What's new

Candy Swanson about Hubbard.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The original course pack had 1981/82 bulletins written by David Mayo as well as various HCOB's from the 50's, 60's and 70's. The specific HRD bulletins from the 80's all carried David Mayo's name as C/S Int. "for L Ron Hubbard", they carried the DM initials in the refernce at the end of the bulletins.

I believe I saw documentation somewhere that shows his name and initials were now taken off the bulletins.

Of course, now with regular "sec checks" any benefit of the HRD has been removed. In my day on the HRD one was free to originate about any unethical "scientologists". It was common for PC's to come up with senior execs as violators of the precepts and those more "in the know" often came up with MSH and LRH as violators of the booklet and as valences that the PC had been being.

The rundown split the PC from these unethical valences and let them be free to behave decently. This was unpopular with execs as they lost their power of control over the PC. LRH and his drones in LRH's valence down the Org Board relied on fear and intimidation to enforce the Hubbard valence and the juniors and PC's tended to become LRH.

The rundown separated the PC from this unethical valence. It was a very popular rundown with PCs and staff! :roflmao:

Within a year and a half of the release of the rundown, most HRD auditors and C/Ses and many HRD completions were declared "suppressive" because they could no longer be controlled by the unethical valence. ...


It was something of a joke at the time that a genuine completion e/p on the HRD meant resignation, either voluntary or involuntary, from the Co$. It was my last action done as a member of the Co$. It was great. :)


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
To place this in perspective, I knew people who did Mayo's 'Happiness Rundown' - before Hubbard came back on lines with a vengeance in 82 - and who manged to remain smooth ball bearings in the Scientology machine. They recognized that 'TWTH' was subordinate to Scientology "Ethics," and acted accordingly.

Myself, I never had much use for 'TWTH' booket or the RD, as I was interested in Scientology as a means of un-doing aberrations, and releasing basic goodness. How I behaved, whether I brushed my teeth, etc., was my business.

But then again, I "separated from the main body of Scientology" before 'TWTH' appeared in 1980 or the RD in '81. I had largely freed myself from the Hubbard Cult before Mayo's HRD appeared and had its brief time in the Scientology scheme of things - before Hubbard squelched Mayo's version.

I hope this thread isn't going to become about 'TWTH'. :)

I'm content to wait for Candy's responses to its posts about her videos.
 
To place this in perspective, I knew people who did Mayo's 'Happiness Rundown' - before Hubbard came back on lines with a vengeance in 82 - and who manged to remain smooth ball bearings in the Scientology machine. They recognized that 'TWTH' was subordinate to Scientology "Ethics," and acted accordingly.

Myself, I never had much use for 'TWTH' booket or the RD, as I was interested in Scientology as a means of un-doing aberrations, and releasing basic goodness. How I behaved, whether I brushed my teeth, etc., was my business.

But then again, I "separated from the main body of Scientology" before 'TWTH' appeared in 1980 or the RD in '81. I had largely freed myself from the Hubbard Cult before Mayo's HRD appeared and had its brief time in the Scientology scheme of things - before Hubbard squelched Mayo's version.

I hope this thread isn't going to become about 'TWTH'. :)

...

If this truly is an accurate reflection of your own limited understanding of the full scope of the HRD and what addressing its various component factors deeply can produce, then you have my profoundest pity, V.


Mark A. Baker
 
What the ???

"A 'feeling of guilt' is nowhere near as sharp as a knife in the back or ground glass in the soup." I bet that the schoolchildren handed 'TWTH' by 'The Way to Happiness Foundation', or some other Scientology front group, have never had the image of "ground glass in the soup" in their minds before.
-snip!-
O.k. Veda, now I have to go back and re-read my copy...I don't remember knives in the back or any ground glass in the soup... it's been a while since I've read it...:confused2:

In my classroom with my students, we always write out own classroom code of ethics that we all co-create together... (nothing to do with Scientology...just creating the basic structure of civilization)
 

Veda

Sponsor
If this truly is an accurate reflection of your own limited understanding of the full scope of the HRD and what addressing its various component factors deeply can produce, then you have my profoundest pity, V.

