L Ron Hubbard's Origins. Black Magick and Aleistar Crowley

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
Here is a pretty good video on the history of Aleistar Crowley. If you try to read the books - they are bat shit crazy and make no sense. No amount of Study Tech could get your through them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=12_PUYtkZBc

Did L Ron Hubbard drew out demons that are still alive and feeding off of members? Perhaps the "BT's" are not that far fetched???

BT's aren't really a new idea. Been around for a very long time.

Just because Hubbard latched onto a concept doesn't mean it's either right or wrong.

Like past lives.

But, provable?
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Here is a pretty good video on the history of Aleistar Crowley. If you try to read the books - they are bat shit crazy and make no sense. No amount of Study Tech could get your through them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=12_PUYtkZBc

Did L Ron Hubbard drew out demons that are still alive and feeding off of members? Perhaps the "BT's" are not that far fetched???

I believe, perhaps, that Hubbard was trying to shatter the psyche of his follows, preparing them to be proper vessels for demonic possession.(note)

And his plan was to then have an army of Demonic OTs with which to rule the world. See this thread

From Blavatsky's book
< Click image for full page, in 1888, the meaning of the OT symbol was the SAME as the swaztika!

Note: In the Huna as well as Sufi belief systems, the only handle a demon or a Jinn can have upon a human is the handle of GUILT... perhaps that is why so much effort is spent in $cientology to make scientologists feel guilty...for not being perfect, no less.
 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
I continue to maintain that:

1)
Crowley didn't display more influence upon the world than could be seen by his ability to provide drugs, sexual licentiousness, and an engaging take on mystical magical powers that never rise above anything anyone else could achieve without them. He had no oogie-boogie mumbo jumbo mystical powers at all, no special insights. His entire potency in life depends on the suggestibility of his adherents. The fact that LRH was highly under his influence was due to the attractiveness of a way of life that included drug abuse and female abuse, in the eyes of a young teen alienated from usual achievements in life because he was too lazy to be a good student in prep school and beyond, thus couldn't much hope for recognition and attainment by that route.

2) Similarly, no really good objective demonstration of the power of unseen spirits inhabiting man, and the various forms of exorcising them, rise above any need of a theory beyond the very familiar theory of suggestibility in humans. I know some fundamentalist Christians swear differently, but they haven't done a great job of proving the illness from possession thesis over the many centuries they have had to prove it, if able to.

Apparently at some point LRH managed to convince his son that there is some actual power involved in a Crowley inspired world view. Given that there is often an immense sense of authority in the father to son relationship, thus giving rise to deep suggestibility, and that Hubbard probably had the chance of indoctrinate his son in certain ways earlier in life, it isn't surprising that LRH Jr. was ALSO in a suggestible state of mind about the Crowley inspired world view. Of course he would feel nausea or dread or some deep emotion when presented with material he had been conditioned to be highly suggestible about. It doesn't prove the power of the fiction he was fed. It doesn't mean anything genuinely needing a supernatural explanation is present though, even if the son and great-grandson say differently.
What the hell does being a son or great-grandson of a rebellious charlatan have to do with establishing the truth of any supernatural or metaphysical proposition?

Crowley is a big yawn to everyone not already made suggestible to his speil, as with LRH. Ditto all that "black magic" mumbo jumbo. It all depends on how suggestible you are and why you find some story tellers credible.


 

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
BT's aren't really a new idea. Been around for a very long time.

Just because Hubbard latched onto a concept doesn't mean it's either right or wrong.

Like past lives.

But, provable?

This is not science but the proof is David Miscavige. Tell me that dude is not possessed with demons! He is so evil and destructive - not human. Completely bat shit crazy and his crimes will worsen - count on it. He sold his soul to the devil and now the loan is getting called due! No refinancing, no more time - it is due!
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
<snip>

It doesn't mean anything genuinely needing a supernatural explanation is present though, even if the son and great-grandson say differently. What the hell does being a son or great-grandson of a rebellious charlatan have to do with establishing the truth of any supernatural or metaphysical proposition?

Crowley is a big yawn to everyone not already made suggestible to his speil, as with LRH. Ditto all that "black magic" mumbo jumbo. It all depends on how suggestible you are and why you find some story tellers credible.




