Hubbard and Children

[Claire Swazey]

As he was "founder" of the cult of scientology, EVERYTHING that went on, and still goes on, in "the cult" -- whether it has to do with children or with adults -- is a direct result of Hubbard's orders, directives, advices, policies and "tech" approved by him and published under his name (whether or not he actually wrote it) and his rants and opinions and so-called "philosophy" that his followers adopted and live by as though it was the holy word of God.

Hubbard's ideas, pronouncements, and enforcements came first; "the cult" with all its abuses resulted directly from those ideas, not the other way around. Included in that morass of absurdity are Hubbard's ideas on the treatment of children.

Hubbard's attitude toward children, regardless of whether they were infants or toddlers or teenagers, can be summed up by his belief that they were beings who had lived innumerable lives on the past "whole track" and who were thus possessed of vast knowledge and skills and abilities and had complete power of choice about their lives and behavior.

These beliefs and this attitude toward children, as well as Hubbard's pronouncements about the family group, permeates the scientology community and affects the views of scientologists -- both staff and public -- on how children should be treated and brought up. They underlie the dearth of family time for staff, the establishment of the Cadet Org, the Children's RPF, children's sec checks, the CMO, the posting of adolescents as ethics officers and in other positions of authority over adults, the use of "ethics conditions" by public scientology parents to manage their children's behavior, and many more absurdities within scientologyworld.

Because of it, even when they were not subjected to outright and obvious abuse, countless numbers of young children (the children of public scientologists as well as those of staff members) have been expected to assume adult roles and responsibilities, punished when they were unable to carry this off to the satisfaction of their leaders (or in some cases, their parents), and have been denied the nuture, care, protection, understanding, education, and guidance that should have been theirs through their childhoods.

This didn't happen because "the cult is mean" -- it was a direct result of people buying into Hubbard's ideas about the nature of human beings and their children.

Fortunately, not all scientologists bought into this -- some scientologists who were also parents had better sense.

Fortunately, many of the children who were damaged by this madness found their way out and were able to overcome it. Bea Kiddo who has posted her story on this forum is an excellent example.

And fortunately, some of the people who bought into this madness failed to pass it on to the next generation because they had no children.

In your first few paragraphs are statements re the writings and views of Hubbard making CofS exactly what it is that I've made many times. Many.

And that's why the cult is mean.

 

[Purple Rain]

Of course they're a soul. That's the Vedic view- one of the belief systems he...erm...appropriated.

Souls don't go through maturity phases. A child's soul is a soul. Period. But people do go through maturity phases, of course. But that's got nothing to do with them being souls or having souls or not having or being souls.

It's like this: I know a lot of non Scn'ists who believe in spirits and souls. Some believe we have souls, some believe we are souls. None of them, however, believe in a little kid's soul, an adolescent soul, a little old lady soul. But then again, every single one of them believes that a child should be a child, that he is developing, he has needs that adults don't have, and that it's a wonderful thing.

I don't really think Hubbard thought kids don't have needs or were developing. Judging by Child Dianetics, he did think so. But, in the end, he didn't really care and chose to ignore those needs and development- as well as ignoring the beauty and wonder of it.
I think he did that because that's how he was. Selfish and out for himself. To an extremely exaggerated and often criminal extent.

Having read Child Dianetics and having read a number of things about souls and spirits, including things that I think Hubbard had appropriated, it is not my opinion that the thetans in small bodies idea makes one whit of difference. It'd all have come down just like it has, without that concept. And maybe that's even sadder.

Maybe, but I think those ideas from child dianetics definitely influenced how I saw my children and my attitude to them.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I sometimes wonder if some of you are responding to an imaginary construct when you claim you're responding to me.

 

[Gib]

As he was "founder" of the cult of scientology, EVERYTHING that went on, and still goes on, in "the cult" -- whether it has to do with children or with adults -- is a direct result of Hubbard's orders, directives, advices, policies and "tech" approved by him and published under his name (whether or not he actually wrote it) and his rants and opinions and so-called "philosophy" that his followers adopted and live by as though it was the holy word of God.

Hubbard's ideas, pronouncements, and enforcements came first; "the cult" with all its abuses resulted directly from those ideas, not the other way around. Included in that morass of absurdity are Hubbard's ideas on the treatment of children.

Hubbard's attitude toward children, regardless of whether they were infants or toddlers or teenagers, can be summed up by his belief that they were beings who had lived innumerable lives on the past "whole track" and who were thus possessed of vast knowledge and skills and abilities and had complete power of choice about their lives and behavior.