Mark A. Baker

Your pompous condescension is noted. You are living proof that Scientology's system of "Ethics" and its devious, manipulative, and ultimately toxic "applied philosophy," sometimes trumped the good that might have come from Mayo's 'TWTH' Rundown.

Now, I hope this thread won't be derailed any further, while we wait for Candy's responses to comments about her videos.
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
If her doesn't show up soon weez gunna hafta substoot

sockpuppet.jpg
:megaphone:​
.....and bring your 'happy bubble'
:yes:
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
"A 'feeling of guilt' is nowhere near as sharp as a knife in the back or ground glass in the soup." I bet that the schoolchildren handed 'TWTH' by 'The Way to Happiness Foundation', or some other Scientology front group, have never had the image of "ground glass in the soup" in their minds before.

-snip!-
O.k. Veda, now I have to go back and re-read my copy...I don't remember knives in the back or any ground glass in the soup... it's been a while since I've read it...:confused2:

In my classroom with my students, we always write out own classroom code of ethics that we all co-create together... (nothing to do with Scientology...just creating the basic structure of civilization)

Sounds like an excellent project.

As for 'TWTH'. I do think Hubbard wrote it, but based on some other text or outline. There's certainly Hubbard weirdness in it, although it's usually overlooked.

Incidentally, when a young man, Ben Franklin wrote his 'Virtues':

http://dan.hersam.com/philosophy/franklin_virtues.html

Around the same time, Franklin wrote his own future epitaph:

Excerpt from 'The Act of Creation' by Arthur Koestler:

"At the age of twenty-two, he [Benjamin Franklin] composed a Pythagorean epitaph for himself; at the age of eighty-four, the year of his death, he ordered that it should appear, unchanged, on his tomb. It reads:

The Body
Of
Benjamin Franklin
Printer
(Like the Cover of an Old Book
Its Contents Torn Out
And stript of its Lettering and Gilding)
Lies Here, Food for Worms.
But the Work Shall Not Be Lost
For It Will (As He Believed) Appear Once More
In a New and More Elegant Edition
Revised and Corrected
By
The Author


Perhaps another thread could be started on this topic.

Looking forward to Candy's responses to comments on her videos.
 
"A 'feeling of guilt' is nowhere near as sharp as a knife in the back or ground glass in the soup." I bet that the schoolchildren handed 'TWTH' by 'The Way to Happiness Foundation', or some other Scientology front group, have never had the image of "ground glass in the soup" in their minds before.
-snip!-
O.k. Veda, now I have to go back and re-read my copy...I don't remember knives in the back or any ground glass in the soup... it's been a while since I've read it...:confused2:

In my classroom with my students, we always write out own classroom code of ethics that we all co-create together... (nothing to do with Scientology...just creating the basic structure of civilization)


I might be digressing on one small point here SAL, but the co-created classroom code of ethics always leaves a bee in my bonnet. Not that I disagree with the use of it, just the way it is sometimes represented.

In the classroom situation there is still a teacher who decides that "we are all going to co-create our own classroom code of
ethics". It probably works very well for classroom management
but I disagree that this is as free and empowering as it is sometimes purported to be. There are rules and consequences if they are broken. Getting students to buy into them is, as I say, probably a good method of classroom management. But what if they decide on a code which is outside the one the teacher knows the students will come up with? The answer to that is that they won't. There will be a lot of pre-supposition that comes with the "project" that will ensure they will come up with codes that are acceptable to the hegemony they are in.

To put this in a very stark way, their cultural "brainwashing" is being used very artfully to get compliance by the teacher. Excellent classrooom management, yes, but manipulation nonetheless, as is a lot of good classroom management. My only 'bug" with it is that it is often touted as "empowering" students. It only "empowers" them to "empower" the teacher to bring them into line more smoothly when they cross the line.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
I love teaching!

