HUBBARD ADMITS DIANETICS BOOK IS A FRAUD.

[owl]

i remember when someone who had been clear for years, and was going onto their OT levels, called me with a really bad cold lol. i didnt say anything but i thought it was interesting. ~clears dont get colds~

 

[knn]

HUBBARD ALREADY ADMITTED AND APOLOGIZED TO SCIENTOLOGISTS (ON FILM) THAT DIANETICS BOOK ONE DID NOT PRODUCE A CLEAR.

Hubbard also said that one of his biggest mistakes was to call it "Science".

MOREOVER: There is another thing that is wrong about the book.

As you know they claim (until this very day) that the definition of Clear ("A being who has no longer his own reactive mind") was always correct and stated in Book 1.

However I have not found that definition in Book 1, as I described at
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=220911#post220911

 

[Tiger Lily]

Originally Posted by Björkist
I think Hubbard even jokes about writing another book which implies/states, "You are a victim!" which, Hubbard says, would go to the top of bestseller lists...

Originally Posted by Tiger Lily
I remember him saying that too -- can't remember where though. . . but I remember how clever he thought he was, having that kind of control over people.

A. Shopped a bookstore's "inspirational/self-help" section lately?

B. Why are you so certain your own conclusion "how clever he thought he was, having that kind of control over people" represents his attitude & intention at that time rather than your own justification of what you know now?

C. Hubbard was complex & mutable. VERY VERY mutable.


Mark A. Baker

Mark, actually I'm not certain of much anymore; I've learned the hard way that my conclusions and certainties can be really, really wrong. I probably didn't phrase that right.

At the time I heard that, I was very much "in" and a true believer, and dared not have a negative thought about LRH, so my conclusion about him thinking himself "clever" was put back on it from a present time perspective, so I suppose it could be a justification. . . . heck I'm still working through all this.

BUT, having said that; there's a reason that statement stuck with me. I remember listening to it and having to stop the tape and listen to it again. I remember laughing at first and feeling good because I was in on the secret that wogs liked to be victims and that I was so superior to that because I was overcoming my lowly beingness and all that. But I remember feeling uncomfortable about it because it seemed manipulative; and I also remember "justifying" it for him at the time by thinking that you-gotta-do-what-you-gotta-do to get those stupid wogs on the bridge. If you gotta manipulate, it's the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. And I let it go there, but I remember very well that I ridged on that. (That was one of the biggest things I've had to overcome; the fact that I was capable of agreeing with and supporting Ron's ends-justify-means thinking).

So at the time I was cognizant that LRH had been intentionally manipulating people, and also that he was laughing and joking about doing such a thing, and his ability to do it again if he chose. So I guess I don't know what other conclusion you could come to, when analyzing it.

Of course you can't honestly know LRH's intentions, but you can read between the lines. You just have to look at his actions and his words, and even his attitudes. At one time the man could do no wrong in my eyes. But now that I'm free to be objective, I'm seeing things that I couldn't see then.

So I'll re-state it as an opinion,and in the correct time frames:

"My viewpoint now upon remembering that lecture, is that LRH thought himself to be very clever regarding his ability to manipulate others by feeding into their aberrations."
. . . .is that any better?

Yes, LRH was complex.

Not sure what you meant about shopping in the self-help section, but nope, I haven't done THAT in a long time. DMSMH cured me of that obsession. I read philosophy now (or sometimes books on decorating or something, if I'm feeling "woggy").

TL

 

[Veda]

-snip-

BUT, having said that; there's a reason that statement stuck with me. I remember listening to it and having to stop the tape and listen to it again. I remember laughing at first and feeling good because I was in on the secret that wogs liked to be victims and that I was so superior to that because I was overcoming my lowly beingness and all that. But I remember feeling uncomfortable about it because it seemed manipulative; and I also remember "justifying" it for him at the time by thinking that you-gotta-do-what-you-gotta-do to get those stupid wogs on the bridge. If you gotta manipulate, it's the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. And I let it go there, but I remember very well that I ridged on that. (That was one of the biggest things I've had to overcome; the fact that I was capable of agreeing with and supporting Ron's ends-justify-means thinking).

So at the time I was cognizant that LRH had been intentionally manipulating people, and also that he was laughing and joking about doing such a thing, and his ability to do it again if he chose. So I guess I don't know what other conclusion you could come to, when analyzing it.

-snip-

IMO, your conclusion is correct. Scientology is an amoral, dishonest and manipulative subject, one wrapped in a mental-healing veneer - a veneer that has, IMO, some redeeming characteristics, which is all the more confusing and misleading to someone attempting to sort out this enlightenment-coated mind-trap.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

She's been a prominent ex & critic of the church for many years now. Does that answer your (silly) question?

