l ron Hubbard the Hippy

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Some hippies were way into military paraphenalia: army jackets/coats, combat boots, gas mask bags, swastikas. (Swastika's not originally a military symbol but certainly has that association in the West.)


That was because is was inexpensive and now "recycled" army surplus clothing, the 'military' aspect was irrelevant, if not irreverent.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
Our doctors always have been better than yours

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,885063,00.html

Dutch doctors have forced a dose of political castor oil down the throats of Holland's Nazi overlords. Furious because the doctors refused to join a Nazi-created Chamber of Physicians, the Nazis threatened them with penalties. Thereupon 6,200 Dutch doctors shut their offices, went on strike. They told Reich Commissioner Arthur Seyss-Inquart that they would have no part of a medical society that sponsored "deportation of the insane and sick persons and the sterilization of healthy people."

Seyss-Inquart stormed, threw hundreds of doctors into jail. For weeks there was almost no medical service in The Netherlands. Then the Nazis, fearful of epidemics, gave..

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,885063,00.html#ixzz2aKvbDgSv

QUOTE=Udarnik;828116]AnonKat, are you kidding? Eugenics was an English movement. The Nazis took it and twisted it, but it hardly started with them.

The Dutch never heavily (though they did somewhat, ever hear of Afkomst en Toekomst?) took up Eugenics in Europe because the Netherlands are a small country with a homogenous, middle class population, and has been since the middle ages. As long as everyone in the Netherlands was in the club, the Dutch had no reason to take it up. But as soon as the Dutch began mixing with those dirty brown people, its appeal became obvious.

And seriously, in America, Psychiatry was only perpherally involved. Eugenics was more biological in nature - was an offshoot of the infant study of human heredity and the birth control movement. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood had far more to do with it than Psychiatry, so why are you going on about it? These days in America the only people who try to smear Planned Parenthood with its eugenic origins are the religious Republicans who are hell bent on destroying freedom of choice. Why dig that far back - there was lots of goofy shit held as gospel by a much more credulous medical comminty back then. Prior to WWII, a lot of good people thought eugenics might have some benefit, not having seen it tried on a large scale yet. Medical science evolves, as science is structured to do, and the bad stuff is cast off over time. The process isn't fast, but it is remoreseless.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe there's a confusion between Holland and Sweden, you do both have cheeses and speak vaguely related languages.
http://www.thelocal.se/2727/20051221/
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Not really, The netherlands are the birthground of Social Psychiatry begginning with Jacobus Schroeder van der Kolk, the rest of the world does not know that.

This Wiki page is pretty incompleet talking only about some American bright lights

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



Maybe there's a confusion between Holland and Sweden, you do both have cheeses and speak vaguely related languages.
http://www.thelocal.se/2727/20051221/[/QUOTE]

But the English are on to something

"Post-war developments were complicated and not easy for outsiders to grasp fully. Attempts by leading Dutch psychohygienists to run an integrated care system, with social psychiatrists as intermediaries between asylum psychiatry and mental hygienists, had their ups and downs but—while drawing on American as well as British examples—a new ambulant mental health care system saw a particular Dutch form of emphasizing psychotherapy and education and environment in mental health. The creation of the Regional Institutes for Ambulatory Mental Health Care (RIAGGs) saw the social psychiatric approach more or less subordinated to psychotherapy, and proponents of social psychiatry feared that the seriously disturbed would not be properly cared for in the RIAGGs. These criticisms were met and by the mid-1980s the Dutch government had embarked on a programme of “socialization”, forcing the integration at a regional level between RIAGGs, housing projects and institutional psychiatry. In the 1970s and developing from their origins in the 1940s and 1950s, there appeared an increasing number of Institutes for Multidisciplinary Psychotherapy; these in turn had to defend themselves against the newer RIAGGs on the grounds of a feared loss of autonomy and funding. Despite the complications, the striking Dutch example remains: that Dutch psychotherapeutic services have a very distinct history, including a rapid growth in ambulatory services as well as an independent profession. The most recent situation in Holland is in some ways the most interesting. As I understand Hutschemaekers' and Oosterhuis's essay, the RIAGGs have slowly become populated by health professionals rediscovering the merits of a stricter biomedical approach, with psychotherapists quitting the RIAGGs to go into private practice. So Dutch psychotherapists are now losing status, outmanoeuvered by a newly dominant biomedicine, legally answerable to psychologists, outside the RIAGG system and on the defensive. A remarkably unified history may actually be at the point of dividing up, with psychotherapy no longer the “gold standard” it had been from the late 1960s until the mid-1980s. If this is true, then perhaps all the essays here do share one last final common theme: that no contenders in the various approaches to mental illness as professionally conceived—social psychiatric, institutional and asylum based, psychotherapeutic, even psychoanalytic—have a guaranteed presence on the medical stage. Political events, social events, state expenditure and the need for savings, the growth of psychopharmacology, lay involvement followed by lay indifference, war, peace: all play their determining part. And in doing so, they change both the history of words and the history of practices."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC546364/
 
Not really, The netherlands are the birthground of Social Psychiatry begginning with Jacobus Schroeder van der Kolk, the rest of the world does not know that.

