The Intentions of L Ron Hubbard

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
It's easy to find people who say that we can never know L Ron Hubbard's intentions. He can be criticized for having created one of the most abusive mind control cults ever devised, yes, but "we can never really know whether he intended to do that or not".

I've never been able to understand this argument.

If you observe a person at a free-throw line during a basketball game, staring at the hoop and concentrating, taking aim, and then intently throwing the ball at it - you can clearly see that his intention is to make a basket.

Similarly, in court cases when a homicide has been committed, the difference between manslaughter and murder is to show pre-meditation. If a person concealed a gun in his pants, and carried the gun into a courthouse, sneaking it past the metal detectors, and then shot a witness who was going to testify against him - it shows his intentions. It shows that he intended to murder the person ahead of time.

His intentions can be known, because they can be demonstrated by his actions.

So when L Ron Hubbard lies about being a war hero, blinded and crippled in combat, and then lies about how he used Dianetics to heal himself from his war wounds - when the facts show that he never saw combat in WWII - and then he makes that claim in every book he wrote on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, publishing and re-publishing that story, over and over for 36 years - how can anyone possibly believe that L Ron Hubbard had no intention to commit fraud?
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Partly due to Ron's own claims to having presented the 'The Tech' the inclination is to see both His Work and his motivations as complete. But, it's more obvious that Ron's 'intentions' were an evolution; from the Affirmations to Dianetics to His 'Church', Ron grew into the dead man of 1986. Yes he was a conman and knew it; yes, he was a messiah and believed His own hockum; yes He thought He could save everyone and the world; yes, He knew it was bullshit, but, thought it was salvation nevertheless.

Zinj
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Partly due to Ron's own claims to having presented the 'The Tech' the inclination is to see both His Work and his motivations as complete. But, it's more obvious that Ron's 'intentions' were an evolution; from the Affirmations to Dianetics to His 'Church', Ron grew into the dead man of 1986. Yes he was a conman and knew it; yes, he was a messiah and believed His own hockum; yes He thought He could save everyone and the world; yes, He knew it was bullshit, but, thought it was salvation nevertheless.

Zinj

I don't think L Ron Hubbard thought Scientology was salvation for anyone.

I think that as a "C/S" from the very beginning, he saw the results of almost every auditing session ever performed. He knew that the results he told everyone that Scientology achieves "100% of the time", had never been achieved.

And he knew this from 1948, when he first lied about the abilities of a "Clear" all the way through the early 1980's, when he was still lying about the abilities of "OTs".

He knew there was no salvation for anyone in Scientology - there was only money and glorification in it for him.

His intention throughout was to lie and con people, leading them through the labyrinthine path of Scientology, for as long as he could keep them moving.

And then, once they found out he was conning them, to shudder them into silence, or to ruin them utterly and without sorrow.
 
So when L Ron Hubbard lies about being a war hero, blinded and crippled in combat, and then lies about how he used Dianetics to heal himself from his war wounds - when the facts show that he never saw combat in WWII - and then he makes that claim in every book he wrote on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, publishing and re-publishing that story, over and over for 36 years - how can anyone possibly believe that L Ron Hubbard had no intention to commit fraud?

You never know, Hubbard could have started a self-service mind control cult, defrauded everyone he ever came in contact with, and died on the run into hiding, by accident. It far more likely to have been an accident than Scientology ever actually producing a "Clear" or "OT"
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Yet, he used Scientology on *Himself* too.

And, believing what you know to be untrue is a signature 'Tech' success.

Zinj
 
Yet, he used Scientology on *Himself* too.

And, believing what you know to be untrue is a signature 'Tech' success.

Zinj

Hubbard was such a good con man, he even sold his bullshit to himself, and look where it got him ... dying alone in a rundown trailer, all jacked up with Vistaril® in a fetal position, wearing a soiled diaper. I guess that's the best you can ask for when you buy into Hubbard's "Bridge To Total Freedom"
 

bluewiggirl

Patron Meritorious
Hubbard was such a good con man, he even sold his bullshit to himself, and look where it got him ... dying alone in a rundown trailer, all jacked up with Vistaril® in a fetal position, wearing a soiled diaper. I guess that's the best you can ask for when you buy into Hubbard's "Bridge To Total Freedom"

My thoughts exactly.
 

angel

Patron with Honors
LRH's Intention

In regards to the topic, I find that applying study tech to learn the truth is what will bring down the church.