Did I do a de-rail? Sorry! :blush: Veda, Candy and Lakey are off galavanting around the upper state having fun visiting and doing their counseling thing...she might not be back on this thread for awhile...if she ever feels the need to respond to any of the criticism of her. I'm not holding my breath. Remember, she didn't post these vids here for people to comment on. She doesn't owe any of us an explanation for anything she remembers, said about it, feels, does, etc. Reality check! :) So we may as well keep talking...before Hatty breaks out her sock puppet! :p

I might be digressing on one small point here SAL, but the co-created classroom code of ethics always leaves a bee in my bonnet. Not that I disagree with the use of it, just the way it is sometimes represented.

In the classroom situation there is still a teacher who decides that "we are all going to co-create our own classroom code of
ethics". It probably works very well for classroom management
but I disagree that this is as free and empowering as it is sometimes purported to be. There are rules and consequences if they are broken. Getting students to buy into them is, as I say, probably a good method of classroom management. But what if they decide on a code which is outside the one the teacher knows the students will come up with? The answer to that is that they won't. There will be a lot of pre-supposition that comes with the "project" that will ensure they will come up with codes that are acceptable to the hegemony they are in.

To put this in a very stark way, their cultural "brainwashing" is being used very artfully to get compliance by the teacher. Excellent classrooom management, yes, but manipulation nonetheless, as is a lot of good classroom management. My only 'bug" with it is that it is often touted as "empowering" students. It only "empowers" them to "empower" the teacher to bring them into line more smoothly when they cross the line.

Hey Dee Bee! :) I largely agree with you! But then, one of my college textbooks was "Teaching as a Subversive Activity". :D This is true!

However, in my case it really is a co-creation...not my just imposing my choices on them, including we come up with mutually agreed upon consequences, etc. It's o.k. if this is hard to imagine. Most classrooms are not run this way.

We always start out with the basic school rules that we all have to follow, legally, etc. as a basis ("because I want to keep my job" :D I tell them) and build on that...it takes a long time, usually daily discussions and votes over two weeks or longer.

One good thing about doing this the first of the school year is you get to see the kids in action early on, learn who the natural leaders are, etc. All decisions are made after long discussions...based on their past experiences of what "worked" and what "didn't work" in other classes where they have been in the past.

We aim for consensus (which is mostly impossible), but go with majority rules. We make exceptions for extraordinary cases. For instance, the day one of my student's Dad, who was a cop, was shot on the job (he survived), we voted to temporarily suspend the rules about no cussing outloud, so he could go outside to the playground and pound a tether ball and cuss his head off with no repercussions, until we got the news from the hospital that his Dad was going to be o.k. That was one way he could vent his pain and frustration, without harming himself or anyone, and we all understood, even though that year was one where many of the girls were fierce about no cussing in their space! :ohmy:.

The kids are usually stunned and in awe at being given respect right off the bat, being listened to and asked to make thoughtful decisions. We revisit it throughout the year and adjust what needs to be changed.

We cover fun stuff too, a class motto, a mascot, class jobs, how we keep allocation of work fair, a "secret word" that when uttered by me gains their instant quietude and cooperation when it is REALLY important they focus on me because we have an emergency (California kids are used to earthquake and civil defense drills), how we organize the classroom seating...(I let kids initially choose who they want to be with and where they want their desks to be, within reason (No Stacking!:coolwink:) and I let them sit with their friends until any distractions become a problem for the other students, we get to agreement on all kinds of stuff like that. The kids are usually in awe that a teacher trusts them enough to try out different experiments, but it's all grist for the mill of learning. It wasn't so much about following the rules as it was about creating safe space in our classroom, where everyone could learn and be heard. Hard to do when there is chaos or anarchy or bullying!