Dude,

I believe you completely missed the point.

It's irrelevant whether or not "black magic" actually works or has any genuine supernatural effects.

What's important is whether L. Ron Hubbard believed that it worked.

And if yes, what were his intentions when applying it?

That Hubbard actually believed in this stuff doesn't just rely upon the testimony of his son. There is other credible evidence. :yes:
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Dude,

I believe you completely missed the point.

It's irrelevant whether or not "black magic" actually works or has any genuine supernatural effects.

What's important is whether L. Ron Hubbard believed that it worked.

And if yes, what were his intentions when applying it?

That Hubbard actually believed in this stuff doesn't just rely upon the testimony of his son. There is other credible evidence. :yes:

FIFY
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is not science but the proof is David Miscavige. Tell me that dude is not possessed with demons! He is so evil and destructive - not human. Completely bat shit crazy and his crimes will worsen - count on it. He sold his soul to the devil and now the loan is getting called due! No refinancing, no more time - it is due!

And also tell me that Hubbard did NOT use numerology and astrology < both a part of Magic , when choosing DM to succeed him...(DM's Birthdate significance in Satanism) for the same reason that he chose David Mayo to be the top tech person... See LINK

Hubbard told nibs when he was child to NEVER say Abra-Mellin's name, he said to say MAYO when his son wanted to refer to Abra-Mellin. LINK

Get it?
 
Last edited:

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
And also tell me that Hubbard did NOT use numerology < a part of Magic , when choosing DM to succeed him...(DM's Birthdate significance in Satanism) for the same reason that he chose David Mayo to be the top tech person... See LINK

Hubbard told nibs when he was child to NEVER say Abra-Mellin's name, he said to say MAYO when his son wanted to refer to Abra-Mellin.

Get it?

Yes, Hubbard's mind was polluted by hokum and superstition, just as many people's minds all over the world are. I don't think it makes a difference in ultimate real world events of people who are ignorant of his belief structure or that it gives the strongest insight into Hubbard's thought processes. It does seem something useful to smear him with, is all. You don't need to go to obscure lengths and conjectural theories that assume you are correctly reading Hubbard's mind to smear him though - his overt and popular writings do this. "Dispose of quietly and without sorrow" and the like.

To undo the account of how Miscavige came to dominate Scientology by supposing some wholly undocumented Hubbard bequest to him of power, based merely on something about numerology, is to refute relatively well documented accounts for this that proceed by the conventional methods used by historians.

The usual account of DM's rise above the apparently anointed Broekers involves logistics and doings that have nothing to do with numerology. DM was among the set involved in Hubbard's final flights from governmental tracking and knew the methods of contacting him with appropriate security, a fact which conventional historical methods have accounted for by his known traits while working in the Cine unit that came to be useful to someone who needed absolute loyalty in an understaffer - such as willingness to enter a phony and bigamous marriage and defraud the world as to one's true identity, etc. The other elopers of key merit, Broekers, had experience in providing Hubbard with needed funds on a perhaps untraceable basis. There are somewhat documented and sensible reasons for why DM was in the second innermost circle of LRH at death, and we don't need numerology conjuctures to place him there. We also don't need the LACK of numerological indicia for why the Broekers had prime access and WRITTEN bequest of power to them, because all this numerological stuff is conjectural as to how it would actually play out in Hubbard's mind. (Unless someone in ESMB wants to announce and prove they read Hubbard's mind perfectly.)

If DM's special birthday was so damn significant, why did a publication issue placing the Broekers as the anointed successors that DM then had to maneuver against WITHOUT the slightest apparent backing from Hubbard and only the power to choke his communications in Erewhonian manner?

"Numerology tells me DM is to be the heir, so I'll appoint rivals and say nothing of his legacy but merely let him fight it out if he can" How does this narrative make numerology so important? How does this rise above the account that tracks what conventional historical methods would establish (and have actually) instead?

If Mayo was so important all the time because of the happenstance of his name, why was he so disposable at the end? What becomes of this name similarity importance when it winds up being trivia that did not determine ultimate outcomes?