There are biographical accounts of people who were never in Scientology that place LRH involved in Thelema Kabballah. His original thesis was his submission to attain his next level. It was DENIED. He did not pass, FLUNK! The objective was to take the existing tech and advance it. He took his thesis and went out on his own publishing it in book form.

My theory from this information is that he got pissy for being flunked and squirreled. He began his own cult based on the one that Crowley had. The tech that he had and furthered had already existed for god knows how long.

I disagree that nobody got results from their auditing, because some people did. I feel that it is dangerous and experimental to go poking around in this stuff.

Based on my study I believe at this time that LRH's intention was to take this secret religion that pissed him off and make it available to almost anyone. It appears he tried to make this satanic practice look like the right thing to do, for the greater good. He lied alot to achieve this illusion. On one thread I referred to this as the dark arts and a poster came unglued with Harry Potter references (I have 4 kids) obviously no sense of humor.

When I read the discription of OTIII written in LRH's own hand, with its inconsistencies and misspellings, I got the impression that he may have been automatic writing. That could explain the Xenu crap. Spirits that hang around like these via's of communication, but are usually psychotic and they lie. I also know that LRH summoned beings and have a first hand account, so my theory is not too far off base if off at all.

Jen
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
OP: yes, his intentions were quite clear from his affirmations, and the methods that he used to get where and what he wanted were indicative that those intentions never changed, he simply SOLD them as being different than they were.
 
It's easy to find people who say that we can never know L Ron Hubbard's intentions. He can be criticized for having created one of the most abusive mind control cults ever devised, yes, but "we can never really know whether he intended to do that or not".

I've never been able to understand this argument.

Quite simply all you can ever do is INFER based on another person's actions. His private mental state remains private. Additionally, the process of inference injects the inferer's own mental state into the process. What results does not wholly or accurately reflect the targets intentions but does include something of the active agents. Rather like quantum mechanics there is no objective outside observer or an unaffected observation.

More generally, it is a false idea to think that an individual possesses exactly ONE intention, especially over an active professional life which encompassed the better part of 40 years of public activities. Hence, "his intention" is a bit of wool gathering.

Additionally and directly to the person of L.Ron Hubbard, LRH showed signs of what may well have been varying degrees of mental instability throughout his life. The idea that some single over-arching "intention" translated across the huge range in his mental states throughout his life is ludicrous.

You would do better to analyze what specific events or ideas in his life may have motivated his particular actions. Even there you can not succeed completely as all data can not be known nor all his own thoughts accounted for at this time.

Ultimately, what you derive is individual conjecture. Conjecture which to a greater or lesser degree may describe something about LRH depending on the intellectual honest & integrity of the conjecturist. Nonetheless it is all conjecture.

That, simply put, is the argument. Now do you understand? :)


Mark A. Baker
p.s. You are certainly free to believe whatever you may wish about LRH's (or any others) intentions. Just don't confuse your beliefs on that matter as reflecting thereby the unstained & complete truth concerning LRH's (or anothers) intentions. :)
 
He had conflicting motivations. Any "good" motivations were always enlisted to serve the "bad" ones. Everyone had to kowtow to his need for CONTROL. He had to be in control so much that he imagined anything which did not accord with the way he wanted things to be, at any point, was somebody's effort to sabotage his control. It was so obsessive that he set up elaborate systems, strategies and schemes to try to STOP people inhibiting his CONTROL. (OSA, Ethics, etc).

Offering something that people wanted was a way to control people. "Saving" people was a way of controlling people. They had to be saved strictly according to his unique "tech". He was not interested in people being saved or going free. He was interested to having people in his CONTROL. "Saving" people and "setting people free" was the bait he used to get them to agree to give him the CONTROL position. And God help them if they questioned even the small details. Is that a man that wants people to be free?