This Wiki page is pretty incompleet talking only about some American bright lights

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




Maybe there's a confusion between Holland and Sweden, you do both have cheeses and speak vaguely related languages.
http://www.thelocal.se/2727/20051221/

But the English are on to something

"Post-war developments were complicated and not easy for outsiders to grasp fully. Attempts by leading Dutch psychohygienists to run an integrated care system, with social psychiatrists as intermediaries between asylum psychiatry and mental hygienists, had their ups and downs but—while drawing on American as well as British examples—a new ambulant mental health care system saw a particular Dutch form of emphasizing psychotherapy and education and environment in mental health. The creation of the Regional Institutes for Ambulatory Mental Health Care (RIAGGs) saw the social psychiatric approach more or less subordinated to psychotherapy, and proponents of social psychiatry feared that the seriously disturbed would not be properly cared for in the RIAGGs. These criticisms were met and by the mid-1980s the Dutch government had embarked on a programme of “socialization”, forcing the integration at a regional level between RIAGGs, housing projects and institutional psychiatry. In the 1970s and developing from their origins in the 1940s and 1950s, there appeared an increasing number of Institutes for Multidisciplinary Psychotherapy; these in turn had to defend themselves against the newer RIAGGs on the grounds of a feared loss of autonomy and funding. Despite the complications, the striking Dutch example remains: that Dutch psychotherapeutic services have a very distinct history, including a rapid growth in ambulatory services as well as an independent profession. The most recent situation in Holland is in some ways the most interesting. As I understand Hutschemaekers' and Oosterhuis's essay, the RIAGGs have slowly become populated by health professionals rediscovering the merits of a stricter biomedical approach, with psychotherapists quitting the RIAGGs to go into private practice. So Dutch psychotherapists are now losing status, outmanoeuvered by a newly dominant biomedicine, legally answerable to psychologists, outside the RIAGG system and on the defensive. A remarkably unified history may actually be at the point of dividing up, with psychotherapy no longer the “gold standard” it had been from the late 1960s until the mid-1980s. If this is true, then perhaps all the essays here do share one last final common theme: that no contenders in the various approaches to mental illness as professionally conceived—social psychiatric, institutional and asylum based, psychotherapeutic, even psychoanalytic—have a guaranteed presence on the medical stage. Political events, social events, state expenditure and the need for savings, the growth of psychopharmacology, lay involvement followed by lay indifference, war, peace: all play their determining part. And in doing so, they change both the history of words and the history of practices."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC546364/[/QUOTE]


How does that relate to hubbard?
 

AnonKat

Crusader

its was somewhat of a side step, But Dutch Psychytry wasn't as fucked up as American, In the 30ties Dutch Psychiatrists rejected Eugenics,

Threating the person was more important/

Well I will share a secret with you most of our Psychiatrist are Jungian and many do believe in a soul, but they won't admit that directly because it could make them look foolish in the proffesion.

The founding father of Dutch Psychiatry

"Schroeder van der Kolk is regarded as the founder of Dutch psychiatry and neurology. This paper describes his vitalistic views on the relation between body and soul, as formulated by him in a series of lectures. These lectures were intended to counteract the materialistic tendencies of some of Schroeder van der Kolk's French and German contemporaries. It is argued that Schroeder van der Kolk can be regarded as the transition in Holland from the "Naturphilosophie" approach to the modern experimental approach in physiology."

Copyright 1998 Academic Press.
 
its was somewhat of a side step, But Dutch Psychytry wasn't as fucked up as American, In the 30ties Dutch Psychiatrists rejected Eugenics,

Threating the person was more important/

Well I will share a secret with you most of our Psychiatrist are Jungian and many do believe in a soul, but they won't admit that directly because it could make them look foolish in the proffesion.

The founding father of Dutch Psychiatry

"Schroeder van der Kolk is regarded as the founder of Dutch psychiatry and neurology. This paper describes his vitalistic views on the relation between body and soul, as formulated by him in a series of lectures. These lectures were intended to counteract the materialistic tendencies of some of Schroeder van der Kolk's French and German contemporaries. It is argued that Schroeder van der Kolk can be regarded as the transition in Holland from the "Naturphilosophie" approach to the modern experimental approach in physiology."

Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

So what is your point?
 

AnonKat

Crusader
So what is your point?

