Adults in small bodies

GreyWolf

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard's 'Adults in small bodies' is soled based on greed. It is detrimental to your eternal spirituality to stand between a Hubbard's Cult and dollar. Every effort is made to discourage spending money on anything than promoting Hubbard and his cult. It costs a lot of money to raise children properly so Hubbard had to come up with a way to have Scientologists abandon the raising their children and devote their lives to advancing Hubbard's personal ambitions without feeling remorse for being such idiots, convincing them that they are really not children but adults in small bodies was the best he could come up with.

Great Post! And especially for the SO. They could not bring up their children and spend 20 hours a day on post! Hubbard Forbid!
 

GreyWolf

Gold Meritorious Patron
A whole lot more child molestation than most people in that group would ever believe.

And payouts of over a half a million in cash to children who have been molested to keep their mouth shut.

But, some believe it has has never happened....they only listen to the "theta" news.

Has it gotten to where telling the truth is pointless?

Of course, some people still believe the Holocaust never happened either.
 

anonomog

Gold Meritorious Patron
Really interesting comments on this thread.

Sci hasn't got the monopoly on child abuse.
But as Mick Wenlock said it has
created the very environment that would assure that our children would be exposed to the possibility of abuse

Mimsey wrote:
There is an aspect of the thetans in small bodies that is positive, and that is that it makes you grant them the same beingness you would an adult. You can't treat them with the "children are to be seen and not heard" attitude. Granted, you need to communicate with them on their own reality, on subjects that are real to them, but they are no longer some sort of ungrown thing to be ignored, yelled at etc.

I also don't have a problem with them contributing, and even urge them to do so. You have to realize their attention will wander and let them go off instead of making it an enforcement.

Thanks for pointing out the positive.
Good people would read it as a positive child rearing policy and find it unthinkable that Hubbard meant anything otherwise. Hubbard was not a good person. This is a man who placed children in chainlockers and then set out to ruin a man who protested it.

Parents could choose to acknowledge their children's humanity without ever having heard of Hubbard and without expecting them to be adult in return for the favour of treating them with care and respect. To use a sci term, granting them beingness, but beingness as the children they are.

Because the Hubbard-monkey sitting at his typewriter managed to tap out a few words that echoed many parents' own beliefs about child rearing, shouldn't detract from saying "a child is an adult in a small body" when taken to it's ultimate conclusion, strips the child of it's right as a child and removes the little protection the child has.

Looking at the history of Hubbard with children, I find it hard to believe that he didn't mean to take it to the final conclusion.

Perhaps Captain Koolaid could have asked if Hubbard made the statement to justify his own behaviour. Although I doubt he would have cared, he just wanted to create the SO in his own image and gave them the justification to do so.
 

Captain Koolaid

Patron Meritorious
The term mankind's greatest friends is incredibly cynical, IMO, because I don't think Hubbard saw others as people but as objects to be manipulated into doing his bidding - or to be destroyed should they stand in his way towards fame, money and power.

So it seems that he came up with the definition of children being adults in small bodies to destroy family bonds (like "thetans looking for companionship"), and it couldn't hurt to have children to contribute. However, it is definitely a possiility that he used this to excuse his own shortcomings, given the way he fucked up at child rearing. Either way, his inhuman concepts have scarred way too many people.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I am donning my flame suit even as I speaketh, but oh well. I have NEVER had a problem with the intrinsic statement that children are adults or "big thetans" in small bodies. Spirits do not grow up. Spirits are not mature or immature.

However, this having been said, CofS, and more specifically, the Cadet's Org (among others) have used that as an excuse to neglect children and that I do not countenance or condone. And just because a spirit is a spirit does not mean that the needs of a child are NOT different from those of an adolescent, an adult, etc.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
I am donning my flame suit even as I speaketh, but oh well. I have NEVER had a problem with the intrinsic statement that children are adults or "big thetans" in small bodies. Spirits do not grow up. Spirits are not mature or immature.

However, this having been said, CofS, and more specifically, the Cadet's Org (among others) have used that as an excuse to neglect children and that I do not countenance or condone. And just because a spirit is a spirit does not mean that the needs of a child are NOT different from those of an adolescent, an adult, etc.

Perhaps you'd be willing to expand - and somewhat clarify - what of yours I bolded ?

Not to say it the wrong way but I think it can be read in a way you didn't mean at all.
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
I was doing a bit of reading in the xenu archives and came across this gem~
Though in this bit of blather from the demented, racist windbag, was essentially addressing Hubbard's support for Apartheid in SA, I found the part in regard to children (bolded blue) yet another telling indication of his twisted attitude to the small and vulnerable ones.