===

Also, there is never only "one" point to anything, unless everyone is obliged to concede a debate to whoever claims possession of "the point". My point is that no objective fact is determined by a lot of unrevealed subjective noodlings by Hubbard. That doesn't amount to a difference in conduct of anyone else, and most especially their conduct in being under some mumbo jumbo nonscientific "mind control" that people like to attribute to Scientology without adequate justification by empirical science. Frauds like Margaret Singer liked to tout their special and rare capability to understand and counter this "mind control", but the scientific community she so wanted to seem enmeshed in didn't buy it. They'll buy numerological conjectures that are contrary to what history exists to explain DM's rise to power even less.

Objective events in the real world that actually influence other people's lives depend upon how those other people understood Hubbard, by his words, not on his unrevealed subjective state. I can be secretly chanting shamanic rythyms and playing with voodoo dolls all the while when typing this, but the only thing that matters is what words you see on the screen and how you personally decode them. My subjective truth of shamanic influence amounts to nothing outside of that, if we want to suppose I am doing so.

There is nothing sinister in Scientology methods aside from the bad morals it seeks to engrain and justify, which do result in objective facts that matter in people's lives regardless of Hubbard's actual subjective states. Outside of that Scientology is merely story telling and socialization to make people suggestible to the authority of the story teller and thereby adopt his bad morals as one's own. One shouldn't go around trying to build up a mystique of rare and hard to understand potency within something that fundamentally does not possess some mysterious and hard to understand potency at all. It's counterproductive. That's my point. There is never just the one point to any discussion.



 
Last edited:

Jest3r

Patron
I enjoy your posts because as I read them, it feels like I'm reading the words of Thomas Jefferson or, better yet, Superman. Red and blue forever.
 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
Here is a pretty good video on the history of Aleistar Crowley. If you try to read the books - they are bat shit crazy and make no sense. No amount of Study Tech could get your through them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=12_PUYtkZBc

Did L Ron Hubbard drew out demons that are still alive and feeding off of members? Perhaps the "BT's" are not that far fetched???

Actually Crowley's works are simply a different flavoring of mystical splooge if you happen to already be familiar with Gnosticism and its precedessor in Egyptian cosmology, a bit of the sort of Vedic influence that was creeping in to western thinking during Crowley's formative years such as through the Theosophical folks and others, and other Western occult traditions.

Hubbard explained it as "personal universe vs. shared universe" and "what is true for you is what you have observed yourself". This is a rather plain text rendition. Crowley conversely covered the same ground by fiction novel approach to the material and introduced a sort of crone woman at one point to go around repeatedly saying "in this country" in a peculiar voice as his method of covering the point. It was an unotherwise uninspired novel he wrote about creating a moon child, so I assumed I was supposed to be attentive to what points the various fictional narrative is meant to encode. This follows the mystical tradition where you have to have someone to help you decode the text and simultaneously the text exists to be a memory aide of all the points to remember and think about but obscure to most other people, religious scholars excluded. Hubbard tried to be the instruction manual writer to Crowley's traditional encoded mystical text method. Study tech won't help, but extensive reading in mystical traditions East and West will.

As to your question on BTs, etc., the demon possessed world has had millenia to prove its points yet has failed to do so. Whether you call them BTs, djinn, fairies, or what have you, attributing power to them brings up the task of explaining
why it is only in certain circumstances that this power ever manifests, rather than routinely. These are convenient demons when convenient and ignored demons when inconvenient because a rational explanation is already in hand. Hell, even the famous broke clock that is right twice a day is at least right on a predictable basis, which these alleged demons influencing human life don't manage to accomplish. Demons not as comprehensible as a broken clock? None for me thanks. Don't bother with something that unreliable even if there could be truth to it for some strange reason.

That is the best critique of the demon possessed world I know of. Sorry it isn't definitive, but I think you have to reach into religious faith to arrive at a definitive answer, much as the logical positivists did to arrive at the modern day faith called materialism.


 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
Dude,

I believe you completely missed the point.

It's irrelevant whether or not "black magic" actually works or has any genuine supernatural effects.

What's important is whether L. Ron Hubbard believed that it worked.

And if yes, what were his intentions when applying it?