These beliefs and this attitude toward children, as well as Hubbard's pronouncements about the family group, permeates the scientology community and affects the views of scientologists -- both staff and public -- on how children should be treated and brought up. They underlie the dearth of family time for staff, the establishment of the Cadet Org, the Children's RPF, children's sec checks, the CMO, the posting of adolescents as ethics officers and in other positions of authority over adults, the use of "ethics conditions" by public scientology parents to manage their children's behavior, and many more absurdities within scientologyworld.

Because of it, even when they were not subjected to outright and obvious abuse, countless numbers of young children (the children of public scientologists as well as those of staff members) have been expected to assume adult roles and responsibilities, punished when they were unable to carry this off to the satisfaction of their leaders (or in some cases, their parents), and have been denied the nuture, care, protection, understanding, education, and guidance that should have been theirs through their childhoods.

This didn't happen because "the cult is mean" -- it was a direct result of people buying into Hubbard's ideas about the nature of human beings and their children.

Fortunately, not all scientologists bought into this -- some scientologists who were also parents had better sense.

Fortunately, many of the children who were damaged by this madness found their way out and were able to overcome it. Bea Kiddo who has posted her story on this forum is an excellent example.

And fortunately, some of the people who bought into this madness failed to pass it on to the next generation because they had no children.

Hubbard and his tech appointed hisself auditor of the planet Earth. But he evaluated for everybody what is wrong with themselves.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Hubbard did say that. He said that they are trillion year old thetans and that they are just as mature as the rest of us. He taught his followers that they need no special consideration or care.

A soul's a soul.

And of course he thought nobody needed special consideration or care. He did not like anybody very much, I don't think.

Hubbard is the reason for child neglect in Scientology.

I've already pointed that out.

Hubbard believed that children were born with the same cognitive abilities as the rest of us and that is absolutely 100% false and misleading.

So do psychologists, hence IQ and other tests. So do Jesuits. (the Jesuitical age of reason is 7)

He believed that children should be treated as adults. Anyone who believes that children should be treated as adults is a fool.

I think he just plain didn't want to to be bothered making accomodations for anyone who needed anything different than anyone else. That would include children, disabled people, and so on. I think he pretty much was mainly out for himself.

My take on him has always been that if he did have any mellower moments - and my guess is that they were probably rare and fleeting- that he didn't have a pre conceived notion about the spiritual nature of children being as you describe. I always chalked up his behavior to self interest and cupidity. Personally, I think that's more than bad enough. I think he treated children badly because he did not treat anyone well. They weren't him. They didn't matter. I would say that's sufficiently damning. But if you guys aren't down with my saying that Hubbard abused kids, I'm sorry. But, see, I don't stand for child abuse.

We get that you believe children have souls. Congratulations.

I don't believe anyone has a soul. I believe people are souls.

And who's "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? On such joyous occasions as when we exchange posts, I personally assume I'm doing so with Adam7986- not a hive mind.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Maybe, but I think those ideas from child dianetics definitely influenced how I saw my children and my attitude to them.

I'm sure Child Dn influenced a lot of Scn'ists. As I recall, it's about children who conduct themselves as children.

That being said, some of the best parents in the history of the world never read or bothered with Child Dianetics or any other Hubbard theory.

And so it goes.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Not sure who this person with no children is. Or buying into the madness. I don't buy into Hubbard's madness. Nobody who had would post any of the comments I made about him here. Had I still an interest in Scn, those comments of mine would get me bounced out of any Scn venue, indie or church.

Because I steadfastly refused to post about my case history, age and reproductive history, several people who've never met me have posted inventions about those things. I spill my guts out about plenty of other stuff here, as you all know. More than you needed to know.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Hubbard and his tech appointed hisself auditor of the planet Earth. But he evaluated for everybody what is wrong with themselves.

Yep, he did. And that's why I don't defend the guy or take part in his stuff any moar. I highly doubt that there's ever been anyone wise enough to really do that. Particularly not someone with his history and behavior.

 

[clamicide]

This thread is hard for me... one of the reasons Scio resonated with me was because as a child, I didn't feel like a kid. I was reading at above 12th grade level in 1st grade. The whole thing about a kid just being in a new body really intrigued me.

I glommed onto some stuff from Child Dianetics... I applied a lot of it and I still think the "own time" (or whatever he called it) was cool.

The whole 'no sympathy' thing just kind of grates on me. I did separate my kids from the family when they were freaking out, since they were 'stuck in their bank', and in some ways, I think that kind of works. But, when my kids were sick... omg, I hate myself for how I reacted because of what I saw written.