The CONTROL motivation goes right through his affirmations, marriages, setting up of Dianetics, the COS. the SO, etc. When he died, the dainty dwarf insisted on the speel that Elron was in control of death too.
Makes me tired just thinking of it.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Quite simply all you can ever do is INFER based on another person's actions. His private mental state remains private. Additionally, the process of inference injects the inferer's own mental state into the process. What results does not wholly or accurately reflect the targets intentions but does include something of the active agents. Rather like quantum mechanics there is no objective outside observer or an unaffected observation.

I think you are adding a lot to the concept of INFER that isn't there.

From Dictionary.com

INFER

–verb (used with object)
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.

–verb (used without object)
5. to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.

Origin:
1520–30; < L inferre, equiv. to in- in- 2 + ferre to bring, carry, bear 1
thinsp.png


More generally, it is a false idea to think that an individual possesses exactly ONE intention, especially over an active professional life which encompassed the better part of 40 years of public activities. Hence, "his intention" is a bit of wool gathering.
I never said that he had only one intention.

In fact, I gave the example of his lying about his WWII experiences and using those lies to sell Scientology, as well as the fact that he published and re-published those lies over and over for 36 years as evidence that he had the intent to commit fraud.

FRAUD

–noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

Origin:
1300–50; ME fraude < OF < ML fraud- (s. of fraus) deceit, injury
thinsp.png


From Reference.com

"Fraud
, in law, willful misrepresentation intended to deprive another of some right. The offense, generally only a tort, may also constitute the crime of false pretenses. Frauds are either actual or constructive. An actual fraud requires that the act be motivated by the desire to deceive another to his harm, while a constructive fraud is a presumption of overreaching conduct that arises when a profit is made from a relation of trust (see fiduciary). The courts have found it undesirable to make a rigid definition of the type of misrepresentation that amounts to actual fraud and have preferred to consider individually the factors in each case. The misrepresentation may be a positive lie, a failure to disclose information, or even a statement made in reckless disregard of possible inaccuracy. Actual fraud can never be the result of accident or negligence, because of the requirement that the act be intended to deceive. The question of commission may depend upon the competence and commercial knowledge of the alleged victim. Thus dealings with a minor, a lunatic, a feeble-minded person, a drunkard, or (in former times) a married woman are scrutinized more closely than dealings with an experienced businessman. A lawsuit based upon actual or constructive fraud must specify the fraudulent act, the plaintiff's reliance on it, and the loss suffered. The remedy granted to the plaintiff in most cases is either compensatory (and possibly punitive) damages for the injury or cancellation of the contract or other agreement and the restoration of the parties to their former status. In a few states of the United States both damages and cancellation are available. In certain suits based upon a contract, fraud may be introduced as a defense. "

In the case of his lying, over and over in this way, it is conclusive proof that he intended to commit fraud.

Why he was never convicted of it, I do not know.

He certainly should have been. And, if there was ever a failure of law enforcement to protect the public from Scientology - it sits right there.

Additionally and directly to the person of L.Ron Hubbard, LRH showed signs of what may well have been varying degrees of mental instability throughout his life. The idea that some single over-arching "intention" translated across the huge range in his mental states throughout his life is ludicrous.
That thing you call ludicrous above was never argued by me.

If a court can hear evidence of pre-meditation to discern whether an act was manslaughter or murder, then why is it impossible to provide evidence that someone's intention was to commit fraud?

Ultimately, what you derive is individual conjecture. Conjecture which to a greater or lesser degree may describe something about LRH depending on the intellectual honest & integrity of the conjecturist. Nonetheless it is all conjecture.

That, simply put, is the argument. Now do you understand? :)

Mark A. Baker
p.s. You are certainly free to believe whatever you may wish about LRH's (or any others) intentions. Just don't confuse your beliefs on that matter as reflecting thereby the unstained & complete truth concerning LRH's (or anothers) intentions. :)
CONJECTURE

–noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3. Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens.

–verb (used with object)
4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

–verb (used without object)
5. to form conjectures.

