Hubbard and Children

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
So what else about Scn and children? I may as well say "Scn" and not just "Hubbard". Scn is his creation, after all, and we're discussing children in the church.

Friends of mine have told me about finding their child (an infant) in the SO nursery neglected, screaming and on the floor. That was the last straw for them.

I've read a number of accounts about families in the SO. I'm up for reading more of them but I would also like to know about people's experiences as org and mission staff or even heavily involved public and how that affected their families.

Free to Shine once told me on the forum (maybe a year or two ago) that Org public and staff have been told or advised to have abortions, too. Before she told me that, I'd thought it was just in the SO, since the SO is an institutional lifestyle and one's basically at the cult's mercy 24/7. I believe her, of course, and am really glad she clued me in. How common is that?
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I think the real problem with Hub and children is that he was self interested and hypocritical. He wrote some nice stuff in Child Dianetics but didn't abide by it. I don't think you can blame his writings (about children) for anything that goes on in the cult re children . . .

I'll just leave these here:

"Let then have their own space and scene and get healthy and happy with it. Kids are BEINGS not kids. American parents have yet to learn that. I want our kids to grow up . . . we want these kids to grow up as beings and not as underfoot, unwanted, hysterical 'children'. I know what I am talking about. It's better to let them find their own way as beings and attain some value in life and self respect."
LRH - Despatch to LRH Comm US 14 Aug 73


. . . So when you reward a downstat you not only deprive upstats, you also cave the downstat in!

I don't think welfare states have anything else in mind!

The riots of the ancient city of Rome were caused by these factors. There
they gave away corn and games to a populace that eventually became so savage it could only enjoy torture and gruesome death in the arena!

A lot of this exchange imbalance comes from child psychology where the
child is not contributing anything and is not permitted to contribute.

It is this which first overwhelms him with feelings of obligation to his parents
and then bursts out as total revolt in his teens.

Children who are permitted to contribute (not as a cute thing to do but actually)
make noncontributing children of the same age look like raving maniacs!
It is the cruel sadism of modern times to destroy the next generation this way.
Don't think it isn't intended. I have examined the OCAs of parents who do it! . . .
HCOPL - ETHICS - 4 April 1972

8009679854_676e84eaac.jpg
 

johnAnchovie

Still raging
I'll just leave these here:






8009679854_676e84eaac.jpg

Ah, the wisdom of that fat old turd, Hubbard.

And the litany of sexually, mentally, educationally and emotionally abused children that grew up under the strict application of KSW attest to efficacy of The Great Wise Leader's words.

What brazen bastard Hubbard was. We are so well rid of him. But cleaning up the destruction and heart ache that he left in his wake is a daunting and momentous job.
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
The amazing thing and another complete reversal of Scientology is that Hubbard behaved in life exactly like an adult child and exactly like the very children he lamented in his writings - those that have been coddled and treated as "children" instead of being allowed to contribute and earning the right of adulthood.

Hubbard's emotional level and the way he privately treated people demonstrates severe emotional immaturity.

Even right down to hiding.





Read the affirmations for crying out loud! Talk about immature. I had often theorized that he was coddled as a youth and after reading some of the various "Madman or Messiah" type of books...well, has only strengthened those notions.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Beneath the children&family-friendly facade, promoted to "wogs" and "raw meat," Scientology, per Hubbard's instructions, has always been anti-child and anti-family. Children are tolerated to the extent that they can be used, and that is all.

Anyone who had a 13 year old girl follow him around with an ashtray into which he flicked his cigarette ashes, or who had small children placed in a chain locker, or who abandoned or disowned his own children, or who had his wife go to prison for crimes that he originated and directed, is one screwed up savior of the galaxy.

Here's some background - just a smattering of items that are handy - illustrating contempt for families, abuse of children, and the encouragement of abortion.

(A thread concerning Hubbard pressuring and also ordering abortions for female Sea Org members on the Apollo. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?28339-Forced-abortions-amp-the-Apollo-1968 )

From the 1952 Philadelphia Doctorate Course:

"We mustn't mention this because, God help us, there goes the moral code. Penicillin took out the disease level and now... [a person] can take a couple of beams of energy.... and terminate a pregnancy. Nothing wild or forceful or upsetting or anything like that. Just make sure the tube opens. It's very simple. There are muscles and so forth that contract and expand at a certain period every month, and that sort of thing.

