I know Hubbard lived the life he wanted to live.

[Voltaire's Child]

I think he lived the life he wanted as well.

He wanted fame, money, to be worshipped and revered and to make men his slaves. He wanted to be fighting enemies his whole life and he wanted to be remembered.

He had it all.

I don't think he wanted to be in trouble with the law, have as many enemies as he did, and to be driven nuts in some respects by his own research. I also don't think he wanted to be murdered and have his estate euchred away from his wife, estranged though she may have been at the end.

I think he got SOME of the things he wanted and that those are things you've listed, but ultimately, I think he ran into real problems that he'd rather not have run into and that they were of his own making.

 

[Kilia]

I also don't think he wanted to be murdered ...

Claire, do you really think he was murdered..and by whom?

 

[tarbaby]

The fruit of the poisoned tree argument is dead as a dodo

You better hope so, Fluff. Because there is always the Law of Unintended Consequences ... and you may one day need to deal with it.

Dennis

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Claire, do you really think he was murdered..and by whom?

I'm not sure. I think it's possible. I think there're compelling arguments about that.

RVY (Robert Vaughn Young) wrote about it, and he was around the top movers and shakers of the day.

Here are factors that seem to indicate he may have been murdered:

Died with injection marks in buttocks.

CofS, I think it was Starkey, perhaps, told the coroner's office that autopsies are against the Scn religion so they stopped the autopsy.

Autopsies ARE NOT against Scn. At all. "Tech"-wise, Hubbard wouldn't have cared.

The estate was euchred from Mary Sue Hubbard. What I heard (maybe from RVY's stuff) was that DM got her in a room screamed at her and threatened her and made her walk away with 50k. Hubbard was worth many millions at the end, though. She (MSH) was under guard, at least that is my understanding, til the end.

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/rvy.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~snefru/deathoflrh/rvy-death.html

So it's possible and it looks suspicious.

An alternative possibility is that they merely hastened things along and were covering up neglect rather than murder. This still makes them contributors.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

You better hope so, Fluff. Because there is always the Law of Unintended Consequences ... and you may one day need to deal with it.

Dennis

I wonder what you mean by that. Why you think I would have to "deal with it". This sounds rather negative.

I've thought out everything I've done quite carefully and my conscience is clear. More than clear,since I've helped a number of people who've come to me for advice re Scn.

I'm sure that CofS thinks I will run effect of the afore mentioned law, but then again, they'd think that about a lot of us.

 

[The Oracle]

Dear Fluffy,

I applaude you for the laws of nature you have mastered:

"Every man has a right to fulfill his own will without being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for if he is in his proper place, it is the fault of others if they interfere with him".

(Illustration: If a man like Napoleon were actually appointed by destiny to control Europe, he should not be blamed for exercising his rights. To oppose him would be an error. Any one so doing would have made a mistake as to his own destiny, except insofar as it mught be necessary for him to learn the lessons of defeat. The sun moves in space without interference. the order of nature provides an orbit for each star. A clash proves that one or the other has strayed from its course. But as to each man that keeps his true course, the more firmly he acts, the less likely others are to get in his way. His example will helpthem to find their own paths and pursue them. Every man that becomes a Magician helps others to do likewise. The more firmly and surely men move, and the more such action is accepted as the standard of morality, the less will conflict and confusion hamper humanity.)

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Weeeelll, Illusioness,...I think that someone who did that might well be someone who was not looking at how his or her actions might affect others...and this seems to be what Dennis may be implying, that I am or may be affecting others adversely without meaning to re Scn and that the will of Providence will one day whap me upside the head for it.

However, I do try to consider all my actions and what consequences may result from them. I am quite careful.

There are things people do in critical venues that I don't feel comfortable with (I mean, I don't feel like I would do them) and I've spent a fair bit of time thinking of why that is. I thought long and hard before leaving CofS, I've thought long and hard about what I wished to disclose on forums and what not. When I answer emails from people I think about what I am telling them. I often say to those who are trying to figure things out "It's about what YOU want to do. Not anyone else!"