Origin:
1350–1400; (n.) ME < L conjectūra (< MF) inferring, reasoning, equiv. to conject(us) ptp. of conjicere to throw together, form a conclusion (con- con- + -jicere, comb. form of jacere to throw) + -ūra -ure; (v.) late ME conjecturen (< MF) < LL conjecturāre, deriv. of the n.
thinsp.png


I fully disagree that it is conjecture - as in "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."

My whole point is that you CAN have sufficient evidence for proof of LRH's intentions.

To call it conjecture and to say that it is an invalid conclusion simply because an intention is an inner phenomenon is to deny the fact that evidence can be sufficient to show intention:
  • The person can demonstrate a long pattern of behavior that brings about the object of his intention.
  • The person can say, "My intention is to..."
  • The person can set up a situation ahead of time in order to make something come about - especially if they repeat that situation over and over.
All these things above show intention. And they are valid sources of evidence to show intention.

Only the obfuscators, prestidigitators and self-deniers believe that intention is never able to be discerned. And I'll bet it is possible to discern their intentions, as well!
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
He had conflicting motivations. Any "good" motivations were always enlisted to serve the "bad" ones. Everyone had to kowtow to his need for CONTROL. He had to be in control so much that he imagined anything which did not accord with the way he wanted things to be, at any point, was somebody's effort to sabotage his control. It was so obsessive that he set up elaborate systems, strategies and schemes to try to STOP people inhibiting his CONTROL. (OSA, Ethics, etc).

Offering something that people wanted was a way to control people. "Saving" people was a way of controlling people. They had to be saved strictly according to his unique "tech". He was not interested in people being saved or going free. He was interested to having people in his CONTROL. "Saving" people and "setting people free" was the bait he used to get them to agree to give him the CONTROL position. And God help them if they questioned even the small details. Is that a man that wants people to be free?

The CONTROL motivation goes right through his affirmations, marriages, setting up of Dianetics, the COS. the SO, etc. When he died, the dainty dwarf insisted on the speel that Elron was in control of death too.
Makes me tired just thinking of it.

That's a good point.

CONTROL = INCOME
 
Quite simply all you can ever do is INFER based on another person's actions. His private mental state remains private. Additionally, the process of inference injects the inferer's own mental state into the process. What results does not wholly or accurately reflect the targets intentions but does include something of the active agents. Rather like quantum mechanics there is no objective outside observer or an unaffected observation.

More generally, it is a false idea to think that an individual possesses exactly ONE intention, especially over an active professional life which encompassed the better part of 40 years of public activities. Hence, "his intention" is a bit of wool gathering.

Additionally and directly to the person of L.Ron Hubbard, LRH showed signs of what may well have been varying degrees of mental instability throughout his life. The idea that some single over-arching "intention" translated across the huge range in his mental states throughout his life is ludicrous.

You would do better to analyze what specific events or ideas in his life may have motivated his particular actions. Even there you can not succeed completely as all data can not be known nor all his own thoughts accounted for at this time.

Ultimately, what you derive is individual conjecture. Conjecture which to a greater or lesser degree may describe something about LRH depending on the intellectual honest & integrity of the conjecturist. Nonetheless it is all conjecture.

That, simply put, is the argument. Now do you understand? :)


Mark A. Baker
p.s. You are certainly free to believe whatever you may wish about LRH's (or any others) intentions. Just don't confuse your beliefs on that matter as reflecting thereby the unstained & complete truth concerning LRH's (or anothers) intentions. :)

Oh God... let me get the violin out for this insanity defense of Hubbard.

Hubbard was a con man, plain and simple.

His sole motivation was to con suckers like you into licking his boots and emptying your bank accounts doing it. Judging by your post he was a very successful an his quest and accomplished his goal.
 

Carmel

Crusader
It's not real to me that anyone is ALL good, or ALL bad.

From my observation, we all have the potential to go south or north, and we all have varying degrees of 'good' and 'bad' intentions. In saying that though, it would seem that some have a much more positive 'leaning' than others, and some have quite a negative 'leaning'.

Also, from my observation, people are influenced by support or lack of it, from others, and by their circumstances. Ones intentions and direction in life change a zillion times - I've not known anyone who has not deviated from a 'course' that was previously set. While some have remained more 'constant' than others, I'd say the majority shift and move and go up and down and sideways, to varying degrees.