Mark A. Baker

Geez, I wasn't doubting her intelligence or status or trying to ask a silly question. I simply did not understand and was curious. I was interested, that's all....sorry if you took offense, none intended, I assure you. I do rather prodigious amounts of research as professional writer and entrepreneur across a variety of businesses that I own. Asking questions is how I learn, maybe I didn't ask it properly or you got the wrong idea. Hope that fixes it, Mark; otherwise, I'll go to my room now and be quiet (lol)!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Sheesh! This is news?

Have you ever even read the basics?


Mark A. Baker

Sure I have. I also did the Briefing Course, personally trained hundreds of auditors, audited quite a lot and C/Sed a few hundred people up the grades. Made it up to OT VII and did a few tours of duty on staff too. I think I get the general idea...lol

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I've said many times that he should have revised DMSMH. He didn't- and yes, he should, but one thing he did do was revise Dianetics itself. He just did that separately, along with revising other auditing actions and adding new ones to the "Bridge" many times.

I'm sure he believed in what he was doing but as he created and revised processes, found that the recipients (aka "PCs"- plural of "pc") never reached the state envisioned and planned for. However, he noticed that changes and effects were taking place so he kept going with it. I'm pleased he did but I have said on many many occasions that Scn Clears and OTs aren't consistently able to evince any abilities/states of being. I've seen effects and that's great. For myself, I place Scn - among (many) other things- under the half a loaf is better than none category.

Thanks so much for such an excellent response and clarification! All The Best!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Hubbard also said that one of his biggest mistakes was to call it "Science".

MOREOVER: There is another thing that is wrong about the book.

As you know they claim (until this very day) that the definition of Clear ("A being who has no longer his own reactive mind") was always correct and stated in Book 1.

However I have not found that definition in Book 1, as I described at
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=220911#post220911[/QUOTE

]



Excellent post!

As far as those pesky definitions of Clear that are inconsistent...the Ministry of Truth wants you to report to them immediately with your copy of DMSMH so they can....uhhh... help you get your mind right.(hahaha)

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Of course you can't honestly know LRH's intentions, but you can read between the lines. You just have to look at his actions and his words, and even his attitudes. At one time the man could do no wrong in my eyes. But now that I'm free to be objective, I'm seeing things that I couldn't see then.

So I'll re-state it as an opinion,and in the correct time frames:

"My viewpoint now upon remembering that lecture, is that LRH thought himself to be very clever regarding his ability to manipulate others by feeding into their aberrations."
. . . .is that any better?

Yes, LRH was complex.

Well it certainly strikes me as a more genuine & honest statement.

It's nothing personal with you of course. So many claim to know what LRH's real motivation was, especially here on ESMB. Personally I find it to be a bit idiotic.

He was a complex figure. Good at entertaining an audience. Quick to justify his own "pet theory". Quicker at justifying himself. Very concerned about his public image. And all the while constantly changing his mood, ideas, beliefs, statements, and opinions. Volatile as nitroglycerin.

It wouldn't surprise me if half the time he didn't know what his motivations were.

Not sure what you meant about shopping in the self-help section, but nope, I haven't done THAT in a long time. DMSMH cured me of that obsession. I read philosophy now (or sometimes books on decorating or something, if I'm feeling "woggy").

TL

Simply put it was a reference to the "victim" book and it's potential as a best seller.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

From 1938 onward, Hubbard was remarkably consistent. What can be confusing is that his methods were often covert (sneaky), a pattern that would continue into Scientology, and manifest, sadly, in the behavior of some Scientologists.

Some background info that may be of interest:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=100417&postcount=47

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Geez, I wasn't doubting her intelligence or status or trying to ask a silly question. I simply did not understand and was curious. I was interested, that's all....sorry if you took offense, none intended, I assure you.

It wasn't a question of my being offended or thinking you were "dissing" the Fluffmeister. I just considered it utterly ludicrous to ask a prominent ex & critic how she "justified" the Co$ continuing illogic, out-ethics, & deceptive practice with regard to the marketing of LRH materials known to be inconsistent or contradicted by other materials. The question might have made sense if asked of an "innie" or Co$ agent. Asked of an "outie" it's ridiculous.

On the whole, I thought it was very nice of Claire to respond.

Similarly with the post that originated this thread. News Flash! LRH says DMSMH does not clear people! The fact that the statement was made 50 years ago and was in fact characteristic of his continual alteration of views on tech practices were conveniently left out. The fact that LRH went back and forth on the point over the years depending upon changes in his mood, views, etc., was also left out.