I also try to do this in my job and in other areas of life. I'm sure there're times when this works out better or worse than other times, but everyone in the world can say that, can't they!

And in any event, if'n'God's gonna hang someone for the law of unintended consequences, this means we're ALL going to hell.

And when we get there, the drinks are on me. Party! ompom:

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I told my husband about this thread, and I remarked to him that much of the "Law of unintended consequences" can be forseen and dealt with ahead of time by thinking out one's actions, etc. And he said "yeah, it's called responsibility and Hubbard talked about that very thing." He said for me to tell you guys that you're talking about Scn to me.

It's really nice that Hubbard covered that, don't you think?

 

[Zinjifar]

I told my husband about this thread, and I remarked to him that much of the "Law of unintended consequences" can be forseen and dealt with ahead of time by thinking out one's actions, etc. And he said "yeah, it's called responsibility and Hubbard talked about that very thing." He said for me to tell you guys that you're talking about Scn to me.

It's really nice that Hubbard covered that, don't you think?

Ron and Hubbardism repealed both the law of unintended consequences and Murphy's Law at the same time they adopted the 'always works' and 'Source' and KSW mantras.

Zinj

 

[tarbaby]

locus of control

I wonder what you mean by that. Why you think I would have to "deal with it". This sounds rather negative.

I'm not talking about the unintended consequences of being critical or harming other (tho i suppose that could be.) But when you turn over your locus of control ( http://wilderdom.com/psychology/loc/LocusOfControlWhatIs.html ) to another, as is called for by the tek, and expect that person (or the tek itself) to sort you out, you leave yourself open to being manipulated. That can and often does have unintended consequences, Fluff, with which you one day may have deal.

That's all I mean.

Dennis

 

[The Oracle]

Dear Fluffy,

The "Law of unintended consequences" implies NOT KNOW, and CAN'T KNOW.

From what I have seen you posting on the lists, you only speak of things you KNOW about, and you speak from the heart.

As far as people threatening you about what you might NOT KNOW about , and suggesting you are NOT AWARE of DANGERS that could happen to you though certain LAWS, well, ..... we know what kind of trickery that is.

That is intended to shut you up and cut your reach .

"Don't walk too far the Earth is flat".

You aren't hurting anyone and I doubt some unforseen mishap is about to fall on your shoulders.

"Every man has an indefeasible right to be what he is".

(Illustration: To insist that any one else should comply with one's own standards is to outrage, not only him, but oneself, since both parties are equally born of necessity.)

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Hi, Dennis,

Well, I've not assigned control to anyone else. I don't in session or elsewhere. But I guess the potentiality is there. I mean, how many Scn'ists have we seen who did that, and did it often? (lots) ---see also my response to Illusioness--

Thing is, Scn does not do anything. It is a set of tools that a person can use. The person, the pc, the student, is the one who does the things and is totally responsible for the condition he or she is in.

A person can use Scn and/or Dn or not use it. Or the person can even misuse it.

For example, when a person gets auditing, he's the one doing the work. He's the one looking into his bank, he's the one who has to agree to be in session in the first place. He's the one facing up to his past traumas, considerations, etc.

Same with students. The tech and policy (or anything anyone is studying, Scn or not) just sits there in books and tapes. It's up to the student to study and to learn and to agree or disagree. It's even up to him whether or not he understands it.

Cause is not assigned outward.

But that's why so many Scn'ists get so messed up- tech clearly states that cause is not assigned outward,etc, all the things I said above, yet, they are taught to revere Hubbard, revere Miscavige, revere anyone in charge, and to take orders and be other-determined.

Leaving CofS helps a person realize they do not have to do this. And, vice versa, since the realizatin that they don't have to do that often leads to people leaving CofS.Either way, it's an excellent bit of information to have.

So then if a departee does decide to study Scn, he can do it outside the cultic milieu.

And he can be on his own, assigning cause and responsibility to no one else.

I suspect that this is why Scn is not a deity centered ology. (I won't say "religion" as I know some readers won't agree with that and I can certainly see why.)

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Hi, Illusioness,

Dennis did elucidate a bit- for which I'm quite grateful. And he didn't mean what I thought he meant.

I think the idea is that in Scn a person may end up depending on auditors, CSes, course supvs, and so on. And that this can end badly.

This is a legitimate concern. I just don't think it has to be that way.

However, is it ever that way?

Yes. One sees this all the time in CofS. And, IMHO, there are some Freezoners who are too quick to rely on what they are told or what others can or might be able to do for them.

So I think (at least I hope! I mean, it wouldn't be good if I misunderstood Dennis' point YET AGAIN! ) that Dennis may have this in mind. He may be thinking of side effects in auditing. Now, I already said that in session one is doing the work, etc. Well, yes, the auditor is not feeding cogs, and neither is the CS. They shouldn't be, anyway. (I won't get into the mid to upper OT levels at this point since that's a very different situation, auditing-wise and could well prove an exception to what I just said.)

Dennis knows that Scn'ists get indoctrinated. And I think that he thinks that the indoctrination isn't just in the Orgs and Missions and Academies and the AOs and Flag. That perhaps there's indoctrination in the Scn dogma itself. The tech and policy.

I would agree with this up to a point.

There is some.

I just think that a person can be self determined and still do Scn. I also think there're degrees of that.

So perhaps Dennis is just warning us about some potential pitfalls in studying Scn independently. That is certainly not something I would argue with, but I like to think I have a handle on this stuff and that a person should at least try to follow his or her heart...

 

[Zinjifar]

Hi, Illusioness,

Dennis did elucidate a bit- for which I'm quite grateful. And he didn't mean what I thought he meant.

I think the idea is that in Scn a person may end up depending on auditors, CSes, course supvs, and so on. And that this can end badly.

This is a legitimate concern. I just don't think it has to be that way.

However, is it ever that way?

Yes. One sees this all the time in CofS. And, IMHO, there are some Freezoners who are too quick to rely on what they are told or what others can or might be able to do for them.

So I think (at least I hope! I mean, it wouldn't be good if I misunderstood Dennis' point YET AGAIN! ) that Dennis may have this in mind. He may be thinking of side effects in auditing. Now, I already said that in session one is doing the work, etc. Well, yes, the auditor is not feeding cogs, and neither is the CS. They shouldn't be, anyway. (I won't get into the mid to upper OT levels at this point since that's a very different situation, auditing-wise and could well prove an exception to what I just said.)

Dennis knows that Scn'ists get indoctrinated. And I think that he thinks that the indoctrination isn't just in the Orgs and Missions and Academies and the AOs and Flag. That perhaps there's indoctrination in the Scn dogma itself. The tech and policy.

I would agree with this up to a point.

There is some.

I just think that a person can be self determined and still do Scn. I also think there're degrees of that.

So perhaps Dennis is just warning us about some potential pitfalls in studying Scn independently. That is certainly not something I would argue with, but I like to think I have a handle on this stuff and that a person should at least try to follow his or her heart...

Far be it from me to offer 'Verbal Tech' on Dennisology, but, I'm often struck with how insistent Scientologists are in insisting that 'auditing is not hypnotism' or 'The Tech is not hypnotism'.

It reminds me of hypnotized people insisting perfectly honestly that they were *not* hypnotized to think that they were chickens.

Part of that seems to be based on the experience that the 'auditor' himself seldom 'suggests' the 'win' or 'cog'.

Aha! It *can't* be hypnotism!

But.. it is a case of *pre-loaded* suggestion.

By the time the target is subjected to the 'process' he's already been *pre-loaded* with the necessary 'cogs' and 'wins'; whether through his reading or the tapes he's heard or his own listening to 'wins' published by *other* victims.

The auditor doesn't *have* to 'suggest' the desired outcome.

The target *knows* where it's going. And, *gets* there.

Watch the swinging needle... you'r feet are getting heavy, you will experience a releasing experience...

This is not hypnotism; this is the *opposite* of hypnotism. Anyone who suggests that this is hypnotism is an enemy of mankind...

Zinj

 

[The Oracle]

Geez, quite a blanket condemnation of all of those declared enemies of mankind.

Similar to the Church's "justice rites".

Blanket condemnations for point of view.

So, I have been declared an enemy of mankind, thank God you don't have access to my children! They still don't know!

Otherwise they might be coaxed to join you in lighting the fire

The Spanish Inquisition just made me stronger.

 

[programmer_guy]

So, I have been declared an enemy of mankind, thank God you don't have access to my children! They still don't know!

What don't they know?

 

[The Oracle]

They don't know I have been declared an enemy to mankind!

...........humor only .........................

I'm not a fan of blanket justices. Or any "justice". I think the whole activity is a ser fac.

Did you ever read "The Lottery"?

Once in a year in this village a lottery is held and the one with the "winning" ticket is stoned to death by the rest of the villiage.

Then they manage to live together in peace for the rest of the year.

Chilling.

But I did survive the Spanish Inquisition!

I bumped into someone a few years back that was really pissed off about it too!

She's still after me!

I'm here, then there, then here, then there, gone back, dead alive and I think it's making her dizzy.

 

[Veda]

Far be it from me to offer 'Verbal Tech' on Dennisology, but, I'm often struck with how insistent Scientologists are in insisting that 'auditing is not hypnotism' or 'The Tech is not hypnotism'.

It reminds me of hypnotized people insisting perfectly honestly that they were *not* hypnotized to think that they were chickens.

Part of that seems to be based on the experience that the 'auditor' himself seldom 'suggests' the 'win' or 'cog'.

Aha! It *can't* be hypnotism!

But.. it is a case of *pre-loaded* suggestion.

By the time the target is subjected to the 'process' he's already been *pre-loaded* with the necessary 'cogs' and 'wins'; whether through his reading or the tapes he's heard or his own listening to 'wins' published by *other* victims.

The auditor doesn't *have* to 'suggest' the desired outcome.

The target *knows* where it's going. And, *gets* there.

Watch the swinging needle... you'r feet are getting heavy, you will experience a releasing experience...

This is not hypnotism; this is the *opposite* of hypnotism. Anyone who suggests that this is hypnotism is an enemy of mankind...

Zinj

"Pre-loading" or "top-loading" is a very real situation in Scientology, yet - even in Scientology - not *all* "auditing" is *always* "Pre-loaded."

And I've "audited" people who've never heard of Scientology - the subject of "auditing" isn't quite that simple.

There are a few exceptions, here and there.

People are different. Not everyone is equally vulnerable to the highly suggestive and controlling situation of being in Scentology. Some people have managed to "walk through" Scientology without becoming "hypnotized."

As for the vulnerable people, the mental "casualties" of Scientology, yes, these have been majorly "pre-loaded" by Scientology, and "audited" in that "pre-loaded" condition, and then, further, brought to the "implant levels" of "OT 2" and "OT 3," and even further infused with suggestion, or further "loaded."

Such a person will usually insist that "auditing IS *never* an exercise in pre-loaded suggestion," and, if one can find someone who insists that "auditing *must always* be an exercise in pre-loaded suggestion," or, better yet, that "auditing IS *always* hypnotism," the pair will make an excellent set of bookends.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, there's some preloading, for sure. For instance, Hubbard even says the person has to know he can get better, etc. So right there you are starting with a premise. Of course that's true of other methods and therapies.

Also, if the pc doesn't have the "R Factor", he won't know what the process is supposed to do. That would also be considered preloading, I suppose.

But I think that any methodology or therapy or counselling or prayer thing anywhere anytime would have some measure of preloading.

So what would make Scn's different or worse or better or potentially more or less a certain way than those others?

 

[ron's hat]

...... I think the whole activity is a ser fac.......

If you are going to abbreviate 'service facsimile', please abbreviate it as 'serv fac'. Thank you.