LRH Letter to the FBI - 1951

Veda

Sponsor
"LRH = Survival, and an FN is an FN," so really nothing else matters does it?

Hubbard's desire may have been fulfilled. His mental-healing-coated, trickery-utilizing, blackmail-collecting, money-sucking and money-laundering personality-cult may last a thousand years.

The mental-healing part, initially, even has some redeeming characteristics. All the better to befuddle. The manipulative part is an art and a science - a tech in itself - and manipulating "Saps" is an Hubbardian Scientology specialty. Blackmail collecting is a long standing practice, as is money-sucking and money-laundering. And the personality-cult, with its ultimate Scientological implant of "LRH = Survival," glues the unsuspecting nicely to the treadmill.

And the treadmill now has an established existence outside the formal organization of Scientology, as does the LRH fan(atic) club (with appropriate PR camouflage), so the objective of a separate self-sustaining personality-cult has been attained.

Here's the good news: Important information on the secretive subject of Scientology, and its background, has become available for examination and analysis.

The negatives will be understood and discarded, and the positives will be salvaged and further developed.
 

The Oracle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hey! Wouldn't it be real cool if all those "ethics reports" that the CofSers think are confidential --- you know the kind, Sally did such-and-such and you need to "handle" her right now!!! --- would eventually become public record accessible through a sort of Freedom of Information Act?

Ha ha. The laugh's on LRH. He thought his "report" to the FBI & AG DOJ was confidential. Then later the CofS takes credit for getting the Freedom of Information Act going, someone uses the FIA and viola... LRH's old "reports" (showing him playing two sides against the middle... aka contradicting himself and his "policies") start showing up to bite him in the butt.

Ha ha ha ha ha :roflmao:


I have to admit this is very funny actually.

He was basically goin to the FBI to handle his spouse. She was a disgruntled P.C. too.

I think they were married while he audited her through clear.

She was staged at a public event in L.A. as a "new clear" in front of a huge audience . It's her photo of the woman laying on the couch as Hubbard gives a session.

The photo is used a lot on PR.

So he announces her as clear and opens up questions from the audience.

He thought clear was a stable datumn without taking into consideration charchter and I.Q.. She wasn't exactly a rocket scientist.

So people asked her questions and she came off like a dazed out dummy and it was a huge set back for Hubbards career.


T.I.
 

The Oracle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well, -IF- he indeed did any valid research? - And even if he did.. I wouldn't buy a used car from that man.. And I wouldn't let him tell me what 'reality' is either.
No, I wouldn't.. But Hubbard hisself taught us to do just this didn't he? - The 'tech' about investigating and digging up dirt.. Or indeed make up some if you can't dig it up. All in the 'Battle Tactics' and 'Fair Game' PL's. Rooting out SP's..:)

Yes he did. And I never bought into that. This whole court system he set up is a very ugly arena. Once people get used to dabbling in it they have a hard time getting it off their fingers.

T.I.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I have to admit this is very funny actually.

He was basically goin to the FBI to handle his spouse. She was a disgruntled P.C. too.

I think they were married while he audited her through clear.

She was staged at a public event in L.A. as a "new clear" in front of a huge audience . It's her photo of the woman laying on the couch as Hubbard gives a session.

The photo is used a lot on PR.

So he announces her as clear and opens up questions from the audience.

He thought clear was a stable datumn without taking into consideration charchter and I.Q.. She wasn't exactly a rocket scientist.

So people asked her questions and she came off like a dazed out dummy and it was a huge set back for Hubbards career.


T.I.

You don't know what you're talking about re. Sara, who was, by the way, a very bright lady.

She was not a "disgruntled PC."

Did you know that Jack Parsons wrote to Sara after her divorce from Hubbard? Did you know that Sara talked about it? Did you know that Sara had a daughter who also is quite intelligent, and also talked to people?

Sara was never "Clear," or agreed to be anything like "Clear." I think I know the picture you're referring to, and it wasn't Sara. Hubbard announced that she was "Clear" without asking her permission. She was supposed to go along with it, but didn't want to lie to people. Sara liked some of the ideas of Dianetics, and helped her husband with the manuscript in Bayhead, New Jersey, but Hubbard - contrary to his tall tales in the "Story of Scientology" tape - didn't no research counseling before 1949, and very little in 1949, and the "research" auditing only began with the publication of his article in Astounding Science Fiction and the release of the book, Dianetics. The "case histories" in 'Book One" were almost entirely invented by Hubbard off the top of his head.