"Pregnancies that have been as much as three months advanced have been terminated that way... Isn't this fascinating? So you've got something like birth control sitting right there in theta clearing... It's just deadly. One, two, three!"



And, from a precept from 'The Way to Happiness' booklet, written, in 1980, as PR cover while Hubbard was in hiding after the exposure, by court order, of his amoral, immoral, and criminal teachings and activities:

On the topic of sex, in 'TWTH', one precept advises against promiscuity, explaining that, "A 'feeling of guilt' is no where near as sharp as ground glass in the soup."

Note that "feeling of guilt" is in quotes.


Hubbard had a low opinion of "family':

"The GE [Genetic Entity, a degraded 'thetan', that zombie-like, runs the body's functions] is a family man. The GE is lost without the family. It's very strange but Homo Sap is a family unit. The GE is built on that basis...

"And your thetan, by the way, can much more easily go into a group. Families are not good groups."

From 10 December 1952, PDC lecture series.


And, then there's Hubbard's peculiar attitude towards "boys" in this 1950s lecture. Make of this what you will...

Note Hubbard's ridiculing&dismissive attitude toward sex with little boys at 1:17 - 1:34, and at 3:04 - 3:12:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeMQIO3TgyM


And then there's this ditty from 'Mission Earth' volume 9; 'Villainy Victorious':

Oh, a soldier's life is the life for me;
Tuma-a -diddle; tuma-a-diddle, paw-pata
In camp and plain, I'm always free
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw~
No women ever spoil my view
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
They're always wanting something new
Not tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pam
For it is the men that I enjoy
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pav.~
The best there is I find is boy!
Oh, tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle; paw-pam
The enemy I do not mind
If tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-paw
Can go on in my behind
With tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
And if my bunkmates all are kind
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
Surrounded by ten thousand (bleeps)
That tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
All passionate and hard as rocks
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pazt~
Eager to slide in my buttocks
And tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw!
So (bleep), (bleep), (bleep) and (bleep) in me!
Tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-pam
And let me (bleep) and (bleep) in thee
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddk, paw-pam
Oh, what a love-ul-lee Arm-ee!
With its tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle;
OH! BOY!


In case anyone is wondering what Hubbard was thinking about, instead of working on writing up those upper OT levels that he promised all those years.


From Hubbard's gleeful affirming of the ease of abortions, to his disdain of "Homo Saps" and their preoccupation with families, to the inferiority of the family unit as a group, to his 'Pain and Sex' HCOB, the seeds of what happened in the 1990s were planted by Scientology's founder long before.

Apparently, the Sea Org swung from infant&child neglect and abuse to a prohibition on having babies. The abuse of children in the Sea Org began with Hubbard ordering stern punishment and confinement of children who were regarded as misbehaving on the "Flagship," on which he was the "Commodore," then there was his encouragement that children be inducted into the Sea Org as young as 12, or younger, including as his personal servants.

Child care at Sea Org facilities in the 1970s, by most accounts, was certainly not good, and in 1974, Hubbard even came up with the Children's RPF. As early as 1961 there was a Children's Security Check for ages 6 - 12. Apparently, after 12, the child - an "ancient thetan in a little body" - would be eligible for an adult Security Check.


L. Ron Hubbard established the Children's RPF in 1976:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW8ZqGSkXjI


Robert Vaughn Young re. the RPF and RPF's RPF, and re. children RPF'ed on the 'Flagship Apollo': http://www.scientology-lies.com/rvy1.html


Here's the Sec Check for Children, written by L Ron Hubbard.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1961

Franchise
SECURITY CHECK CHILDREN

HCO WW Security Form 8

The following is a processing check for use on children.
Be sure the child can understand the question. Rephrase it so he or she
can understand it. The first question is the most potent.

Children's Security Check

Ages 6 -- 12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMmnBXcYN9Q
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
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.

Oh, I'll skip your posts but I don't do that publicly announce of putting somebody on my ignore list - just smacks way too much of the scientology disconnect style of approach to ones own life. ) Or maybe it's really lack of an effectice approach - LOL ! )

I have continued to read your posts on this topic and the viewpoint that it seems that you feel if someone does not 'get' or 'agree' with you then something is wrong with them - I guess, because you are always 'right'?

Anyway that kind of stuff is so much what I feel is the product of being in the mindset of a scientologist that I agree with it is time for you & I to part ways. ( Hopefully, in peace ).

I do wish you & yours well in every way possible !
 
