Probably Cannot Be Emphasized Enough....

JustSheila

Crusader
IMHO, I think Hubbard actually believed he found the greatest thing since the invention of Fire or the wheel, his theory of engrams, secondaries and locks, and tried to prove it all the while building an organization or crowd. Don't forget he told Sarge he failed. And he did.

I think Hubbard actually hypnotized himself or convinced himself, if you will, into believing this, that he was the Saviour of mankind, and he used every trick in the book to get people involved all the while trying to make it go right, and at the end he said he failed. Every trick in the book includes every literally device, rhetoric, sublime rhetoric, PR & Marketing, character assassination, etc.

Unfortunately, using every trick in the book created mindless fanatics, if you will, towards scientology for the cause. As McMaster said, auditing could have been a beautiful thing, but hubbard corrupted it. (I'm not advocating auditing now, just pointing out what McMaster said).

Hubbard believed the Emeter was true and his theories of thoughts having mass. But he was wrong, his analysis was incorrect, IMHO.

See, for me, how could he do what he did, as far as writing all the policies, advices, HCOB's etc, how could he do that if it was a con from the get go. But, it is a con in the sense that there are no clears or OT's.

What pisses me off is DM. That fucker probably knows that there are no clears or OT's and he has perpetuated the con.

Yeh, Gib. Hub had to believe it, because it made him a God. To doubt it for one minute made him a scamming conman, a ruthless psychotic, a lying, scheming, pathetic fake. To say he failed still made him a martyr for the cause. Oh poor Hub. :puke2: But the primary cause was to be rich, powerful, worshiped and admired. If that meant Scn would destroy thousands in the process, it was the 'greatest good for the greatest number' and those guinea pigs were just collateral damage because his concept of good was so much higher than everyone else's and his vision so amazing, etc. etc.

It was about power, fame, ego and vanity. That was the ambition and motivation, and that's what kept him intimately involved with everything and prevented any genuine research or sane direction. It prevented honest evaluation or fair criticism. Everything was always super wonderful and the best on this planet, and then it would be improved and again be the best on this planet. Mistakes and tragedies hidden and shoved under the carpet for the sake of Hub's vanity and ego.

He was delusional and psychotic. He wasn't the least bit compassionate or humble and lived out his delusions of grandeur for his own sake.

I think DM is very similar.
 

Gib

Crusader
Yeh, Gib. Hub had to believe it, because it made him a God. To doubt it for one minute made him a scamming conman, a ruthless psychotic, a lying, scheming, pathetic fake. To say he failed still made him a martyr for the cause. Oh poor Hub. :puke2: But the primary cause was to be rich, powerful, worshiped and admired. If that meant Scn would destroy thousands in the process, it was the 'greatest good for the greatest number' and those guinea pigs were just collateral damage because his concept of good was so much higher than everyone else's and his vision so amazing, etc. etc.

It was about power, fame, ego and vanity. That was the ambition and motivation, and that's what kept him intimately involved with everything and prevented any genuine research or sane direction. It prevented honest evaluation or fair criticism. Everything was always super wonderful and the best on this planet, and then it would be improved and again be the best on this planet. Mistakes and tragedies hidden and shoved under the carpet for the sake of Hub's vanity and ego.

He was delusional and psychotic. He wasn't the least bit compassionate or humble and lived out his delusions of grandeur for his own sake.

I think DM is very similar.

I don't have any disagreements from a psychological point of view.

But I think to more understand Hubbard one has to also go down the literature path and not only the psychological path.

Hubbards ability to write convincing statements, or so called truths, that he got us to believe, or think as truths, and the most glaring outpoint is no clears or OT's.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
I don't have any disagreements from a psychological point of view.

But I think to more understand Hubbard one has to also go down the literature path and not only the psychological path.

Hubbards ability to write convincing statements, or so called truths, that he got us to believe, or think as truths, and the most glaring outpoint is no clears or OT's.

Absolutely! :yes:

Hubbard could not let himself look, though, without risking his concept of self as savior. So he never verified any Clear, OT or any other supposed gain. He couldn't listen, he couldn't see. He saw a twisted variation of reality and only heard that which conformed with his concept of self as savior, the man with all the answers, the man with the one tek to set everyone free. Anyone who questioned his concept was punished severely, and then fit into his distorted reality as 'evil psychs and SPs' where he set up policy to ruthlessly attack and hurt any who dared speak the truth, any who saw things clearly and didn't feed his ego and vanity as savior of mankind.