Sara was a fan of Alfred Korzybski -as were many people at that time - and would read passages of Korzybski to her then husband. To the extent that Dianetics was similar to Korzybski's General Semantics, Sara like it. Mostly she had pleasant memories of the time in Bayhead when Hubard was writing, as Hubbard - according to her - was happy when he wrote.

Apparently, if your posts are to be taken seriously, you think you were Jack Parsons in your last lifetime. So responding to you is probably a mistake, for reasons I won't state so as not to hurt your feelings. But please lay off Sara. She was a noble person and a good person, and quite intelligent, as is her daughter, Alexis.

In these FBI letters, Hubbard invented stories in an attempt to convince the FBI that Sara - and a lot of other people - were communists. It was pure revenge. Hubbard was physically abusive to Sara as their marriage deteriorated - that means he slapped her around, punched her, etc. He kidnapped their daughter, Alexis, and flew to Cuba with Alexis. Then later cut all contact with Alexis - his own daughter - and never payed a dime in child support. Hubbard intimidated Sara into signing that bizarre "Retraction" letter that is still shown to people by Scientology, then Hubbard told people that they were never married, and made up stories - somewhat like the ridiculous slander that you're concocting, culminating in Hubbard, in a confidential "Intelligence tech" writing, in 1969, once again calling a bunch of people communists, yet again - even the publisher of 1950 Dianetics - and renaming Sara as the Russian spy (!), "Sara Komkovadamanov" (!). As if this wasn't enough, shortly after that, Hubbard sent one of his goons out to visit the redheaded Alexis at her college campus, telling Alexis that her mother had been a Nazi spy (!) - by 1971, Hubbard had switched from calling people communists to calling them Nazis, due to what he perceived as a public opinion shift - and the harassment of Sara, herself, from her former husband - for years - after their divorce - is a great untold story. The harassment was extensive. Sara was probaly the first person to become "Fair Game."

Sara got over Hubbard very fast, but Hubbard could never get over Sara.

If you do believe that you were Jack Parsons in your last life, then I don't care one way or the other, but - in the objective world - real people with real lives don't need to be slimed by you to protect your guru L. Ron Hubbard.

And I hope this isn't redundant, as I'm not reading it again, or commenting further.

1972 letter from Sara to author Paulette Cooper. (Found in a Guardian's Office file cabinet, on July 1977, having been stolen, and photo-copied, from Cooper's apartment by Scientology.)

http://www.solitarytrees.net.silver.alphamegahosting.com/cooper/aff_sn.htm
 
Last edited:

The Oracle

Gold Meritorious Patron
You don't know what you're talking about re. Sara, who was, by the way, a very bright lady.

She was not a "disgruntled PC."

Did you know that Jack Parsons wrote to Sara after her divorce from Hubbard? Did you know that Sara talked about it? Did you know that Sara had a daughter who also is quite intelligent, and also talked to people?

Sara was never "Clear," or agreed to be anything like "Clear." I think I know the picture you're referring to, and it wasn't Sara. Hubbard announced that she was "Clear" without asking her permission. She was supposed to go along with it, but didn't want to lie to people. Sara liked some of the ideas of Dianetics, and helped her husband with the manuscript in Bayhead, New Jersey, but Hubbard - contrary to his tall tales in the "Story of Scientology" tape - didn't no research counseling before 1949, and very little in 1949, and the "research" auditing only began with the publication of his article in Astounding Science Fiction and the release of the book, Dianetics. The "case histories" in 'Book One" were almost entirely invented by Hubbard off the top of his head.

Sara was a fan of Alfred Korzybski -as were many people at that time - and would read passages of Korzybski to her then husband. To the extent that Dianetics was similar to Korzybski's General Semantics, Sara like it. Mostly she had pleasant memories of the time in Bayhead when Hubard was writing, as Hubbard - according to her - was happy when he wrote.

Apparently, if your posts are to be taken seriously, you think you were Jack Parsons in your last lifetime. So responding to you is probably a mistake, for reasons I won't state so as not to hurt your feelings. But please lay off Sara. She was a noble person and a good person, and quite intelligent, as is her daughter, Alexis.