Last edited:

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
So what else about Scn and children? I may as well say "Scn" and not just "Hubbard". Scn is his creation, after all, and we're discussing children in the church.

Friends of mine have told me about finding their child (an infant) in the SO nursery neglected, screaming and on the floor. That was the last straw for them.

I've read a number of accounts about families in the SO. I'm up for reading more of them but I would also like to know about people's experiences as org and mission staff or even heavily involved public and how that affected their families.

Free to Shine once told me on the forum (maybe a year or two ago) that Org public and staff have been told or advised to have abortions, too. Before she told me that, I'd thought it was just in the SO, since the SO is an institutional lifestyle and one's basically at the cult's mercy 24/7. I believe her, of course, and am really glad she clued me in. How common is that?

This thread is good: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?4550-Our-Children...
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: from the other thread

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. [/INDENT]

Hubbard's own personal "rationalizations" are not the issue here. If he was just an asshole abusive individual whose influence had not extended beyond his own family, or even a bit larger than that to affecting his immediate neighbors, we would not be discussing him and his abuses or "rationalizations" for those abuses here.

The issue is, and always has been, the affect Hubbard's "teachings" had on his followers -- you know, all those people (some of us here, in fact) who thought at one time, and those who still do think Hubbard was some kind of "genius philosopher" (oh yeah, with some flaws...) with answers to the big mysteries of life.

Those people bought into his teachings about "thetans in small bodies" (a phrase which does not really describe what it was he actually taught, but that's subject for a more indepth review) and applied this in their lives as scientologists -- on staff, or as public -- and wreaked havoc on the physical lives and emotional well-being of hundreds, maybe thousands, of children who had no choice about it.

If not for that, hardly anyone would give a rats ass about Hubbard's own personal views and flaws, his selfishness, his lack of caring, his using of people. He'd be just another nameless narcissist, maybe in jail somewhere on charges of child molestation or domestic abuse.

Unfortunately, following Hubbard's leadership, and following his directives in order to gain his approval and attain "salvation" as he described it, people bought into the belief that small children (because they were in essence "thetans") were completely responsible for their own conditions and saddled them with the same expectations they had of adults.

Thus, as a direct result of Hubbard's teachings, people hardened themselves against normal maternal, paternal, and social/community instincts regarding the care and treatment of children and committed, or stood by while others committed, grave misdeeds against those children.

The influence of Hubbard's ideas about "thetans in small bodies" was far, far too widespread and it doesn't further anyone's understanding or healing to simply write it off as you have by stating, "the cult is mean."

Yeah, what else is new.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation


It seems apparent that toad-face saw children as inconveniences right up until they were old enough to be used, so he used them as early as possible just as he was using their parents.

 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
I think the real problem with Hub and children is that he was self interested and hypocritical. He wrote some nice stuff in Child Dianetics but didn't abide by it. I don't think you can blame his writings (about children) for anything that goes on in the cult re children. It's a cult, they're greedy, they're mean, they don't abide by any of their directives and policies when it gets in the way of someone's power trip or getting money in. Simply put, tech and policy really don't mean anything to them. I'm not saying that tech and policy are these great enlightened things- I just think that, hey, it's a cult. <snip>

Are you freaking serious?

Read this post: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?4550-Our-Children...&p=730224&viewfull=1#post730224

"The cult is mean" doesn't cut it. Hubbard created the cult, "they" just follow his policies. :duh:
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
I think the real problem with Hub and children is that he was self interested and hypocritical. He wrote some nice stuff in Child Dianetics but didn't abide by it. I don't think you can blame his writings (about children) for anything that goes on in the cult re children.

Boo, Claire. This is terrible - you haven't thought this through and you've written far more intelligent things on this subject even 3-4 years ago. I expect better of you. What were you thinking? Think about it. Read some of your old posts.:think:

:waiting:

Claire, when Hubbard applied his tek to children, it resulted in abuse. When Scns, in or out of the SO applied his tek to children, it also resulted in abuse. It's not rocket science.

I had a good friend who was a public (always public) when I first left the SO. Our sons were good friends from school. She was actually very like you in many ways.

Aside from being a Scientologist, she was quite sane, caring and rational. She applied Scn to her kids. They talked a lot. That was good. She listened to their opinions but with a scn mindset. Not so good.

So she never really "heard" when they were upset or mothered them as children - she expected them to act like adults in their lives. She didn't believe in setting boundaries, the children were expected to have full adult judgement.