Hubbard's mind was a warped reality, his reality a delusion that he had to force everything else to fit. Being in Scientology was like being in his head, the mind of a delusional psychotic.

David Miscaviage and Tom Cruise have similar personalities and psychoses.

From Jump's post on another thread:

And uh, they said, "So, have you met an SP" (big laugh) I looked at them and I thought, "What a beautiful thing," because maybe one day it will be like that, you know? You know what I'm saying. Maybe one day it will be that "Wow, SP, they just read about those in the history books." You know?

- Tom Cruise, Humanitarian (from the turtleneck interview)



There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.

- L. Ron Hubbard
 

Terril park

Sponsor
IMHO, I think Hubbard actually believed he found the greatest thing since the invention of Fire or the wheel, his theory of engrams, secondaries and locks, and tried to prove it all the while building an organization or crowd. Don't forget he told Sarge he failed. And he did.

I think Hubbard actually hypnotized himself or convinced himself, if you will, into believing this, that he was the Saviour of mankind, and he used every trick in the book to get people involved all the while trying to make it go right, and at the end he said he failed. Every trick in the book includes every literally device, rhetoric, sublime rhetoric, PR & Marketing, character assassination, etc.

Unfortunately, using every trick in the book created mindless fanatics, if you will, towards scientology for the cause. As McMaster said, auditing could have been a beautiful thing, but hubbard corrupted it. (I'm not advocating auditing now, just pointing out what McMaster said).

Hubbard believed the Emeter was true and his theories of thoughts having mass. But he was wrong, his analysis was incorrect, IMHO.

See, for me, how could he do what he did, as far as writing all the policies, advices, HCOB's etc, how could he do that if it was a con from the get go. But, it is a con in the sense that there are no clears or OT's.

What pisses me off is DM. That fucker probably knows that there are no clears or OT's and he has perpetuated the con.

I believe that Hubbard believed his tech. It was his baby, his creation. He spent some 30 years
refining revising and correcting as best he could. Look in the red vols. Barely 2 days between some new insight or idea.

Parallel with that was an effort to dominate and control. He used among other things lots
of lies. "No hidden data line" Lol! His saying to Mayo and Franks that the reason people
blew was upsets and not missed witholds. Warning them not to tell anyone lest
he lost control of the orgs. Even lying about his own tech.

For sure no great abundance of OTs per his own defs. OT abilities have been produced
sporadically.

Clears? Being natural clear its been hard to get subjective experience for me. I did
well on OT 2 &3 which would seem to indicate I was clear. But there is always Mayo's view
that one can get clearer which I find hard to fault.

He told Sarge he had failed.[ I believe referring to OT] This indicates that he believed
he could get there but in his own estimation failed. Well a lofty goal which no one else
has achieved.

Green on white was his creation, lots of time spent on it. Clearly as a whole its
a failure, an area where others have had success.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
I believe that Hubbard believed his tech. It was his baby, his creation. He spent some 30 years
refining revising and correcting as best he could. Look in the red vols. Barely 2 days between some new insight or idea.

Parallel with that was an effort to dominate and control. He used among other things lots
of lies. "No hidden data line" Lol! His saying to Mayo and Franks that the reason people
blew was upsets and not missed witholds. Warning them not to tell anyone lest
he lost control of the orgs. Even lying about his own tech.

For sure no great abundance of OTs per his own defs. OT abilities have been produced
sporadically.

Clears? Being natural clear its been hard to get subjective experience for me. I did
well on OT 2 &3 which would seem to indicate I was clear. But there is always Mayo's view
that one can get clearer which I find hard to fault.

He told Sarge he had failed.[ I believe referring to OT] This indicates that he believed
he could get there but in his own estimation failed. Well a lofty goal which no one else
has achieved.

Green on white was his creation, lots of time spent on it. Clearly as a whole its
a failure, an area where others have had success.

If he believed it why would be try to bullshit everyone into thinking something worked, that didn't? Kind of like you?

Early Clears

There are several conflicting accounts of who first attained the state of Clear, and under what circumstances. In August 1950, amidst the success of Dianetics, Hubbard held a demonstration in Los Angeles' Shrine Auditorium where he presented a young woman called Sonya Bianca (a pseudonym) to a large audience including many reporters and photographers as "the world's first Clear." However, despite Hubbard's claim that she had "full and perfect recall of every moment of her life", Bianca proved unable to answer questions from the audience testing her memory and analytical abilities, including the question of the color of Hubbard's tie. Hubbard explained Bianca's failure to display her promised powers of recall to the audience by saying that he had used the word "now" in calling her to the stage, and thus inadvertently froze her in "present time," which blocked her abilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_(Scientology)

I know Mayo, and he doesn't believe in this shit either.

