympathy for themselves.

For a woman a man is only an accessory item.


Mark A. Baker


^^^^^^^^^^^^^BS^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Boy are you cynical!
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is very true, Leon. Many of those most embittered and unwilling to acknowledge the positives as well as the negatives about Hubbard evidently do so out of a need to lessen their own responsibility for what they, as adults, put themselves and their families through and accordingly have endured.

An unwillingness to acknowledge and address ALL aspects of Hubbard marks such individuals out as not credible in their testimony. They are unreliable witnesses being caught up still by a primary need to deny their own level of responsibility for what has occurred. It is much more convenient to label Hubbard as an evil satanist crowleyite and abjure any responsibility for their own actions.


Mark A. Baker

Yes, this is true. :yes:

Mostly because there is very little "market" for them. It's a matter of "suppy vs. demand". Women don't actually value men much. They prefer the sort about whom they can complain to their friends and thus elicit sympathy for themselves.

For a woman a man is only an accessory item.


Mark A. Baker

Neither of the above bolded statements are inherently or universally true.


The other side of the coin would be that some or many men view women as but an accessory... And of those who find merit in the task of weeding out all of Hubbard's bullshit (both personal and tech wise) to arrive at their interpretation of Hubbard's *positive* accomplishments can also be understood as an exercise for some in justifying their involvement in a subject matter (which claims many universal benefits, the likes of which is highly subjective), yet is shrouded in complication, psychological mind control, criminality, abuse and silly-ness.

While it may be that there is some usefulness is parts of the tech and some positive accomplishments made by Hubbard... there is also some usefulness in focusing on Hubbard's wrongs and outright evils.

So long as a person gets themselves adequately freed up from the morass so that they can move on to being happily productive in whatever direction they choose to pursue... what one ultimately thinks about Hubbard or difficult opposite sex equations is largely irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top