She treated her two children like "thetans in little bodies".

All with the best of intentions.

Too much. Too, too much.

Not having developed brains or experience, they did not have good judgement so were often destructive or over-emotional, trying to get some mothering that they would never get.

They were held responsible for every mistake, every thing that happened to them as if they were adults.

One was disabled. He had a glass eye. He'd get distracted (children have a short attention span) and forget to wash his hands, not clean the eye properly and it would get infected. She felt he was "responsible for his own condition".

The poor kid was even put in the kids' RPF at Delphi.

Years later, her views improved. She stopped following Hubbard so much. I hope completely, but I don't know. She realized she hadn't mothered them properly and deeply regretted it.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I think Hubbard was abusive to children and I've said so. Repeatedly. I think that the treatment of children in CofS going back decades to present has ranged from neglect to abuse. And I've said that.

I don't, however, believe it stems from the concepts named in my thread op. Just my opinion.

Since we all believe he was abusive to children, then nobody need get angry with anyone else.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
I think Hubbard was abusive to children and I've said so. Repeatedly. I think that the treatment of children in CofS going back decades to present has ranged from neglect to abuse. And I've said that.

I don't, however, believe it stems from the concepts named in my thread op. Just my opinion.

Since we all believe he was abusive to children, then nobody need get angry with anyone else.

LOL !
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
I think Hubbard was abusive to children and I've said so. Repeatedly. I think that the treatment of children in CofS going back decades to present has ranged from neglect to abuse. And I've said that.

I don't, however, believe it stems from the concepts named in my thread op. Just my opinion.

Since we all believe he was abusive to children, then nobody need get angry with anyone else.

Well what's the point of this thread then? If you make such statements as the one I quoted above, expect to get responses. Your explanation is that "it's a cult, it's mean" is the point you are making?
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Well what's the point of this thread then? If you make such statements as the one I quoted above, expect to get responses. Your explanation is that "it's a cult, it's mean" is the point you are making?

I said a whole lot more than "it's a cult...it's mean" in my opening post and in later ones.

I'd been wanting to discuss the thetans in small bodies theory/statement for a very long time now. Because I see the occasional reference to it by other contributors and thought it could be the basis of an interesting thread.

It's an interesting statement and what's even more interesting to me is the way it struck those who heard/read it.
 

phenomanon

Canyon
Having a child disconnect from me has shown me the pitfalls of raising children as though they are thetans in small bodies.

I expected way too much, and gave way too little.

What's interesting to me are the ways that L Ron Hubbard's 'stuff' can slide into your considerations about 'most any fooking thing while you are not paying attenton.

Thetans in little bodies is a theory that allows for children to be neglected, and abused in insidious ways such as putting them into the so-called care of another person.

Expecting adult responsibilities from a child is abuse. It is stealing their childhood.

My 2c on the matter now that I am not inside the Truman Show of Scn/L Ron Hubbard.

phenomanon
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Having a child disconnect from me has shown me the pitfalls of raising children as though they are thetans in small bodies.

I expected way too much, and gave way too little.

What's interesting to me are the ways that L Ron Hubbard's 'stuff' can slide into your considerations about 'most any fooking thing while you are not paying attenton.

Thetans in little bodies is a theory that allows for children to be neglected, and abused in insidious ways such as putting them into the so-called care of another person.

Expecting adult responsibilities from a child is abuse. It is stealing their childhood.

My 2c on the matter now that I am not inside the Truman Show of Scn/L Ron Hubbard.

phenomanon

Hi Phen. I'm really sorry to hear about your child. If you want to chat about it some time, let me know. :yes:

Thanks for posting this. You may save another mother's relationship with her child because you did. That was sweet of you - and brave to be so honest. :clap: :clap:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I said a whole lot more than "it's a cult...it's mean" in my opening post and in later ones.

I'd been wanting to discuss the thetans in small bodies theory/statement for a very long time now. Because I see the occasional reference to it by other contributors and thought it could be the basis of an interesting thread.

It's an interesting statement and what's even more interesting to me is the way it struck those who heard/read it.

I don't get what the big deal is.

From other spiritual models, spirits (aka "thetans") occupy EVERY type of body - cats, dogs, turtles, frogs, hamsters, trees, bushes, algae, and even inanimate objects like rocks and turds.