Now, when my kiddo is sick (even though he's grown), I am willing to go over and cook him homemade chicken soup or give him head rubbies, or whatever. He is just amazingly grateful. And he pretty much turns it down, but is grateful that he knows that I am there for him when he feels like hell. He's told me that's all he wanted as a kid---not an assist, just his mom being there for him. Funny thing is, that now... he doesn't get sick that often. When in the cult, omg. I know that when I feel like hell, it's kind of nice to just be held.

I definitely get the idea that Hubbard was annoyed by kids... by insisting that they were immortal beings who should know better, he could expect them to 'make it go right' and not bother him. I'm also reminded of the 2D tapes where he said how effed up they were because they just came back from implant stations or whatever in the in-between lives period.

I think what pisses me off the most is that (not even just with kids) was that it was implied that acknowledging someone's pain was validating their 'case'... which was ONLY to be addressed in session...

and my kiddo that was born after I started questioning (even though I made the mistakes outlined above) is my best friend... the other son where I was still totally complying and put onto barley (breast-fed kiddo#2), is in the SO and has disconnected. So... I kind of think disagreeing with LRH has worked out better when it comes to my kids.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Answering Olska's slimy and incorrect statement at the end of her post

Actually, in our family we believe children should be brought up Christian. My husband and I decided that when we first got married. We had a number of reasons for doing so.
(Worked fine for John and me, as you can see.)

 

[Claire Swazey]

This thread is hard for me... one of the reasons Scio resonated with me was because as a child, I didn't feel like a kid. I was reading at above 12th grade level in 1st grade. The whole thing about a kid just being in a new body really intrigued me.

I glommed onto some stuff from Child Dianetics... I applied a lot of it and I still think the "own time" (or whatever he called it) was cool.

The whole 'no sympathy' thing just kind of grates on me. I did separate my kids from the family when they were freaking out, since they were 'stuck in their bank', and in some ways, I think that kind of works. But, when my kids were sick... omg, I hate myself for how I reacted because of what I saw written.

Now, when my kiddo is sick (even though he's grown), I am willing to go over and cook him homemade chicken soup or give him head rubbies, or whatever. He is just amazingly grateful. And he pretty much turns it down, but is grateful that he knows that I am there for him when he feels like hell. He's told me that's all he wanted as a kid---not an assist, just his mom being there for him. Funny thing is, that now... he doesn't get sick that often. When in the cult, omg. I know that when I feel like hell, it's kind of nice to just be held.

I definitely get the idea that Hubbard was annoyed by kids... by insisting that they were immortal beings who should know better, he could expect them to 'make it go right' and not bother him. I'm also reminded of the 2D tapes where he said how effed up they were because they just came back from implant stations or whatever in the in-between lives period.

I think what pisses me off the most is that (not even just with kids) was that it was implied that acknowledging someone's pain was validating their 'case'... which was ONLY to be addressed in session...

Clammy, thank you. I agree with most of that. And even the stuff where I don't, it's still close to what I think. Great post and thanks for being courteous.

 

[olska]

I sometimes wonder if some of you are responding to an imaginary construct when you claim you're responding to me.

We are responding to what you actually write. Whether that is what you actually MEAN, only you would know.

What you actually WRITE, in regard to this issue of Hubbard and his ideas about children, shows that either you did not understand, or that you chose to misrepresent, not only what Hubbard has written and stated on the subject, and the consequences of that, but as well what we (by "we" I mean the people who have responded to your posts on this thread) have written here.

Whichever it is, its of little importance in light of the fact it's easy to see that your OP wasn't meant to further anyone's understanding or help anyone -- parent or child -- sort out their experience with scientology.

So while I won't guess at what that might be, I hope you're getting whatever kick you wanted from stirring up this old argument.

 

[Claire Swazey]

We are responding to what you actually write. Whether that is what you actually MEAN, only you would know.

What you actually WRITE, in regard to this issue of Hubbard and his ideas about children, shows that either you did not understand, or that you chose to misrepresent, not only what Hubbard has written and stated on the subject, and the consequences of that, but as well what we (by "we" I mean the people who have responded to your posts on this thread) have written here.

Whichever it is, its of little importance in light of the fact it's easy to see that your OP wasn't meant to further anyone's understanding or help anyone -- parent or child -- sort out their experience with scientology.

So while I won't guess at what that might be, I hope you're getting whatever kick you wanted from stirring up this old argument.

Well, sometimes they respond to what I write and sometimes not. Like saying that I wrote loving stuff about Hubbard. Or when you wrote that I was in my forties, for example. Nothing anywhere like that anywhere in my posts.

So, no, not always. But sometimes, yes.

As far as anything else goes, I wrote the thread op and you opted to come and respond to me and to say the things you said. Every single time you've opted to do that, it was your decision and no one else's.