Hubbard said he failed, because he did. He didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He was literally insane. Mentally ill. Want to tell others to have him lead the way? Fuck you.
 

Dave B.

Maximus Ultimus Mostimus
My 2 pesos:

Besides The Affirmations which will give you an understanding of where Hubbard was really coming from you should read Twelve Against the Gods by William Bolitho (Ryall) c1929. Hubbard mentions it in one of the early PDC tapes. You'll get a deeper understanding of the inner workings of Hubbard's mind if you take the time to read at least a few of the stories in that book, and for lack of a better term, "get the drift." He is now for all intents and purposes the leading character, chapter one, page one, if that book is re-written. The archetype.
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
GP, you ask a difficult question. Hypnosis and Scientology were intertwined. Hubbard never told anyone these were hypnotic techniques or had an hypnotic effect - it was part of his stage show.

Nibs was aware his father was all about control, and Scn was everything about controlling others, getting them to do what you want. 'Do as thou wilt'

Nibs witnessed Hubbard doing hynosis. I believe he also personally experienced it (but it's been a while since I've read his book).

So yes, Nibs was aware hypnosis and control were intrinsic in Scientology. I don't think Nibs was capable of separating the two, they were one and the same. It was what he grew up with and knew and he was young. He followed his dad's orders. So did everyone. If Hubbard wanted a way to control people better, he'd ask someone to come up with it, phrased in terms like 'helping these poor devils who can't even follow directions'. They'd use Scientology techniques. The Scns didn't know it was based on hypnosis because they were also brainwashed and hypnotized themselves to believe in the whole scam of it. They had to learn to think with and around the loop-de-loops of insane thinking Hubbard gave them.

Here's an example: How about the original and five copies of invoices ridiculous cumbersome filing system. Why? Because Hubbard didn't like double entry bookkeeping 'cause he didn't understand it. (True! He just rages against it on tapes.) Paper, paper paper. Oh Hub loved his paper records. But the whole purpose of it was to PROVE that he didn't need accountants or double-entry bookkeeping because he didn't like it because he didn't understand it. So poor Marilyn Rutsong (sp?) had to come up with a way to do this without double-entry that allowed Hub to have all his copies for letters from C/F, his consecutive series copy, his copies sorted by department, etc. He ordered it. She wasn't stupid, she was ordered to do something stupid and did the best she could with it and believed it wasn't stupid because Hubbard said so and she was a brainwashed follower herself.

It was conditioning, is conditioning, soften them up, give them goals and hopes, shine a light on the big dreams. Make people think they are actually accomplishing something, even if it is an illusion, make them haz goals and things to aspire to, even if it isn't real, the people inside the gilded cages~ full of smoke and mirrors, cannot see further than the walls. Outside those walls, such a scary, scary world... the 'fear-factor' as such. Traps of the deluded and conned.
I've always maintained that the whole scam is kind of brilliant, but none the less, still a scammy long-con, and not a nice thing for man nor dog.

:cheers:
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
It was about power, fame, ego and vanity.

snip

Hub's vanity and ego.

He was delusional and psychotic. He wasn't the least bit compassionate or humble and lived out his delusions of grandeur for his own sake.

I think DM is very similar.

My understanding of hubtard is the same.

But I'd say

Hubtard was about admiration craving
Miss is about power craving
 
Last edited:

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
My understanding of hubtard is the same.

But I'd say

Hubtard was about admiration craving
Miss is about power craving

At first blush I tend to agree, though I think it is far more complicated than just seeking admiration. The thing is, I think, that it was more than just an approval thing, that there was any, seems to have bolstered the basis of his con. The stroking Hubbard craved and got, hmmm, its kind of hard for me to explain how I feel about this, but I think the old fucktard was, like, all 'Woo-hoo! They believed me! My plot be working! I'll be rich!', then go on and create some more bullshite babble to rope the initiated further into the miasma of illusion.
"The only way to control people is to lie to them." Write that down in big ol' letters. The whole Hubbard confabulation is, well, just that, an invention, not one for the betterment of mankind (a lofty goal I am sure), but for the pocket-book of a conniving, demented, and greedy sociopahthic abuser of life itself.
Given how the sick fuck spent his last remaining years, running and hiding, ill of health, unable to apply his own 'Philosophies' to himself, targeted by his own peoples and such, I am not so suprised that one of the things attributed to him just before his death was something along the lines of "It doesn't work, I made a boo-boo..." (sorry but I am not searching for the proper refference, likely some mention in the lerma, ocbmb or xenu archives, been a long time since I read about it).

