What's new

The Intentions of L Ron Hubbard


Bardo Tulpa
The Scientologists have descended upon Alanzo in this thread because they can not stand the thought of L Ron Hubbard's intentions being discussed.

Perhaps their own intentions are being missed?


It's all right though. I can handle it.

No need to worry.

I live for this stuff.
Yes. Just bring along your toys.

This is the toy I'm bringing


Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
You posted this in this thread:

And you implied that this was me. If you did not imply that this was me, it's appearance here in this thread looked like an attempt at shifting the point of the discussion from justifying the overts of Scientology to denying the right of Scientologists to speak their mind.

So I asked you outright if that is what you were doing.

Because otherwise it does not make any sense.

Fluffy: I need to tell you something:

Put me back on Ignore now.

Just do it right now.

It will be much better for both of us.

I was not implying that it was you. I did feel, however, that you were joining in the fray re Alex and that is the only reason I posted what I posted.

My commentary isn't always perfect. And so it goes.


Gold Meritorious Patron
I got one of those twenty years ago for my son for 50 cents at a yard sale. He played with it for at least 4 years...good buy I'd say.

It was my most favorite toy when I was a toddler - I remember it. I had one back when they were all steel and you could ride on the back end (at least I could - lol).

My Mom tells me that I would toss all the dolls and stuffed animals out of my crib and cry until I got my Tonka truck. I slept with that thing for years! I found one for my sons who are now too old for it - I won't throw it away!


Gold Meritorious Patron
I looked up your references. Talking about you and your intentions/beliefs is off-topic. We are discussing LRH's intentions.

You didn't respond to my specific questions (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=293434&postcount=108). And more specifically regarding the relevance of Hubbard's intentions to the implimentation of Scn processes (such as TR8) that I outlined in my long post.

You still appear to be playing to the gallery rather than discussing specific points being discussed.

If Hubbard's intentions are unimportant to you, why are you repeatedly posting on a thread about Hubbard's intentions? Doesn't this communicate that you do think they are important?

Could you address the idea in my thread that Hubbard drilled us by proxy on TR8 to become effective enforcers of intention whilst simultaneously educating us to accept and carry through his Command Intention. One intention though the indenders be many.

Even his definition of Tone 40 "intention without reservation or limit" uses the word Intention. (as if that has anything to do with serenity - but that is just Hubbard's mis-conception of spirituality!).

Given the above concept of Tone 40 combined with his evil intentions in his Affirmations, do you still contend that Hubbard's intentions are unimportant?

It is my contention that for this reason Hubbard's intentions are absolutely crucial to a clear understanding of the purpose and action of Scn. We were drilled to enforce his intention without reservation or limit, yet his apologists say his intentions are unknowable and irrelevant! :omg:

I agree. His Affrimations are our best evidence as to both his intentions and his problems pre-scientology.

One could dismiss them as old, no longer relevant when he created Scn, the rambling aspirations of a young man who later matured. etc.

Except that so much of Scn was still concerned with the topics addressed in his affirmations, such as control of men, control of entities, making money, being admired, controlling and predicting people's psychology, etc. etc.

And of course we also have the evidence of those who worked closely with him in the early development of Scn, who saw first-hand his intentions. (Sara Northrup, Nibs, Helen O'Brien, etc). Some of whom Hubbard apologists work hard to discredit. I can feel the fingers twitching even as my words are read. Twitching to post derisive reports about Nibs or Sara.

Repeated here in case Alex (or anyone else) wants to address these ideas of the connection between: intentions being "processed" in Scientology, Hubbard's intentions and our education/training to carry our his "command intention".


Gold Meritorious Patron
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. :)

This is an excellent observation. :thumbsup:



Excerpt from the opening post of this thread:

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.


Done skillfully by a Scientology apologist, it's not unlike watching a talented defense attorney at the trial of a swindler or con man.

Scientologists, of course, regard Hubbard as a great Humanitarian, and more deeply into Scientology, they'll talk of "running out the 4th dynamic engram," and "salvaging this sector of the galaxy."

Yet, when cornered in a foreign land - such as a place where EX Scientologists congregate - and confronted with "anti-Scientology entheta," one can occasionally behold the spectacle of a Scientologist transforming into a silk-vest-wearing defense attorney, arguing that "no one can know."

Fortunately, for those who care, there is an abundance of evidence to examine. Each can make up his or her own mind. :)


Wait, are you suggesting that Hubbard might have accidentally created a mind-control cult that made him hundreds of millions of dollars?

What a lucky bastard!


L. Ron Hubbard's intentions can only be understood if one has an understanding of how a sociopath (which is what Hubbard was) operates. Sociopaths are extremely charming on the outside, and extremely selfish on the inside. The have no conscience. This makes them exceptionally greedy, and potentially very dangerous if they feel they are being threatened (fair game, anyone?). Oh and also, just about anytime you find a cult, a sociopath will be its leader. No surprise there.
In the cult setting, they tend to take on the role of "messiah" figure (see, e.g., Charles Manson, or Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church).