About this: "To put this in a very stark way, their cultural "brainwashing" is being used very artfully to get compliance by the teacher. Excellent classrooom management, yes, but manipulation nonetheless, as is a lot of good classroom management." Honey, much of education is all about socialization, but it doesn't have to be a gulag! :happydance:

For much of my career I've worked with groups of kids and young people who are outside the "norm" (not that there is such a thing) in one way or another...English as a second language...multilingual/multicultural...gifted and talented...mainstreamed special needs, etc. I think I was chosen for these so-called "difficult" :duh: assignments because I have a flexible mind that can go anywhere and am highly creative. I have always questioned authority myself. :D

It's a really good thing to create a sort of energetic tribal mentality within and about the group, instilled with a lot of fun and pride, a spirit of play. The best learning takes place when everyone is relaxed with each other but energized by working together. Teaching is an art, not a science. At it's best, it involves a lot of mutual trust, which must be both learned and earned. A classroom is nothing more than a lot of intersecting relationships.

Maybe I should add I've taught all ages of students, from pre-school to University level, and I've been able to start off the school year on a good foot using some age appropriate variation of this general approach with great success. I've been teaching since the 70's. :thumbsup:

P.S. I LOVE Ben Franklin's epitaph!
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . <snip> . . . As I've noted before, I fully support the idea of being nice to newbies and newly outs, however, when someone has been out of the "Church" for decades, and on the Internet for years, and then expresses opinions that dismiss the abuses of Scientology's founder and his wife, is it ever alright to, maybe, ever so slightly disagree?

Is it ever alright to question?

Is even the slightest disagreement or questioning of someone, who's been out of Scientology for decades and on the Net for years, to be considered "bashing"?

I think that, if you were to consult others, you'd find that spirited give and take, discussions, and - gasp - even disagreements, can be therapeutic and helpful. And that's mostly what occurs on ESMB, along with warm welcomes and friendly words - not "bashing," and not "hate," and not "bigotry," or any other Scientology thought-limiting buzz words.

As a FZ PR person, I think you're playing a manipulative game: complain about "bashing" so as to inhibit people from communicating.

You want to spread your PR and no one should question it.

And if someone does... Oh my. :melodramatic:

Its frightening how frightened some Scientologists are when it comes to disagreement. Out here in wog world, disagreement is encouraged for it is in the fusion of argument where new truths are realised. For us wogs, agreement has little to do with exploring reality, and even less to do with affinity. Almost inevitably, on-line disagreement with a Scientologist dwindles down into ad homs, thought-stopping accusations of hateful bashing, and, in my case, relegation to the world of Ignore. Why is that so often the outcome?

I believe the wonderful Just Bill has provided some real insight into this question. His March 4 post addresses the question: Why is it so hard to give up Scientology? He posits four reasons among which is, I believe, a large part of the answer to my own question:
Having all the answers. In my mind, this is one of the biggest reasons some Scientologists stick with Scientology despite everything. Those inside of Scientology have all the answers. In their minds, this statement isn't hyperbole, it is the bare truth. According to Scientology they literally have the answers to everything: illness, insanity, war, crime, illiteracy, drug addiction, intelligence, failure, success, life, death, ... any situation, any condition and every problem has been "solved" by L. Ron Hubbard. There are no more mysteries, there are no more problems that can't be fixed. It is a feeling of tremendous power, certainty and superiority. Naturally, Scientologists cannot and must not check these "solutions" to see if they really do what Hubbard claimed, for, of course, they don't.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
"A 'feeling of guilt' is nowhere near as sharp as a knife in the back or ground glass in the soup." I bet that the schoolchildren handed 'TWTH' by 'The Way to Happiness Foundation', or some other Scientology front group, have never had the image of "ground glass in the soup" in their minds before.


I might be digressing on one small point here SAL, but the co-created classroom code of ethics always leaves a bee in my bonnet. Not that I disagree with the use of it, just the way it is sometimes represented.

In the classroom situation there is still a teacher who decides that "we are all going to co-create our own classroom code of
ethics". It probably works very well for classroom management
but I disagree that this is as free and empowering as it is sometimes purported to be. There are rules and consequences if they are broken. Getting students to buy into them is, as I say, probably a good method of classroom management. But what if they decide on a code which is outside the one the teacher knows the students will come up with? The answer to that is that they won't. There will be a lot of pre-supposition that comes with the "project" that will ensure they will come up with codes that are acceptable to the hegemony they are in.