What I think, is that sometimes folks just don't take the time to go dig around for some of the old stuff. It's understandable of course, most just want to separate themselves from all the abstraction and continue on with their freedom/lives/life/family/journey. I freely admit that I do not fall into this category, as a 'never-in', critic, curious sort. I have no trouble discussing my attitude or reason for my curiosity in this feild, and why I find Mr. Hubbard's creation and debris so fascinating... hm, its like doing forensics on a living corpse... mapping the near incomprehensible, maybe making some type of vaccine/inoculation, that could protect peoples from falling in the swamps... :confused2:

Blabber over, sorry for the derail, one o' them days..


:fire: :dance: :cheers:
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
The stroking Hubbard craved and got, hmmm, its kind of hard for me to explain how I feel about this, but I think the old fucktard was, like, all 'Woo-hoo! They believed me! My plot be working! I'll be rich!', then go on and create some more bullshite babble to rope the initiated further into the miasma of illusion.

snip



:fire: :dance: :cheers:

Well,

he was, sometimes, on fire
It's hard to manage...:confused2:

:lol:

hard-to-control-a-country.jpg
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Well,

he was, sometimes, on fire
It's hard to manage...:confused2:

:lol:

hard-to-control-a-country.jpg

Oh yes, what was it? Oh, 'the thing about the Van Alan Belt is that its hot!.........' Um, thanks ol' rotter LRon, you silly, hopefully it is very warm where you dwell now... :angry:

:whistling:
 

Gib

Crusader
I believe that Hubbard believed his tech. It was his baby, his creation. He spent some 30 years
refining revising and correcting as best he could. Look in the red vols. Barely 2 days between some new insight or idea.

Parallel with that was an effort to dominate and control. He used among other things lots
of lies. "No hidden data line" Lol! His saying to Mayo and Franks that the reason people
blew was upsets and not missed witholds. Warning them not to tell anyone lest
he lost control of the orgs. Even lying about his own tech.

For sure no great abundance of OTs per his own defs. OT abilities have been produced
sporadically.

Clears? Being natural clear its been hard to get subjective experience for me. I did
well on OT 2 &3 which would seem to indicate I was clear. But there is always Mayo's view
that one can get clearer which I find hard to fault.

He told Sarge he had failed.[ I believe referring to OT] This indicates that he believed
he could get there but in his own estimation failed. Well a lofty goal which no one else
has achieved.

Green on white was his creation, lots of time spent on it. Clearly as a whole its
a failure, an area where others have had success.

How do you explain this Terril:

The original book DMSMH said any two people could clear themselves.

yo, two people step up to plate, and show you have been cleared.

Anybody?
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
I believe that Hubbard believed his tech. It was his baby, his creation. He spent some 30 years
refining revising and correcting as best he could. Look in the red vols. Barely 2 days between some new insight or idea.
He did not believe in the tech. In the early 50's, in one of his lectures he told people they didn't need to wear glasses, planted a bin at the front of the auditorium and they threw their glasses in it. When they left, he laughed and said to those around him how funny it was that these people would do anything he said.

This is clearly documented in Russell Miller's Bare Faced Messiah.
Parallel with that was an effort to dominate and control. He used among other things lots
of lies. "No hidden data line" Lol! His saying to Mayo and Franks that the reason people
blew was upsets and not missed witholds. Warning them not to tell anyone lest
he lost control of the orgs. Even lying about his own tech.
This is the real power of the tech. To control. It is the only thing the tech delivered.
For sure no great abundance of OTs per his own defs. OT abilities have been produced
sporadically.
No great abundance? Ha! You mean zero OTs, surely?

OT abilities have been produced sporadically?

If someone tries 100 times to create an effect (like a car park space), and they get a few car spaces, that isn't sporadic abilities, that is coincidence. Sporadically, there are car park spaces.

If you can't consistently produce an effect, there is no effect.
Clears? Being natural clear its been hard to get subjective experience for me.
Hubbard had a very clear definition.