"In North Africa they had the Arab with the gun and whip, but he could force people to do things a gun and a whip [sic] and he accomplished a tremendous amount of extermination, but he certainly didn't advance that civilization very much. In South Africa they had a bit of the whip but everybody just gave up. The South African native is probably the one impossible person to train in the entire world - he is probably impossible by any human standard. I'll give you an example. A South African native is being shown how to sow crops and he has a basket, and he's got some seed, and he's walking along back of the harrow disc--and he is supposed to throw seed out this way, seed out this way, seed out that way, seed out this way. A white man is riding a little tractor that's pulling the disc and scraping the soil for the seed. And this scene was enacted and was witnessed and was told to me with considerable hilarity as some kind of learning rate. The white man was sitting on the little tractor pulling the harrow, the native along behind him, sowing the ssed straight down in handfuls on the ground. The white man got off the tractor, came back to the native, took the basket away from him, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the right, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the left, and gave it back to the native. And the native waited, the white man got on the tractor, drove along, and the native took a handful out of the basket and threw it straight on the ground. So the white man got off the tractor, came back, took the basket away from the native, showed the native, throw it to the right, throw it to the left, gave it back to the native, took him [sic] seat again on the tractor, the native followed along behind, took handsful and threw it straight on the ground! And this went on for a very long time. The native never did throw any handsful of seed to the right and left. Never did. That is farming in South Africa.
Now did anything ever come along and change that? Yes. Man had to cease to be Homo Sapiens and had to become Homo Scientologicus in order to accomplish any action that was anywhere near efficient in South Africa. And we have had some auditors in South Africa who have actually succeeded in training natives easily and well and have successfully managed large organizations there. That's certainly something. Now with these people it was still possible to get something done. But what had this native done? Was this native what we think of as primitive stock? No, we make a great many mistakes. We say a child is in a "native state". A native is in a "native state". People are in a barbaric condition and then they grow up and become civilized. How do we know that this barbaric condition isn't a retrogression from a highly civilized condition back to an Only One category? How do we know that isn't true? How do we know that that native didn't at one time achieve a great civilization of culture which then collapsed on him and he went back into a state of being a barbarian?

But the point is, is this true that a native is in a clearer state, and is it true that it requires Livingness to advance somebody in that crude state up to a condition of ability? No, that is not true. The child, the primitive, the native, are in retrograded states. They are worse off than somebody who is at a civilized or thinking or analytical level."

[Hubbard goes on to explain how children and psychotics are identical because they share identical "delusions", although children grow out of them while psychotics remain locked in them. Hubbard appears to be attempting to make the point that psychotics, "natives", and children should all be treated in a similar manner. He concludes thus:] (comment by C.Owen)

"But all I am telling you is that children, South African natives, and now the entirety of this world in which we are living, presents to us an auditing problem. We are rich in being able to understand what is happening in our environment and we are rich also in knowing exactly how to handle such a circumstance or condition. Nobody knew before. That is factually true here on Earth."

[LRH, Professional Auditor's Bulletin No. 119, 1st September 1957]

This quote was found in Cris Owen's excellent critical study 'Scientology's fight for apartheid'
'The secret history of racism in Scientology' , the full article can be read here> http://www.xenu.net/archive/oca/apartheid.html
Interesting to note this comment that follows the above~
C.Owen said:
This is still disseminated by the Church of Scientology in The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, a comprehensive collection of Hubbard's pronouncements since the 1950s. It is compulsory reading for Scientologists and remains part of the so-called "tech".

Even though I do (for the most) understand the mental corruption/entrapment perpetrated by the cult, I remain amazed that anyone with any sort of sense could read these bulletins and still tout the 'Tech', whether 'in' or Indy or apologist of indeterminate standing.

Hey LRon ya fat, dead, retarded, lunatic, how's that 'next level' comin' along?
 
Last edited:

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Adults in small bodies CAUSE CANCER!

Wow, I wonder if this is why LRon used smashing babies into eachother as a clearing exercise (or what-ever the sick quack was doing, I am forgetting atm, 'baby processing' to cure cancer ex.).

"Cancer is not caused - never has been and never will be ...
It always requires a second-dynamic or sexual upset, such as the loss of children or some other mechanism to bring about a condition known as cancer. This is cancer at the outset. I have examined too many cases not to have recognized this, because it is present in every single case that had cancer that I've ever examined - real wild curve on the second dynamic. And where we have helped a case with cancer we have processed such things as wasting babies and accepting babies, and mocking up babies and throwing them away, and doing suchlike and so on, and we have had a considerable change in the condition of the case. However, a person can get so far gone that he can hardly be processed or not processed at all, and when this is the case, why, the cancer gets him."