That's the sort of "reporting" I've come to expect from Fox News or an anon ignorant of actual scientology tech. I've considerably less formal auditor's training than you, yet this flaw of Book I was well understood by me from having read most of the basic books before completing my first 2 intensives nearly 30 years ago. On a scale of "crimes that may cause Co$ principals to burn in hell" I doubt it would even rate the notice of a prosecutor much less inclusion in a charge sheet or actual punishment.

LRH diverting Co$ moneys for personal use was fraud. LRH being inconsistent in his definitions of "clear" and uncertain about the best techniques for clearing or promotion is just indicative of sloppy methodology.

It diminishes the meaning of the actual crimes committed on behalf of LRH or the Co$ and constitutes a disservice to their victims to have every activity of either LRH or agents of the Co$ puffed up out of proportion and cited as evidence of criminal conduct.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just being unduly cranky today.


Mark A. Baker

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

[QUOTE=Mark A. Baker;238234]It wasn't a question of my being offended or thinking you were "dissing" the Fluffmeister. I just considered it utterly ludicrous to ask a prominent ex & critic how she "justified" the Co$ continuing illogic, out-ethics, & deceptive practice with regard to the marketing of LRH materials known to be inconsistent or contradicted by other materials. The question might have made sense if asked of an "innie" or Co$ agent. Asked of an "outie" it's ridiculous.

On the whole, I thought it was very nice of Claire to respond.

Similarly with the post that originated this thread. News Flash! LRH says DMSMH does not clear people! The fact that the statement was made 50 years ago and was in fact characteristic of his continual alteration of views on tech practices were conveniently left out. The fact that LRH went back and forth on the point over the years depending upon changes in his mood, views, etc., was also left out.

That's the sort of "reporting" I've come to expect from Fox News or an anon ignorant of actual scientology tech. I've considerably less formal auditor's training than you, yet this flaw of Book I was well understood by me from having read most of the basic books before completing my first 2 intensives nearly 30 years ago. On a scale of "crimes that may cause Co$ principals to burn in hell" I doubt it would even rate the notice of a prosecutor much less inclusion in a charge sheet or actual punishment.

LRH diverting Co$ moneys for personal use was fraud. LRH being inconsistent in his definitions of "clear" and uncertain about the best techniques for clearing or promotion is just indicative of sloppy methodology.

It diminishes the meaning of the actual crimes committed on behalf of LRH or the Co$ and constitutes a disservice to their victims to have every activity of either LRH or agents of the Co$ puffed up out of proportion and cited as evidence of criminal conduct.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just being unduly cranky today.


Mark A. Baker [/QUOTE]



Hey Mark,

Respectfully and honestly? You missed the point.

You keep telling me that my simple question to Fluffy (which she nicely answered) was silly, ludicrous, etc. It was not.

You ask insulting questions. "have you ever even read the basics?" You must not have read my post very carefully where I described my very extensive tech training, auditing, etc. Even if you missed that part, why do you feel the need to go nasty? Can you live with the fact that I might have a question for someone else without going sideways?

You seem very concerned with people's stature and status as a critic or an ex. I am not. I regard everyone here as good folks until proven otherwise. No need to be so caustic and demeaning to others for asking a perfectly simple and logical question.

Here is what you missed. Fluffy said she "had no problem with it" (words to that effect). I wondered why she would feel that way so I asked. Only you got all snippy and agitated and felt the need to start throwing your (alleged) weight around. I never asked her to "justify" anything, you should read more carefully, I said that I was not able to justify it. (get a punching bag if you need one, okay? hahaha)

Golden Rule time, dude. Chill out. If I was sitting in front of you, I am guessing you might speak in a nicer way. Try it. Or join me for a beer anytime for laughs and conversation! hahaha

 

[Veda]

Some more info on the overt/covert subject of Scientology:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=137009&postcount=58

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=32002&postcount=11

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

Hope this helps.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Hey Mark,

Respectfully and honestly? You missed the point.

Nope. Maybe you should re-read my post.

First:

A. My reference to Fluffy was to her PROMINENCE as in notoriety. She is well known broadly for her critic views.

B. Prominence is not the same as STATUS. Status is not relevant, nor is it something that I regard as significant. That concept is all yours.

C. Here's a useful hint for future reference: not many unquestioning supporters of LRH or the Co$ post on ESMB. Certainly neither Fluffy or I would be included among their numbers if they did.

D. Your exact words were: "I can't think of any way to justify this very profound contradiction.... how does that work for you?". Notice your usage of the word "justify".

E. I further acknowledged Fluffy's willingness to answer your question despite the fact that it was silly to expect a known critic to justify the inconsistency of Co$ actions or LRH claims. Fluffy is a nice lady.



Second:

A. I acknowledged your training level in my post.

B. Given that training level I find it ludicrous that you were surprised to the degree indicated by your choice of title & character of the thread you have started.