It involved total recall.

I presume you forgot that.
I did well on OT 2 &3 which would seem to indicate I was clear.
No it wouldn't. It would indicate that when you did OT 2 and 3, you had the subjective opinion that things went well.

If you had total recall, that would indicate you were clear.

If you had total recall, that would indicate you were clear.

I repeated that as I assumed you didn't have total recall.

Do correct me if I am wrong.
But there is always Mayo's view
that one can get clearer which I find hard to fault.
It's easy to fault. Let me help you.

You apparently do not care for the unambiguous definition of the term clear.

How can you talk about being clearer when you haven't a definition?
He told Sarge he had failed.[ I believe referring to OT] This indicates that he believed
he could get there but in his own estimation failed. Well a lofty goal which no one else
has achieved.

Green on white was his creation, lots of time spent on it. Clearly as a whole its
a failure, an area where others have had success.
Still waiting for a single clear or OT.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
If he believed it why would be try to bullshit everyone into thinking something worked, that didn't? Kind of like you?

I know Mayo, and he doesn't believe in this shit either.

Hubbard said he failed, because he did. He didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He was literally insane. Mentally ill. Want to tell others to have him lead the way? Fuck you.

This is shockingly bad manners to say "Fuck You" because someone posts from a different viewpoint. Also its a violation of ROC. Can't recall how to report to mods so I'll just have to
scold you myself. Its in fact a jihadist viewpoint.

ROC no 1

"Treat others with respect"
 

Terril park

Sponsor
How do you explain this Terril:

The original book DMSMH said any two people could clear themselves.

yo, two people step up to plate, and show you have been cleared.

Anybody?

I've posted many success stories of people who consider they went
clear, quite a few on this forum. Those in the independent/FZ often make
such posts. My guess is you wouldn't accept their statement.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is shockingly bad manners to say "Fuck You" because someone posts from a different viewpoint. Also its a violation of ROC. Can't recall how to report to mods so I'll just have to
scold you myself. Its in fact a jihadist viewpoint.

ROC no 1

"Treat others with respect"

Anonycat's post is not jihadist. It is caustic, but not Jihadist.

Jihadism involves a violent merciless global takeover.

It is a better analogy for Scientology's behavior. Hubbard attempted to infiltrate Rhodesia (present day Zimbabwe), Morocco and the Greek island of Crete.

Being critical of your damaging delusional ideas is not jihadist. That is a smear.

It is similar to the smear often used by Scientologists (made to me personally on at least one occasion) that it's critics are Nazis.

At least you are on source.
 

Veda

Sponsor
This is shockingly bad manners to say "Fuck You" because someone posts from a different viewpoint. Also its a violation of ROC. Can't recall how to report to mods so I'll just have to
scold you myself. Its in fact a jihadist viewpoint.

ROC no 1

"Treat others with respect"

Scientologists like to report others for breaking the rules.

One example was an exchange you had with a woman - on this very message board - who, as a child, was one of those abused by L. Ron Hubbard and, amongst other things, one of the children subjected to the chain locker punishment.


d98w9.png

Photo of her on the "Flagship."


You quoted a post by her and responded to this paragraph:

"You are most definitely a scientologist, because you do not know right from wrong, you do not understand love and compassion, you do not know what real hurt and pain is and you have absolutely no idea just how ruthless your messiah was."​


You were offended by her anti Scientology sentiments, used the bigotry card, and threatened to report her:


"This is ad hom bigotry. The method of reporting to mods dosn't seem to exist.
Hopefully they'll pick this up.
"​


I see you're still at it.
 

Gib

Crusader
I've posted many success stories of people who consider they went
clear, quite a few on this forum. Those in the independent/FZ often make
such posts. My guess is you wouldn't accept their statement.

I know many people who CONSIDER they are clear, and many people who CONSIDER they are OT, or at least pre-OT.

All these people wrote success stories too.

I except their CONSIDERATION, but it ain't true, for what is true for me is what I myself have observed.

One of hubbard's biggest tricks - "what you consider is what you consider", and he got people to consider they are clear and/or OT.

superman.jpg
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
I've posted many success stories of people who consider they went
clear, quite a few on this forum. Those in the independent/FZ often make
such posts. My guess is you wouldn't accept their statement.

If I said, due to some "therapy", that I "discovered" that the moon is made of green cheese... would you accept my statement?
If not then why not? (Isn't what is true for ME true for ME?)
 
Top