In these FBI letters, Hubbard invented stories in an attempt to convince the FBI that Sara - and a lot of other people - were communists. It was pure revenge. Hubbard was physically abusive to Sara as their marriage deteriorated - that means he slapped her around, punched her, etc. He kidnapped their daughter, Alexis, and flew to Cuba with Alexis. Then later cut all contact with Alexis - his own daughter - and never payed a dime in child support. Hubbard intimidated Sara into signing that bizarre "Retraction" letter that is still shown to people by Scientology, then Hubbard told people that they were never married, and made up stories - somewhat like the ridiculous slander that you're concocting, culminating in Hubbard, in a confidential "Intelligence tech" writing, in 1969, once again calling a bunch of people communists, yet again - even the publisher of 1950 Dianetics - and renaming Sara as the Russian spy (!), "Sara Komkovadamanov" (!). As if this wasn't enough, shortly after that, Hubbard sent one of his goons out to visit the redheaded Alexis at her college campus, telling Alexis that her mother had been a Nazi spy (!) - by 1971, Hubbard had switched from calling people communists to calling them Nazis, due to what he perceived as a public opinion shift - and the harassment of Sara, herself, from her former husband - for years - after their divorce - is a great untold story. The harassment was extensive. Sara was probaly the first person to become "Fair Game."

Sara got over Hubbard very fast, but Hubbard could never get over Sara.

If you do believe that you were Jack Parsons in your last life, then I don't care one way or the other, but - in the objective world - real people with real lives don't need to be slimed by you to protect your guru L. Ron Hubbard.

And I hope this isn't redundant, as I'm not reading it again, or commenting further.

1972 letter from Sara to author Paulette Cooper. (Found in a Guardian's Office file cabinet, on July 1977, having been stolen, and photo-copied, from Cooper's apartment by Scientology.)

http://www.solitarytrees.net.silver.alphamegahosting.com/cooper/aff_sn.htm

I am glad your relationship with her has been so rewarding.

I didn't know Hubbard couldn't get over her. Of course the letter to the F.B.I. could be misleading.

You obviously knew both of them and a lot more about their marriage and feelings and I.Q. better than I did.

T.I.
 

The Oracle

Gold Meritorious Patron
You don't know what you're talking about

She was not a "disgruntled PC." Sara was never "Clear," or agreed to be anything like "Clear." Hubbard announced that she was "Clear" without asking her permission. She was supposed to go along with it, but didn't want to lie to people.


Well I had the mistaken belief he audited her and wasn't aware she was cheerful about the above mentioned incident. Thank you for setting the record straight.

Apparently, if your posts are to be taken seriously, you think you were Jack Parsons in your last lifetime. So responding to you is probably a mistake, for reasons I won't state so as not to hurt your feelings.

I'm not interested at all in being taken seriously. But thank you for witholding hurtful words that could harm my feelings.

I really haven't followed their domestic scene.

Exploring other people's marriages doesn't really interest me too much.

Not that I am suggesting it isn't interesting or important for other people to have a peek at.

Happy Holidays and may the spirit of the season live in your heart all year long!

T.I.
 
Last edited:

The Oracle

Gold Meritorious Patron

If you do believe that you were Jack Parsons in your last life, then I don't care one way or the other, but - in the objective world - real people with real lives don't need to be slimed by you to protect your guru L. Ron Hubbard.

And I hope this isn't redundant, as I'm not reading it again, or commenting further.



Thank you for your kind attention towards people and your thoughtful insights.

And thank you for pointing out my errors in social intercourse.

I do strive for improvment and welcome help with that.

I've never had a guru but I try to keep my comments around current events, and current real people as opposed to remembered ones, with an awarness Hubbard's children and grandchildren are still alive ( all real people in the real world including Alexa) and avoid being hurtful to innocent family members by slandering their father on a public forum.

It wasn't my intention to slime anyone's mother, only to suggest that as a teenager, she wasn't prepared for the early arena of Dianetics culture.

I am not protecting Hubbard for public information. Don't confuse my unwillingness to humiliate his children and grandchildren with some purpose to protect Hubbard.

I have no obligation to protect Hubbard. Hubbard no longer exists, nothing to protect. I am just not interested in sliming real people in the real world for the benefits of attacking a dead man.

And I have no obligation to inherit Hubbard's enemies.

Just to set the record straight.

T.I.
 
Last edited:

Headend

Patron with Honors
You don't know what you're talking about re. Sara, who was, by the way, a very bright lady.

She was not a "disgruntled PC."

Did you know that Jack Parsons wrote to Sara after her divorce from Hubbard? Did you know that Sara talked about it? Did you know that Sara had a daughter who also is quite intelligent, and also talked to people?

Sara was never "Clear," or agreed to be anything like "Clear." I think I know the picture you're referring to, and it wasn't Sara. Hubbard announced that she was "Clear" without asking her permission. She was supposed to go along with it, but didn't want to lie to people. Sara liked some of the ideas of Dianetics, and helped her husband with the manuscript in Bayhead, New Jersey, but Hubbard - contrary to his tall tales in the "Story of Scientology" tape - didn't no research counseling before 1949, and very little in 1949, and the "research" auditing only began with the publication of his article in Astounding Science Fiction and the release of the book, Dianetics. The "case histories" in 'Book One" were almost entirely invented by Hubbard off the top of his head.

