Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I don't know about that. Hubbard had very little good to say about anybody from history. Very rarely does he make a positive comment about an historical figure and when he does, he often tempers it with criticism.
Trying to think of people whom he complimented, the list I come up with is short. I remember some comments about Freud whom he compliments as the "Grand Old Man" of mental therapy. It is sort of a left handed compliment because he states that Freud was the first one to think that something COULD be done about it. As to what Freud came up with as his treatment, Hubbard is less than enthusiastic about it.
I remember some positive things said about George Bernard Shaw, a tiny bit of admiration for Samuel Goldwyn, the movie mogul, great praise for the Brithish blueblood, Tony Armstrong Jones, for taking a spectacular photograph in the mid 1960's. There is a minor mention that J.S. Bach had an uncanny ability to come up with the right notes at the right places in his musical compostions. He also raves a lot about Commander Snake Thompson who he claims taught him Freudian therapy. He sometimes mentions Sir Isaac Newton in a positive light. Buddha is mentioned favorably but then LRH claims that HE was Buddha so that is just self gratification. -THOSE ARE ALL THE POSITIVE REFERENCES I CAN COME UP WITH.
Note that none of the great leaders or statesmen in history is ever mentioned in a positive manner. This includes Washington, Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Lincoln from US history or Winston Churchill of Brittain. You hear nothing mentioned of Archimedes, Euripides or any of the great people of Ancient Greece and Rome. Nothing is ever mentioned about the Hebrews, the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the great scientists or the great mathematicians, etc. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are mentioned in passing in a manner similar to Freud. LRH credits them for starting "Philosophy" but then claims that they fell far short in developing that subject and suggests that it was left to him to finish development of the subject.
Lakey
He goes out of his way to bash Franklin Roosevelt at every opportunity and ditto for Albert Einstein! I believe that he resented those two particularly because they had achieved what he sought after so desperately. Roosevelt achieiving great acclaim as a stateman and a key figure in defeating facism and Einstein receiving great acclaim as a genius from the Scientific community.
So in closing, if he chose to bash J. Edgar Hoover, that does not necessarily mean that Hoover was good or bad. Mainly, he bashed everbody
Pretty good summation, Lakey.
Hubbard makes a snide comment about Hemingway, too. If only Hubbard was as popular. You can hear the envy in Hubbard's voice. Another snide comment about "Frankie Boy" Roosevelt, if only Hubbard could wield that much power and influence. I think that was another point of envy, or perhaps he detested serving in the war. About Churchill, he compliments the Brits in general for the Battle of Britain, but no specific reference to Churchill that I recall. This I take as an oblique pat on the back to dedicated staff because if they have that level of commitment that gains his admiration. He once defined wog as Worthy Oriental Gentleman painting a word picture of an obsequious, humble, non-causative Chinaman.
Just like any good magician, Hubbard attempted to control perceptions at every opportunity. In Hubbard's case, it was him on top, others below. Or it was him in opposition to those things many people were naturally opposed to: nuclear war, war in general, ... then later squirrels, SPs (that he defined), and so on.
I enjoyed Hubbard's general observations about life and people. From those observations he developed processes, programs, rundowns, and training courses then offered them up as a solution. Sometimes that was good, sometimes not. His observations I liked, his solutions not so much. For example, everyone does not run Dianetics well. For some it just goes nowhere, and that is not because they are already Clear, or not sufficiently prepped with a C/S-1, or out-ethics, or out-Int., or out-lists, or out-ruds, and so on. Dianetics is just not their process.
The other side of the Hubbard coin is one that promotes disaffection. If you like those things that Hubbard likes, that's a hook on the positive. That one is hard to spit out. If you dislike those things Hubbard dislikes, that's a hook into the negative--also hard to spit out. Listening to Hubbard one can become disaffected with different things, people, elements of life where no disaffection existed before. This is one way Scientologists get weird. Taking Hubbard to heart about Hemingway, for example, a Scientologist might never have the pleasure of studying one of America's great writers. And so it goes... "Don't look over there," says the magician. "Look here!"
Bottom line: In studying Hubbard, beware of his seeds of disaffection. And, beware of the smoke being blown up your ass.
:wink2:
