Julie Gillespie Mayo on LRH

Veda

Sponsor
Again using big Black and White things like Stockholm Syndrome. It is high time I am going to speak up about all the Godwinning around here.

Do you even know what Stockholm Syndrome is?

Write a hundred or two hundred words extemporaneously, right now, on the subject of your choice.

I won't hold my breath, waiting.

This seems to be the extent of your creative verbal expression:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=429414&postcount=46

By the way the video you posted in the above link was excellent.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Do you even know what Stockholm Syndrome is?

Write a hundred or two hundred words extemporaneously, right now, on the subject of your choice.

I won't hold my breath, waiting.

Don't worry I learned what it was in high school. Making exuses for and defending ones capturetakers

I just disagree that it applies here.

And you write a hundred words yourself
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Well that's intersesting. Personnaly I think there are many more people that could be dictators.

It is more intresting that he didn't take this so far as Miscavige does. Hubbard mistreated people at a whim because of his own personal drama and that is WRONG.

As far as the whole Dianetics thing. It was a training programm to get happy smiling people. The thing is that would make them MEST.

I think that Hubbard would have gone much further than he did if ill-health, old age, and the need to hide from the law, hadn't slowed him down. He aspired to having his own country as we know. I'm pretty sure that prison camps and forced labour would have been an early adopted feature, if he had succeeded. Just speculation on my part, but not unfounded.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
I think that Hubbard would have gone much further than he did if ill-health, old age, and the need to hide from the law, hadn't slowed him down. He aspired to having his own country as we know. I'm pretty sure that prison camps and forced labour would have been an early adopted feature, if he had succeeded. Just speculation on my part, but not unfounded.

I don't want Scientology to run my country either.

It is easy to think that. I say just judge him on what he did do not on what he didn't do.

Funny thing is Tom Cruise played in a movie were people got convicted for things they would do in the future before they actually did it.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
I thought you'd cop out.

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.[1][2] The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Again using big Black and White things like Stockholm Syndrome. It is high time I am going to speak up about all the Godwinning around here.

The need for a Monster is blatantly obvious. I personally put L Ron Hubbard in the category Baghwan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpfoh47L8iw

Rajneesh always struck me as being like Charles Manson without the murder. An expert in subverting peoples thinking, and making them emotionally dependent on him, which is how Manson put his family together. Rajneesh was a master hypnotist, in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2oZWpqtNi4&feature=related


Hubbard and Miscavige are nothing compared to the likes of Stalin and Hitler, as you say.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I don't want Scientology to run my country either.

It is easy to think that. I say just judge him on what he did do not on what he didn't do.

Funny thing is Tom Cruise played in a movie were people got convicted for things they would do in the future before they actually did it.

I take your point AK - it's best to proceed as you suggest.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Hubbard and Miscavige are nothing compared to the likes of Stalin and Hitler, as you say.

Of course not.

They controlled entire countries. The cult of Scientology existed and exists inside society.

That's why its primary tactic is deception. It's covert.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Some will hate it still because it depicts Hubbard as a man and not a monster. Just a man with flaws like others. A child of his time really.
Yes, some may wish to argue Julie's impressions of Hubbard but, in my opinion, it rings true as an accurate description.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Some will hate it still because it depicts Hubbard as a man and not a monster. Just a man with flaws like others. A child of his time really.
To what I've bolded, nup, I don't think so - His "flaws" were of a nature *not* common with others, and I don't see the write up as depicting that they were.

I don't buy lines like "we all have faults" and "we all have our weaknesses" when they are used to justify or make less of bad behaviour and/or harmful intent. LRH was one of a kind, and his flaws were not just like those of others. I don't think he was a "monster" despite his engaging in monstrous acts. I think he was a man, but *not* a good man like most men are. He was one fucked up dude, who sadly fucked over a lot of people in a big way - That's not "just a man with flaws like others".
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Well, that's true. His flaws were somewhat magnified by the willingness of others to grant him a lot of Beingness.
The flaws obviously gained sway exponentially as time progressed.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
To what I've bolded, nup, I don't think so - His "flaws" were of a nature *not* common with others, and I don't see the write up as depicting that they were.

I don't buy lines like "we all have faults" and "we all have our weaknesses" when they are used to justify or make less of bad behaviour and/or harmful intent. LRH was one of a kind, and his flaws were not just like those of others. I don't think he was a "monster" despite his engaging in monstrous acts. I think he was a man, but *not* a good man like most men are. He was one fucked up dude, who sadly fucked over a lot of people in a big way - That's not "just a man with flaws like others".

I don't buy those lines either. He got away with things he should have been put in jail for. Or at least fined. The thing is because of Maritime law He did nothing wrong. A captain is king on his ship. But oh Boy I am mad and I want to stuff him imnto a chainlocker myself.


I like the last part
 
Top