That Hubbard actually believed in this stuff doesn't just rely upon the testimony of his son. There is other credible evidence. :yes:

I understand what you are trying to say. I am saying is that you can (1) try to influence strangers and the public by first getting them to believe you have good enough insight into Hubbard's subjective state of mind and accurately extrapolate what that means, which is extremely conjectural (to put it the most polite way that I probably should), or (2) stick to a more straightforward presentation of traditionally regarded theories like "suggestibility" and how story telling in the Abrahamic and other traditions have been potent in shaping people's lives regardless of any supernatural influences, true or false.

Or put more simply:

Strategy A: First maybe win or lose on a very conjectural point to provide support to the second step of convincing the audience.

Strategy B: Consider explanations of life that are already accepted by your audience and then proceed to your second step of persuasion with that support.

I prefer B. I realize ESMB has many many more lurkers than posters and believe some of them prefer Strategy B too.

Crowley is a black mark on Hubbard's bio to most people, but other than that he was a so-what. He was just a dope dealing orgy hosting speiler and con artist, just as Hubbard was a con artist. Don't go around building up his mystique by attributing the ability to build powerful things within his construction when they are really just bullshit for all practical purposes. Pretending that Hubbard actually knew something of potency that is poorly understood merely grants him power of suggestibility over others. I propose: DENY that power unless you have EXCELLENT reason not to.


 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
Am outstanding book that covers it all and makes sense despite what anyone believes:





I'm sorry I haven't purchased a copy of it yet. I suspect, though, that it isn't going to cover any ground that I haven't already read in other material by other authors. I'm not a newbie to reading up on the occult and various supernatural theories, and there is seldom any new line of thinking when it comes to the Demon Haunted World. I will try to find a copy of it cheaply enough that I'll buy it, though.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm sorry I haven't purchased a copy of it yet. I suspect, though, that it isn't going to cover any ground that I haven't already read in other material by other authors. I'm not a newbie to reading up on the occult and various supernatural theories, and there is seldom any new line of thinking when it comes to the Demon Haunted World. I will try to find a copy of it cheaply enough that I'll buy it, though.

I knew
you would say that
 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around

I knew
you would say that

Jeez, Lerma. Erlich could take the condo in Palm Springs and shut-up deal. Snapped it right up. What's it going to take to bring you to the settlement table? Do you need a Ferrari as good as Broekers and a blow job to seal the deal, along with a condo in . . . well I'm guessing Sedona would be your speed?

What are you achieving otherwise? I mean these far out interpretations of things Hubbardish - its almost as if you're getting to be like that dude who has trying to go around and claim minute electrical currents from an e-meter have addictive and psychoactive properties. Man did he ever have to eat crow when a magazine tried to spread that around in public in a story about Katie Holmes but then had to beat a hasty retreat when scientific minds who understand electrophysiology chimed in. Pity a.r.s. and Clambake never had anyone competent in electrophsyiology around, though a few posers were on hand. They could have headed off that kind of debacle with their genuine scientific knowledge, if any were around in either place that is.

Now I love a good rousing round of "whose OSA, YOU'RE OSA!!!" as much as the next /b/tard. It brings back the original days of a.r.s. and all that excitement of people slightly ahead of the curve in adapting internet technology exposing themselves as the founts of all truth about human existence, as they so loudly did . . . or tried to. But sometimes I think it can overdone and is a cheap way to avoid discussion of a serious point. Thee are times that serious points need to be covered and so a good lively round of Jar-Jar-Binks-like "WHOSA OSA - MESA THINK YOUSA OSA!" has to be set aside.

Serious point: are you going to persuade more people by first persuading them into a demon-haunted-world interpretation of life and THEN convince them about a point on Hubbard, or by just leaving off the whole demon-world subscription as the first step to accessing the truths you have to offer about Scientology or Hubbard? It's a free country and a free internet, so I'll accept that you prioritize as you wish, and will continue to do the same for myself.
 

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
I believe, perhaps, that Hubbard was trying to shatter the psyche of his follows, preparing them to be proper vessels for demonic possession.(note)

And his plan was to then have an army of Demonic OTs with which to rule the world. See this thread

From Blavatsky's book
< Click image for full page, in 1888, the meaning of the OT symbol was the SAME as the swaztika!

Note: In the Huna as well as Sufi belief systems, the only handle a demon or a Jinn can have upon a human is the handle of GUILT... perhaps that is why so much effort is spent in $cientology to make scientologists feel guilty...for not being perfect, no less.