 

[olska]

...As far as anything else goes, I wrote the thread op and you opted to come and respond to me and to say the things you said. Every single time you've opted to do that, it was your decision and no one else's.

Oh darn! and all this time I thought it was my BTs all out of control and shit just defying me and doing whatever they pleased... or maybe it was those doggone four-year-olds who have taken over and are running everything now... or am I thinking of the forty-year-olds? can't tell the difference some times...

 

[Idle Morgue]

Good Thread which spurred on the question: What was LaFatty's Tone Level pure his own "tech"?

Did not like children. No sadness when his son committed suicide. Or his other disowned him.
People were objects - not real - and discard value only.
His body was flabby, pale, ugly and repulsive.
His mouth Disgusting!
Value to Society -
His "1st dynamic" was a mess - in hiding in a trailer for 15 years - paranoid and rightly so...he was wanted by the law for FRAUD!
Threw his dedicated wife under the bus - discard value only

I would say that Ron's chronic tone level per the simple tone scale was Apathy but he stayed alive as long as he did because he sucked the life and money out of everyone he was able to convince he was "Source". Your thoughts?

 

[Claire Swazey]

Oh darn! and all this time I thought it was my BTs all out of control and shit just defying me and doing whatever they pleased... or maybe it was those doggone four-year-olds who have taken over and are running everything now... or am I thinking of the forty-year-olds? can't tell the difference some times...

Thank you for taking the time to come in and respond so pleasantly to my posts about Scientology.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Good Thread which spurred on the question: What was LaFatty's Tone Level pure his own "tech"?

Did not like children. No sadness when his son committed suicide. Or his other disowned him.
People were objects - not real - and discard value only.
His body was flabby, pale, ugly and repulsive.
His mouth Disgusting!
Value to Society -
His "1st dynamic" was a mess - in hiding in a trailer for 15 years - paranoid and rightly so...he was wanted by the law for FRAUD!
Threw his dedicated wife under the bus - discard value only

I would say that Ron's chronic tone level per the simple tone scale was Apathy but he stayed alive as long as he did because he sucked the life and money out of everyone he was able to convince he was "Source". Your thoughts?

Not sure about the apathy thing, though that's an intriguing thought. I do think he was irresponsible and self interested and this motivated everything he did.

If you read Dianetics in Limbo, it appears he was that way from the beginning.

 

[Claire Swazey]

from the other thread

This summarizes my position re Hubbard and children and how he set up and continued the cult's approach. Any comments here about my loving Hubbard or not being aware of the fact that he's the one who created Scn and CofS to be as abusive as they are would be written in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my stance. After all, has it not been said that you can only go by what I write? Then start actually doing so.

Originally Posted by wazn

I understand you to be saying that Hubbard (and DM and COS) make no real distinction in their abuse/neglect toward children and adults. Correct? If so, to that I agree.

IMO, it is far more odious when we are speaking of children.

Children are not adults in little bodies.

And, within scientology, because of concepts such the "greatest good for the greatest number" and the "overt-motivator sequence", treatment of children (and yes, adults too) is abusive, hateful, dismissive, demeaning, criminal and covered up.

When a child is raped, per scientology, they "pulled it in".
Damn, it sucks when people pull things in and we gotta cover up what happened.

I think there's plenty in Scn that facilitates and foments the abuse. And that stuff comes from Hubbard- it's a reflection of how he felt about people.

It's just a situation where I have never interpreted the thetans in small bodies concept the way some other exes and critics do. And all the things said to me on this thread or on the Hubbard and Children thread that I started have not dissuaded me. But, since I consider Hubbard to have been manifestly unfair and abusive to children and adults and have said so repeatedly, I think it's obvious that the d00d doesn't get a free pass from yours truly.

I think he probably had all kinds of rationalizations for the way he treated kids, because he would have had such for everything he did and failed to do.

Quite a few people think saying someone is a thetan in a small body is one of those rationalizations. I personally don't think so, but, again, the bottom line is that he treated them abusively and when he wasn't doing so he was- at best- neglectful.​

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Thank you for taking the time to come in and respond so pleasantly to my posts about Scientology.

To me, your posts are about you, not about scientology.

 

[Claire Swazey]

To me, your posts are about you, not about scientology.

I guess it depends on the use of pronouns and nouns. The former being the inclusion of exclusion of the pronoun "I" or "me" or "My", the latter being "Scientology" "Hubbard" "Dianetics".

When those pronouns are absent and yet some individuals post as if they'd not been, then they've put the subject on the table, as has occurred in a few posts here. Their (your) choice. Their (your)derail.

Thanks for writing and welcome to my ignore list.