What makes Hubbard's application so abusive is not simply the idea that a child is a "thetan in a small body", which is like DUH if you think you are fundamentally a spirit, but that this "thetan" is some BIG BEING, with all sorts of "past track knowledge", and who should be able to do any task given to it, because this thetan has done it all already anyway in previous lives. THAT makes it crazy.

The idea by itself, "a child is a thetan in a small body", may be sort of true. BUT, by itself it means nothing really, and would not lead to abuse.

There are other people who think pretty much the same thing and who treat children lovingly and with great care.

You have to add in the ideas that "we are on a mission to save Mankind", that "we have ONLY this final chance to do so", that "we need every able being onboard NOW", and endless related nonsense along with this one idea for the abuse of children to appear in Scientology. This idea must be viewed as it manifests in the full nutty Scientology context, especially as in the Sea Org.

And, this abuse was primarily in the paramilitary Sea Org, that specifically adhered to the maxim that "we are here helping for 3rd and 4th dynamic reasons alone", and "you SHOULD NOT BE HERE IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS FOR THE 1st or 2nd dynamic". I remember reading stuff just like that when doing Proct 0, 1 and 2 and while on the EPF.

Trying to put children into the same environment as the purposes and actions of the Sea Org was destined to fail. That is why Hubbard's statements and statements issued at various SO bases about it have been so schizophrenic regarding children.

When I first read the SO ED that was released saying that the Sea Org was NOT a place to bring up children, and that parents with young children would be sent out to Class IV orgs, it made total sense within the context of everything else Hubbard had said about the Sea Org earlier. Understand here, it was consistent - not necessarily sane, decent or sensible.

The top concern of the Sea Org, as clearly stated in MANY LRH policies and issues, is to "get the job done" regarding the 3rd and 4th dynamic. He clearly states that you should NOT be there if you have concerns/desires/interest for the 1st and 2nd dynamics. Now, it matters little that what he says is nuts, but he did say what he said. I could see how they would push for abortions in such an environment. Who would want to have a child in an environment that tells you that you can't have a second dynamic in that environment? :confused2:

I remember hearing people talk about abortions in the Sea Org, and how it was "the greatest good for our mission of clearing the planet", "because taking care of children is a distraction to the cause". I never thought along those terms and I had children in the Sea Org, and even though they were under 6 years of age, nobody tried to send us away to a Class IV org (as was done with some others). The application of this stuff was very irrregular and haphazard. For instance if you were a NOTs auditor, and Flag needed more NOTs auditors, they would recruit a single mom with 2 young children. I think in some way they looked at kids in the Sea Org as an "unwanted but necessarily counter-intention".

Maybe Hubbard started out with the idea that the Sea Org should be ONLY for dedicated adults. But then, when all the chldren started appearing, he adapted, and then wrote all the crazy stuff about the Cadet Org and having children behave as adults. I remember reading somewhere where Hubbard said that the purpose of the Cadet Org was to groom the future Sea Org executives and leaders of the future. That did't turn out to well did it Ron?

The concept of "spirits in little bodies" actually always made sense to me. But, I placed stress on the qualifier - "in little bodes", because THAT fact meant that I would treat them FAR differently than if they had a "grown up body". I NEVER much cared for Hubbard's book on the Second Dynamic, read it only once early on, never referred to it when I had children, and NEVER thought or behaved along the lines that a child should be treated like and forced to act like an adult. THAT IS NONSENSE, and yes, some people do that who are/were involved with Scientology.

I doubt most public Scientologists or even Class IV org staff treated their children with ANY of Hubbard's nutty recommendations for the Sea Org, and they still viewed them lovingly, as "spirits in little bodies". Granted, being on staff in a Class IV org has its own unique pressures that can NOT be good for children.

But the basic reason why the kids get a raw deal is NOT primarily due to this single notion that "a child is a thetan in a small body". One has to embrace the BIG picture, and take into account the much larger context involved here.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Maybe it was a justifier then for the abuse that followed later. Maybe that's truly so.

I think what seemed the most like," hey, so fucking what" to me was my having been brought up to believe we all had immortal souls, since birth. Saying someone was a thetan in a small body (or is it "big thetan"? Does anyone have the verbatim quote? I'd like to see it again.) didn't seem like anything odd to me.

I remember reading Autobiography of a Yogi where Yogananda depicts crying as a child because he was stuck in this tiny body that wouldn't do what he wanted it to do. I was getting into Scn around that time, I think, and it just sounded right, seemed to go together.

Hubbard -and current admin/management- never seemed to need much of an excuse to dick people over.
 
Top