I have been studying trauma and how easy it is to hypnotize people when they are traumatized.

Hubbard's Tech and Organization creates trauma but it is carefully masked. The PTS/SP tech will traumatize your life if you start disconnecting from family and friends. The information is traumatizing because one starts to look at people with not love - but suspicion; what tone level are they REALLY - this shatters one's trust for others...although it is not done all at once.

If Scientology can get you to disconnect from loved ones and join the group - that level of trauma will make the "subject" amenable to the mind controlling information in the books and lectures. A little truth will be sprinkled into a lot of confusion - and the tech says "cope, while the confusion is blowing off".

The hypnosis is Hubbard...and he is making suggestions on how to operate until he has you completely under his spell. You know you are gone when you need an LRH reference on what to do to solve your own problems.

It is simple and clever. Hubbard also says you cannot get hypnotized w/o being in pain or unconscious. This is a bold faced lie. We are being hypnotized everyday whether we like it or not.

Advertizer's study this and use it. For example, Drug Companies have tv commercials flashing pictures of smiling faces enjoying life, walking with their loved one on the beach holding hands... while side effects include death, suicide, homocide, liver failure, kidney failure, heart attack etc is said in a low voice over very fast or small print is shown during the ad. (The drug dealer is hoping you don't notice) and then ASK you doctor if it is right for you...(don't look at the side effects for yourself...go to an authority).

The authority is not given the side effects because the laws have changed thanks to bribery, uh, I mean, lobbying and drug companies don't have to disclose to doctor's the side effects AFAIK.

Scientology does the same thing - shows you glossy photos of expansion with photo shopped images dubbing in masses of people at events. They have actors and actresses - attractive and young - sharing the "wins" from Scientology. The Organization goes to great lengths to bribe opinion leaders with doing special favors for them in exchange for speaking at events where their speeches are written for them by Scientology spokes holes like Sherman. The Opinion Leaders read these speeches off of teleprompters.

It is a "dog and pony" show to get your trust and put your guard down. "Get rid of your reactive mind, the Bank does not want you to survive so secure your bridge by putting it on credit cards now before prices go up" etc...and it is carefully hidden from view.

Glossy promo, "wow the crowds" circus-like events, tents, balloons, confetti and ribbons on big shiny buildings with celebrities tauting the tech are all part of the gas lighting done to convince one Scientology is real.
 

Jest3r

Patron
It is simple and clever. Hubbard also says you cannot get hypnotized w/o being in pain or unconscious. This is a bold faced lie. We are being hypnotized everyday whether we like it or not.

Advertizer's study this and use it. For example, Drug Companies have tv commercials flashing pictures of smiling faces enjoying life, walking with their loved one on the beach holding hands... while side effects include death, suicide, homocide, liver failure, kidney failure, heart attack etc is said in a low voice over very fast or small print is shown during the ad. (The drug dealer is hoping you don't notice) and then ASK you doctor if it is right for you...(don't look at the side effects for yourself...go to an authority).

That is not an example of hypnotism. That is advertising 101. They show happy people smiling and loving life while enjoying their product for reasons I should not have to explain. As for drug companies, the fact that they minimize the side effect warnings as much as possible is not an indication of hypnotism, it is simply the least they need to do to remain compliant with FTC or FDA regulation. If they didn't have to include warnings in their commercials, they wouldn't.

Calling out drug companies on a perceived hypnosis conspiracy for showing happy people in their advertisements is deceptively narrow. You can apply what you've claimed to almost any advertisement. Whether they are trying to sell you insurance, shoes, cars, cheeseburgers or whatever, you will see happy people smiling and loving what they are being paid to love.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
Jeez, Lerma. Erlich could take the condo in Palm Springs and shut-up deal. Snapped it right up. What's it going to take to bring you to the settlement table? Do you need a Ferrari as good as Broekers and a blow job to seal the deal, along with a condo in . . . well I'm guessing Sedona would be your speed?

-snip-


Huh?


Now I love a good rousing round of "whose OSA, YOU'RE OSA!!!" as much as the next /b/tard. It brings back the original days of a.r.s. and all that excitement of people slightly ahead of the curve in adapting internet technology exposing themselves as the founts of all truth about human existence, as they so loudly did

-snip-

Huh?
 
Top