[L. Ron Hubbard, The Scale of Havingness, lecture of 29 Nov 1959]

Hmmmmm, one might get the impression ol' Hubbard just plain didn't like kids of any sort...:grouch:

:scnsucks:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I'd say that a lot of Hubbard's posts smack of a kind of colonial attitude. This is not unusual in a man of his generation and background.

I once read a book about a guy who went to Africa say about 15 years ago. He was very frustrated at the way things are done there. The guy who expressed this frustration was African American...just sayin'.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
It is precisely this Hubbardism... Adults in small bodies, that make the following OK in Scientology.

Take this case for example: NY Post, Sexual assault Nightmare

This is what "Adults in small bodys" makes possible in Scientology...

Or here is another that happened to me:

It was 1998 or 97, we were picketing Flag, the scientologists were picketing Bernie McCabe's office at the CW Police Department. When we would picket they would swarm out, sourrounding us, trying to hide our signs. Jeff Jacobsen was there, maybe a dozen other people, picketing in front of Ft Harrisson.

A guy I knew when i was in the Sea Org came out with them, Richard Tinklenberg.. his nickname was Tinkles... Petty Officer 3rd class I think. He walked beside me, talking AT me... asking me what would it take for me to just go away, as if prompting me to say a dollar number.

nota bene: This was after the end of RTC vs lerma, where i was sued for posting the 1978 version of the OT levels to the net, in full.. 60+ pages, all the xenu rubbish. The stuff that Robin Scott et al had gotten from the AO in Denmark. by walking in in full Sea org Uniforms.. Now those guys had balls. anyway, RTC had sued me, and during the suit had offered cash 3 times, the third time being a global settlement of two other cases, and they were up to 9-12 million. We said no.

Anyway, Richard Tinklenberg is walking next to me... there is a 14 or 15 year old blonde girl walking directly ahead of me. The sidewalk was crowded.. or seemed that way, and she would stop abruptly, so i had to keep an eye on her to make sure I did not run into her.. Richard saw me looking at the attractive posterior of the girl and whispered to me:

"Is that what it would take? (nodding towards the 15 year old)
"That can be arranged"...He said. i was dumbstruck..speechless..


The above is what "Adults in small bodies" makes possible...

I was told by an ex OSA guy, that that girl's parents were both OT8's and that she had been used to get the cooperation of politicians in the CW Area who had been less than cooperative with the Scam of $cientology..

The Hubbardism "Adults in small bodies" combined with Hubbard's "THE SUPREME TEST OF THETAN IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THINGS GO RIGHT" (Full Caps in Red in the Original HCOB) makes possible in Scientology, ...and I expect her to post here on ESMB one day too...

-----------------

How'd you like that one Bill Yaude?
 
Last edited:

Captain Koolaid

Patron Meritorious
This is hard to believe. It takes a lot to make parents forget the love and responsibility for their children. It seem there's nothing the tech cannot handle. :ohmy:

"Is that what it would take? (nodding towards the 15 year old)
"That can be arranged"...He said. i was dumbstruck..speechless..

The above is what "Adults in small bodies" makes possible...
 
Last edited:

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Indoctrination and brainwashing are powerful tools.

I saw a true crime tv thing about a cult in Canada. No relation to Scn. But a great example of parents allowing all sorts of hideous things.

This guy started a cult and it really seemed mainly about sex and power. Plus he was obviously a nut. It went from lots of women and kids to him beating people up and chopping off limbs. :omg:

Anyway, he started to mistreat the kids. "Mistreat" is probably the understatement of the year for what he did. He took one really small child and left her out all night in the harsh winter weather in a wheelbarrow as a punishment. She later died. The Mom allowed it and the other women, many of whom were mothers, too, allowed it.

Other things happened.

The producers of the show praised this woman who came forward and blew the whistle but, honestly, she did not do so until he physically harmed her. She watched him kill and abuse other women AND children and didn't do anything.
 

Captain Koolaid

Patron Meritorious
Indoctrination and brainwashing are powerful tools.

I saw a true crime tv thing about a cult in Canada. No relation to Scn. But a great example of parents allowing all sorts of hideous things.

This guy started a cult and it really seemed mainly about sex and power. Plus he was obviously a nut. It went from lots of women and kids to him beating people up and chopping off limbs. :omg:

Anyway, he started to mistreat the kids. "Mistreat" is probably the understatement of the year for what he did. He took one really small child and left her out all night in the harsh winter weather in a wheelbarrow as a punishment. She later died. The Mom allowed it and the other women, many of whom were mothers, too, allowed it.

Other things happened.

The producers of the show praised this woman who came forward and blew the whistle but, honestly, she did not do so until he physically harmed her. She watched him kill and abuse other women AND children and didn't do anything.

Terrible. But I didn't want to imply that this only happens in Scientology.
 
Top