To put this in a very stark way, their cultural "brainwashing" is being used very artfully to get compliance by the teacher. Excellent classrooom management, yes, but manipulation nonetheless, as is a lot of good classroom management. My only 'bug" with it is that it is often touted as "empowering" students. It only "empowers" them to "empower" the teacher to bring them into line more smoothly when they cross the line.


Such a code has great value only for as log as it does not need to be enforced. Once that happens everybody loses.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Caroline Letkeman takes an interesting viwpoint of the HRD
Refund and Reparation - The Happiness Rundown
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1719&Itemid=240

Interesting link. Thanks.

Combined with other posts on this topic it makes for a very complete picture of 'TWTH' and its Rundown.

However, there does seem to be a difference between the initial David Mayo RD and the RD after Hubbard fired Mayo and "put tech back in," much as he did with Mayo's 'Harmonics of Clear' HCOB which threatened Hubbard's cash cow of "Dianetic Clear": "You're Clear! Get out of those mutinous Missions and up lines to the AO or Flag for your OT levels now!!!"
 

Veda

Sponsor
Did I do a de-rail? Sorry! :blush: Veda, Candy and Lakey are off galavanting around the upper state having fun visiting and doing their counseling thing...she might not be back on this thread for awhile...if she ever feels the need to respond to any of the criticism of her. I'm not holding my breath. Remember, she didn't post these vids here for people to comment on. She doesn't owe any of us an explanation for anything she remembers, said about it, feels, does, etc. Reality check! :) So we may as well keep talking...before Hatty breaks out her sock puppet! :p

-snip to save space-

P.S. I LOVE Ben Franklin's epitaph!

No problem. :)

And yes, ol' Ben Franklin was one hip dude.

P.S. Here's a link to a thread by Alan W. featuring quotes on 'Reincarnation': http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1273&highlight=franklin
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Originally posted by SeetnessandLight

Did I do a de-rail? Sorry! Veda, Candy and Lakey are off galavanting around the upper state having fun visiting and doing their counseling thing...she might not be back on this thread for awhile...if she ever feels the need to respond to any of the criticism of her. I'm not holding my breath. Remember, she didn't post these vids here for people to comment on. She doesn't owe any of us an explanation for anything she remembers, said about it, feels, does, etc. Reality check! So we may as well keep talking...before Hatty breaks out her sock puppet!


OK. Where shall I begin....

Sock_Puppet_3_small.JPG
 
Last edited:
SAL, yeah, can't argue against it. I'm just a compulsive questioner.

BTW, Candy said (in a post) she is coming back here after her flight from somewhere to somewhere..
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
Dear Veda,

I don't believe I derailed this thread.

The entry point, in my experience, to a discussion with a Scientologist, is to use the scientology scriptures to get them to look at and re-consider ideas that they have accepted and no longer inspect.

Candy's videos showed classic cognitive disonance.

  • Hubbard was wonderful - I tried to hide from him by pinning myself against the wall.
  • Mary Sue was wonderful - she wrote to the IRS to try to get Alan busted

And she gave the classic scientologist blather about using the correct amount of force to be OT.

I questioned her, hoping she would reply, discuss and consider whether LRH was a virtuous man as per the scientology scriptures. I asked her how she would have felt, given the impact that he had upon her, if he had pounded the bannister at her. The Scientology virtues are directly related to this point.

I believe all of my posts about the HRD referred back to Candy's videos to keep the discussion on-topic.

If someone asked me a question about the HRD, I replied, as it is only good manners to do so, while also referring back to the videos and what Candy said.

I'd love to discuss the virtues with Candy as they relate to LRH.

My other intention by quoting the virtues in full, was to point out to those who admire Hubbard, just how lacking in virtue he was. That is my point of view and I felt moved to post it to counter Candy's point of view.

One only need to compare Hubbard's behaviour with his own scriptures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top