I believe that LRH was just about everything and anything that people have said he was, but I also believe he was more than that as well - There's no doubt in my mind that he would have had conflicting intentions at various times. LRH 'created' a huge machine that had a huge effect. It's not like any of us would be wanting to step up with an epitaph for him or give credence to any imagined 'legacy'.......that doesn't mean though that he was void of positive intentions or purposes at different times.
 
It's not real to me that anyone is ALL good, or ALL bad.

From my observation, we all have the potential to go south or north, and we all have varying degrees of 'good' and 'bad' intentions. In saying that though, it would seem that some have a much more positive 'leaning' than others, and some have quite a negative 'leaning'.

Also, from my observation, people are influenced by support or lack of it, from others, and by their circumstances. Ones intentions and direction in life change a zillion times - I've not known anyone who has not deviated from a 'course' that was previously set. While some have remained more 'constant' than others, I'd say the majority shift and move and go up and down and sideways, to varying degrees.

I believe that LRH was just about everything and anything that people have said he was, but I also believe he was more than that as well - There's no doubt in my mind that he would have had conflicting intentions at various times. LRH 'created' a huge machine that had a huge effect. It's not like any of us would be wanting to step up with an epitaph for him or give credence to any imagined 'legacy'.......that doesn't mean though that he was void of positive intentions or purposes at different times.

Hubbard had plenty of opportunities to "Do The Right Thing" and every single time Hubbard was required to make a decision, he picked the one which benefited him and only him. Hubbard was a self absorbed piece of shit who could not care less about the lives which were destroyed in the wake of his mission of padding his pockets and his pathetic ego.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Hubbard had plenty of opportunities to "Do The Right Thing" and every single time Hubbard was required to make a decision, he picked the one which benefited him and only him. Hubbard was a self absorbed piece of shit who could not care less about the lives which were destroyed in the wake of his mission of padding his pockets and his pathetic ego.
I believe that he would have cared about others, even if only to some minute degree. In saying that though, he clearly cared more about himself, and was somehow resolved on getting where he wanted to get, despite and at the expense of others - no argument there.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
It's not real to me that anyone is ALL good, or ALL bad.

From my observation, we all have the potential to go south or north, and we all have varying degrees of 'good' and 'bad' intentions. In saying that though, it would seem that some have a much more positive 'leaning' than others, and some have quite a negative 'leaning'.

Also, from my observation, people are influenced by support or lack of it, from others, and by their circumstances. Ones intentions and direction in life change a zillion times - I've not known anyone who has not deviated from a 'course' that was previously set. While some have remained more 'constant' than others, I'd say the majority shift and move and go up and down and sideways, to varying degrees.

I believe that LRH was just about everything and anything that people have said he was, but I also believe he was more than that as well - There's no doubt in my mind that he would have had conflicting intentions at various times. LRH 'created' a huge machine that had a huge effect. It's not like any of us would be wanting to step up with an epitaph for him or give credence to any imagined 'legacy'.......that doesn't mean though that he was void of positive intentions or purposes at different times.

I never said that he was devoid of positive intentions.

I just said that outward evidence can be proof of inner intentions.

So, if he wasn't devoid of positive intentions - where's the proof?
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Hubbard had plenty of opportunities to "Do The Right Thing" and every single time Hubbard was required to make a decision, he picked the one which benefited him and only him. Hubbard was a self absorbed piece of shit who could not care less about the lives which were destroyed in the wake of his mission of padding his pockets and his pathetic ego.

Excellent point!

Another way to show intentions:

Look at the options a person has available to him, and which option he finally chooses.

This choice, if repeated often enough, can reveal a pattern which shows intentions.

Look at all the options that LRH had available to him for the treatment of staff, for instance, over 36 years of running Churches of Scientology's around the world.

And then look at the options that he chooses over and over again, and even holds in place as 100% standard policy - for decades. Even after seeing the years and years of devastation and hardship those policies cause to staff.

This is proof of LRH's intentions for the treatment of staff members.
 
Top