That L Ron Hubbard was a Hippy, because he called shananigans on the whole hypocrit American Socïety back in the day including the Idea on what was normal. And the Psychiatric system being used to weed out anything what was not in line with "normal"

And he took on J Edgar Hoover Who was practicly The King of America for 48 years, He fucked over your country good He let a president got shot, Maarten Luther King died under his reign and Robert kennedy

America America this is you ! All hail to King hoover !!! KING of America

Hoover.jpeg
 
That L Ron Hubbard was a Hippy, because he called shananigans on the whole hypocrit American Socïety back in the day including the Idea on what was normal. And the Psychiatric system being used to weed out anything what was not in line with "normal"

And he took on J Edgar Hoover Who was practicly The King of America for 48 years, He fucked over your country good He let a president got shot, Maartrn Luther King died under his reign and Robert kennedy

America America this is you ! All hail to King hoover !!! KING of Ameica

Hoover.jpeg


He did not fuck over my country AFAIK.

All that work to try and convince hardarse anti Hubbardists that Ron = good, and you tried to do it by degrading him to "hippy". Jesus, that's lame! Who is your audience? Newly outs with cash and beliefs?
 

AnonKat

Crusader
lol, nah just wanted to give another perspective. I don't want moniez, just to counter "hardarse anti Hubbardists" that make the man into the devil. He was just a man. Hoover was more bad ass

Do you have a nickel than ? so i can buy myself some delicious moist ceak

He did not fuck over my country AFAIK.

All that work to try and convince hardarse anti Hubbardists that Ron = good, and you tried to do it by degrading him to "hippy". Jesus, that's lame! Who is your audience? Newly outs with cash and beliefs?

h89FD3E04
 
lol, nah just wanted to give another perspective. I don't want moniez, just to counter "hardarse anti Hubbardists" that make the man into the devil. He was just a man. Hoover was more bad ass

Do you have a nickel than ? so i can buy myself some delicious moist ceak

Your caek is poisonous. Keep eating it yourself.
 

David C Gibbons

Ex-Scientology Peon
There were a few 'hippies' who were criminals and con men, using regurgitated eastern and other philosophies to gain power and advantage over others, and L. Ron Hubbard was a criminal and con man using the same, but I don't believe that made Hubbard a hippie. (For one, he was never 'hip'.) As I write this, 'criminal and con man' seems redundant, but the creation of the cult of Scientology elevated Hubbard into a higher level of criminality, considering how many more people were and are being harmed by the so-called 'religion' he created. Down with Scientology!
 

AnonKat

Crusader
There were a few 'hippies' who were criminals and con men, using regurgitated eastern and other philosophies to gain power and advantage over others, and L. Ron Hubbard was a criminal and con man using the same, but I don't believe that made Hubbard a hippie. (For one, he was never 'hip'.) As I write this, 'criminal and con man' seems redundant, but the creation of the cult of Scientology elevated Hubbard into a higher level of criminality, considering how many more people were and are being harmed by the so-called 'religion' he created. Down with Scientology!

I tottaly agree you have convinced me, Just want to point out that he actually knew some good psychology. That helps keeping the masses in line.

[video=youtube;BS74fIIDw94]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS74fIIDw94[/video]

Most religions are ore were a con at some point.
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
We in the Netherlands never took on Eugenics, fucking American Psychiatrist imported that shit right from the Germans
well, actually i think the germans could have just as easily taken eugenics from the americans.
just ask a native american about small pox blankets, and special indian schools... that is if you can find a native american.

hubbard was not remotely in any way a hippie. he comes from "greatest" generation, WWll. he could have been a beat just barely, but he doesn't fit any standard counter cultural model. he was just a greedy cult leader, period.
 
Hubbub a hippy? Yeah, I think that's what he aspired towards along with being a movie star, producer, nuclear physicist, writer, and a stellar Artist/musician, (bla, bla) all around progressive, new-world guy: anything that anyone would love to be involved with or doing. Yet he tried it in a more pseudo-intellectual beatnik sort of way - and hid the real hippy stuff.

He failed at all attempts miserably, but had he mentioned that he really wanted to F with everyone's mind and create some sort of godly (small 'g') legacy - then everyone would have to say: "he succeeded."

I really do hope he gets a small glimpse of just what his legacy is- and is going to be for all eternity.

Quite sure he's been evicted from Venus and the Van Allen Belt...and really: even the Marcabians don't want him I am sure!

He's squeezing someone's cans somewhere for sure.

(I'll go to bed now)

there is no end to possible criticism of elron but to say he failed miserably in all ways is somewhat ludicrous. auditing and auditor training will endure and he will remain a significant historic figure. and he certainly did many things well, master mariner etc. etc.
 
Top