Sara was a fan of Alfred Korzybski -as were many people at that time - and would read passages of Korzybski to her then husband. To the extent that Dianetics was similar to Korzybski's General Semantics, Sara like it. Mostly she had pleasant memories of the time in Bayhead when Hubard was writing, as Hubbard - according to her - was happy when he wrote.

Apparently, if your posts are to be taken seriously, you think you were Jack Parsons in your last lifetime. So responding to you is probably a mistake, for reasons I won't state so as not to hurt your feelings. But please lay off Sara. She was a noble person and a good person, and quite intelligent, as is her daughter, Alexis.

In these FBI letters, Hubbard invented stories in an attempt to convince the FBI that Sara - and a lot of other people - were communists. It was pure revenge. Hubbard was physically abusive to Sara as their marriage deteriorated - that means he slapped her around, punched her, etc. He kidnapped their daughter, Alexis, and flew to Cuba with Alexis. Then later cut all contact with Alexis - his own daughter - and never payed a dime in child support. Hubbard intimidated Sara into signing that bizarre "Retraction" letter that is still shown to people by Scientology, then Hubbard told people that they were never married, and made up stories - somewhat like the ridiculous slander that you're concocting, culminating in Hubbard, in a confidential "Intelligence tech" writing, in 1969, once again calling a bunch of people communists, yet again - even the publisher of 1950 Dianetics - and renaming Sara as the Russian spy (!), "Sara Komkovadamanov" (!). As if this wasn't enough, shortly after that, Hubbard sent one of his goons out to visit the redheaded Alexis at her college campus, telling Alexis that her mother had been a Nazi spy (!) - by 1971, Hubbard had switched from calling people communists to calling them Nazis, due to what he perceived as a public opinion shift - and the harassment of Sara, herself, from her former husband - for years - after their divorce - is a great untold story. The harassment was extensive. Sara was probaly the first person to become "Fair Game."

Sara got over Hubbard very fast, but Hubbard could never get over Sara.

If you do believe that you were Jack Parsons in your last life, then I don't care one way or the other, but - in the objective world - real people with real lives don't need to be slimed by you to protect your guru L. Ron Hubbard.

And I hope this isn't redundant, as I'm not reading it again, or commenting further.

1972 letter from Sara to author Paulette Cooper. (Found in a Guardian's Office file cabinet, on July 1977, having been stolen, and photo-copied, from Cooper's apartment by Scientology.)

http://www.solitarytrees.net.silver.alphamegahosting.com/cooper/aff_sn.htm

Thanks for the info & link to the letter.

You are to be commended for not responding to the mysterious bullbaiting in another thread. :thumbsup:

Pete
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for the info & link to the letter.

You are to be commended for not responding to the mysterious bullbaiting in another thread. :thumbsup:

Pete

Moi?!? Bullbaiting?

But it seems I have jogged something in his universe into outflowing useful data rather than the usual assertions....

Too bad he won't talk a little more about what he knows and thinks, rather than beating the drum of scientology as psychopolitical mindfuck.

Mystery solved?

I believe there is still more to be known.

alex
 
Last edited:

Headend

Patron with Honors
Moi?!? Bullbaiting?

But it seems I have jogged something in his universe into outflowing useful data rather than the usual assertions....

Too bad he won't talk a little more about what he knows and thinks, rather than beating the drum of scientology as .

Mystery solved?

I believe there is still more to be known.

alex

Perhaps he beats that drum because much of SCN is psychopolitical mindfuck. There is without doubt some deep insights hidden within the subject but I've long since given up trying to sort the useful from the worthless. Other avenues have proven to be much more fruitful for me.

How important is it if there is still more to be known, sometimes becoming comfortable with not knowing can be very liberating. It might just allow you to let go of a favourite bone you've been chewing.

Just my POV feel free to discard it doesn't work for you. :thumbsup:

Pete
 

Veda

Sponsor
I have to admit this is very funny actually.

He was basically goin to the FBI to handle his spouse. She was a disgruntled P.C. too.

I think they were married while he audited her through clear.

She was staged at a public event in L.A. as a "new clear" in front of a huge audience . It's her photo of the woman laying on the couch as Hubbard gives a session.

The photo is used a lot on PR.

So he announces her as clear and opens up questions from the audience.