C. The ludicrous nature of your "fraud claim" is further reinforced by the actual LRH statement you reference in your first post on the thread. Frankly it reminds me of the wonderful scene in "Casablanca" when the Police Commisioner shuts down the casino.



I did intrude into the exchange between you & Fluffy, and even alluded to the possibility that I was being unreasonable in the chosen manner of my doing so. Nonetheless, under the circumstance I do consider your question as directed to Fluffy to have been a silly one. Your fortunate she bothered to answer it. Courteously or not, I pointed out the innate silliness of the question. Your hyperbole with regard to this thread I also indicated was completely unjustified.

It's never been in my nature to let such obvious lapses in reason pass without comment. This is quite possibly a failing in my personal character. It's certainly not the trait my closest friends find most endearing about me. Nonetheless, I'm usually motivated by the nature of the questions. I'm not actually prone to getting MY knickers in a twist over such things.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. The only weight I have to throw around is about 15 extra pounds I could well stand to lose. You are welcome to them if you want them.
p.p.s.s. I'm not generally a beer drinker but I'll spot you one should we ever meet.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

It's never been in my nature to let such obvious lapses in reason pass without comment.


Okay Mark, ok, ok, ok, ok....

Yikes! I did not ask you anything, I asked someone else a question. They answered me. It was a good answer. I am happy. Not sure why you think I asked you for anything. Let's move on, shall we? (final comment by me: if you need to have the last word, go for it, you win, I lose, no problem! lol)

 

[Tiger Lily]

IMO, your conclusion is correct. Scientology is an amoral, dishonest and manipulative subject, one wrapped in a mental-healing veneer - a veneer that has, IMO, some redeeming characteristics, which is all the more confusing and misleading to someone attempting to sort out this enlightenment-coated mind-trap.

lol -- you got THAT right!

-TL

 

[Tiger Lily]

Well it certainly strikes me as a more genuine & honest statement.

It's nothing personal with you of course. So many claim to know what LRH's real motivation was, especially here on ESMB. Personally I find it to be a bit idiotic.

He was a complex figure. Good at entertaining an audience. Quick to justify his own "pet theory". Quicker at justifying himself. Very concerned about his public image. And all the while constantly changing his mood, ideas, beliefs, statements, and opinions. Volatile as nitroglycerin.

It wouldn't surprise me if half the time he didn't know what his motivations were.

I'm actually glad that you called me out on that (and no, didn't take it personally); I intentionally try not to make those kind of assumptions about people; slipped that time. And it forced me to analyze why I ridged on that in the first place. . . so it's all good!

You've obviously thought this through; if you've got insights into LRH and his character and his motivations etc. I'd love to hear your opinion on it. That's one of my purposes for being on this board; figuring out what he was up to and trying to make sense of that complexity.

Simply put it was a reference to the "victim" book and it's potential as a best seller.


Mark A. Baker

Ah -- OK. . . yes that's very true. Permeates a lot of marketing and news stories and regular conversation too. It's a good little button.

TL

 

[Voltaire's Child]

A. Not my leader. NEVER was.

I've seen this a number of times before...someone who knows quite well that he or she is talking to an ex member, who isn't any kind of party line Scn'ist, gets so hung up on the fact that the person still has an interest in Scn that they start telling the person that Elron is "your leader" or even "your master".

 

[Zinjifar]

I've seen this a number of times before...someone who knows quite well that he or she is talking to an ex member, who isn't any kind of party line Scn'ist, gets so hung up on the fact that the person still has an interest in Scn that they start telling the person that Elron is "your leader" or even "your master".

It is literally *impossible* to divorce 'Scientology' from L. Ron Hubbard.
No matter how much you'd like to...

Zinj

 

[Mark A. Baker]

You've obviously thought this through; if you've got insights into LRH and his character and his motivations etc. I'd love to hear your opinion on it. That's one of my purposes for being on this board; figuring out what he was up to and trying to make sense of that complexity.

I've no direct knowledge of the man. My "conclusions" such as they are are based on my own experiences with people generally, what I understand from Hubbard's various communications, from generally available sources, and from the conversations I've had with people who have had direct personal knowledge & experience of him.

He was clever & talented. He was in many ways "gifted" and in some ways "cursed". I'm not a medical person but I think he was quite likely bipolar (aka manic-depressive).

His actual life history, not the "sanitized" Co$ bio, is quite consistent with BPD. His "plus" points and "minus" points both are the sorts of traits commonly associated with people with the disorder. It's pretty clear he wouldn't admit to himself that he could have a diagnosis of a mental disorder if such were the case. He appears to have needed to be "perfect".

That's my "take" on LRH. It's sad really.


Mark A. Baker