He thought clear was a stable datumn without taking into consideration charchter and I.Q.. She wasn't exactly a rocket scientist.

So people asked her questions and she came off like a dazed out dummy and it was a huge set back for Hubbards career.

T.I.

Reluctantly, here's a footnote:

It appears that you're referring to an event from August 1950, in Los Angeles, where Dianetics was "tested."

For the sake of historical accuracy, it should be noted that the woman involved was a student of Dianetics by the name of Sanya Bianca.

And since I'm writing this, I'll add that Ron Hubbard has a number of grandchildren, most are the sons or daughters of the three children - from his two prior marriages - that he disowned.

L. Ron Hubbard was a "public personality," and spread his tall-tale-saturated "biographical sketches" far and wide, and then established a kind of alter-ego in his "Church of Scientology" and other Scientology corporations, and if you look closely at the prime directive of the Church of Spiritual Technology (also Scientology), you'll see - strangely enough - that it has to do with the maintaining and protecting of the name and image - and "legend" - of L. Ron Hubbard.

Hubbard's "blueprint" for the Scientology "movement," that he called 'The Brainwashing Manual', also, 'The Textbook on Psychopolitics', is relevant, not only beacuse it remains, essentially, the 'blueprint' for official organized Scientology, but also because the effects of decades of its application, in official organized Scientology, are still rippling through society, and through the minds of those affected.

Information and analysis allows people a chance to understand this secretive and manipulative subject, and maybe even salvage and further develop what positives are to found within it.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=3036&postcount=1

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=44387&postcount=1

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=2116
 
Last edited:

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Perhaps he beats that drum because much of SCN is psychopolitical mindfuck. There is without doubt some deep insights hidden within the subject but I've long since given up trying to sort the useful from the worthless. Other avenues have proven to be much more fruitful for me.

I would assert that the mindfuck is more targeted at individuals rather than being of a psychopolitical nature, thus my tiredness at the veda viewpoint.

Of course I would distinguish between the culture of the church, and the potential interpretation of "the tech", or of the "applied philosophy" that I believe Hubbard intended.

I must have a filter, because I see value and also nonsense and have no problem separating the two.

How important is it if there is still more to be known, sometimes becoming comfortable with not knowing can be very liberating. It might just allow you to let go of a favourite bone you've been chewing.

Worry not, my seemingly fixed viewpoint is a conscious choice, and I DO know the joys of ignorance. (ignorance is bliss, I frequently say, and it is).


Just my POV feel free to discard it doesn't work for you. :thumbsup:

Pete

On the contrary, I value viewpoints other than my own. I collect them, sometimes prod them awake to see what they do, and use them to examine myself in relation. The trick is to see how another viewpoint could be true for someone else......

When one is able to embrace a wide variety of viewpoints, seeing their truth, (or not), as seen by the person holding them, then it seems one would have trancended the limitations of self to a degree.

I frequently enjoy yours...(even if I dont phase lock into agreement!)
:)


alex
 

Headend

Patron with Honors
I must have a filter, because I see value and also nonsense and have no problem separating the two.
The trick is to see how another viewpoint could be true for someone else......
For me the trick has been to see that the opposite viewpoint can be equally correct. To realise that my own viewpoint is but one of many possible perspectives and is actually an interpretation of the truth.

Which is sort of what you are saying below.
When one is able to embrace a wide variety of viewpoints, seeing their truth, (or not), as seen by the person holding them, then it seems one would have trancended the limitations of self to a degree.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
He was simply fucking nuts - right out of the gate he was a very very disturbed individual.

Yes, he was. That is why it is more to his credit what he accomplished in the field of mind.

He was actually trying to handle his own case by doing research on others by using existing knowledge and building further on it.

.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Yes, he was. That is why it is more to his credit what he accomplished in the field of mind.

He was actually trying to handle his own case by doing research on others by using existing knowledge and building further on it.

.

That's what was recognized 20 or 25 years ago, and is to some extent true, but there's more to it. Can it be safely assumed that in, oh, about 20 or so more years, you'll catch up to where some are today?

The river DE NILE flows slowly.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Well, Veda, LRH was quite a cause. LRH is still being cause over you.

You are Veda only because of LRH.

Sad but true.

.
 

Headend

Patron with Honors
Well, Veda, LRH was quite a cause. LRH is still being cause over you.

You are Veda only because of LRH.

Sad but true.

.

Veda LRH is your father.:roflmao: :laugh: :roflmao: :laugh: :roflmao: :laugh:

Vinny your supposed to use a smiley when your joking. :duh:

What was someone saying about denial not being a river in Egypt. :D
 
Top