SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Good! 
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
lkwdblds
Crusader
Okay, I got my question answered.
I see your point. Most of the people who made contributions to the tech such as Volney Mathieson, Evans Farber, John Galusha, the Halperns. the Kemps and the like were no longer coming in to Scientology after 1955. In the next phase, there were Early Adapters such as Urquhart, Captain Bill, Otto Roos, Mayo, Yvonne Gilham and the like. People such as yourself and Dart were in that group as well. Moving on, if a young Innovator entered after DM took control in the early 80's he would not be attracted to the movement and even if he was, they would not allow him to join or if he joined he would quickly be RPFed and off loaded. Yes, I agree with you completely on this concept.
On watching the video which you attached, I found it eery to see Scientology like data being presented and discussed without the presence of LRH or DM in the room. There is a certain beauty in watching people of good will come into contact withs spiritual truths in a clean, safe environment. The lack of Hubbard or an alter ego of his being there makes the setting appear peaceful and tranquil. On the down side, I do not see movements of this sort ever amounting to much. The group kind of put down the separation of the body, mind and spirit but I believe a very strong and dynamic spirit with a vigorous body and mind must be present to spearhead a movement of this sort if it is to make any inroads into being a major player in society. A strong but more sane and ethical leader with LRH's dynamic personality and ledership ability is need for a group such as that. The kind of people who attend those classes remind me of myself. The brutal truth is that people such as me are missing something or lacking some qualities which are necessary to lead a worldwide betterment movement. Hubbard, as messed up as his case was, had what it takes to lead a worldwide movement to impinge on this planet. Had he been more ethical and straight and followed his own teachings, he had the potential to pull off something big. Alas, it wasn't to be.
Lakey
I see your point. Most of the people who made contributions to the tech such as Volney Mathieson, Evans Farber, John Galusha, the Halperns. the Kemps and the like were no longer coming in to Scientology after 1955. In the next phase, there were Early Adapters such as Urquhart, Captain Bill, Otto Roos, Mayo, Yvonne Gilham and the like. People such as yourself and Dart were in that group as well. Moving on, if a young Innovator entered after DM took control in the early 80's he would not be attracted to the movement and even if he was, they would not allow him to join or if he joined he would quickly be RPFed and off loaded. Yes, I agree with you completely on this concept.
On watching the video which you attached, I found it eery to see Scientology like data being presented and discussed without the presence of LRH or DM in the room. There is a certain beauty in watching people of good will come into contact withs spiritual truths in a clean, safe environment. The lack of Hubbard or an alter ego of his being there makes the setting appear peaceful and tranquil. On the down side, I do not see movements of this sort ever amounting to much. The group kind of put down the separation of the body, mind and spirit but I believe a very strong and dynamic spirit with a vigorous body and mind must be present to spearhead a movement of this sort if it is to make any inroads into being a major player in society. A strong but more sane and ethical leader with LRH's dynamic personality and ledership ability is need for a group such as that. The kind of people who attend those classes remind me of myself. The brutal truth is that people such as me are missing something or lacking some qualities which are necessary to lead a worldwide betterment movement. Hubbard, as messed up as his case was, had what it takes to lead a worldwide movement to impinge on this planet. Had he been more ethical and straight and followed his own teachings, he had the potential to pull off something big. Alas, it wasn't to be.
Lakey
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
I'm sorry Veda!
I'll take note that you do not automatically knee jerk reject conspiracies.
Lakey
I'll take note that you do not automatically knee jerk reject conspiracies.
Lakey
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Thank you re: Simon Sinek. This is good stuff, Ted! Your extrapolations are excellent IMO and “foot” nicely with where I was eventually going on my “Readers Digest” Treatment. I appreciate you’re input and will “tie” your points into the final post of my “abridged treatment”, which is a few post away.
Lakey, Blue Spirit, Mark A., Thetanic, Enthetan, et al…I think were we’re getting’ somewhere together on making this a nice little “Treatise”…I’m personally gaining a lot from all yall’s viewpoints and thoughtful posts…all we need now is for Carmelo to come in and “take the edge off” a little bit.
More later.
Face
It's 11 PM. I just got off the phone with Denmark, where I've been running Opening Procedure 8C for the last hour (look at that wall, walk over to that wall, touch that wall, turn around). I just threw some cauliflower in the steamer for dinner, and I'm popping the lid on a yogurt.
My trusty assistant and I walked the streets of our little town from 9 to 10 while I ran PrPr 1 on someone else by phone.
Earlier I gave a real newbie a second session by phone. He has done the HAS, and yesterday I gave him his first session. He went exterior after running a chain of secondaries with an engram at the bottom. He's pretty happy.
But as Arlo Guthrie would say, that's not why I came here. i came to talk about organization knowledge.
Back in the late 60s or 1970 (at the latest) I was hitting on this beautiful chic named Nancy Kelly at SFO. She was a class IV auditor, and (more importantly) had a very hot body to go with her ever so beautiful self. I said something like "why was she working at SFO when she could be making money at a center?"
can you say "Ooops!"
I knew you could.
It was knowledge report time and visit the E/O and blah blah blah. It was a major crime for centers to steal org staff. Pardon my ability to ask an obvious question.
Orgs didn't run like centers (later called missions). Their pay was shitty. With the exceptions of CC, AO, and ASHO in the US, orgs didn't survive high on the hog. There were all these eastern European style rules straight out of Franz Kafka. Centers were run by independent minded people. Rules were not half as important as getting the job(s) done. Going to work in a center was like going to play with friends. It was fun.
When I went down to LA to go Clear, I was warned in no uncertain terms to watch out for the Sea Org Cognition. That cognition that said I should join the Sea Org. So when I had it, on OT 2, I just told myself that I was temporarily crazy, and that it would pass. It did in a couple of days.
When a friend (my friend, Susan, Lakey) waned to join the Sea Org so she could get her auditing without having to pay for it, I offered to pay for her auditing if she didn't join. She joined, but I was always the thorn of reality. Yesterday she told me how good it was for her to be able to talk to me freely over the years. So many people had sipped the Kool Aid.
There are several kinds of organizations. Whatever the organization, you can usually tell a lot about the leader by the folks on the customer "meet and greet" line. When the 10% monthly price increases hit us, I had no illusions as to who was behind that. Have you been in a US Post Office lately? How was the service? Some mailman, somewhere in the US, went postal only yesterday. How about Fed Ex?
I know a lady lawyer, who was personally hired by Steve Ballmer of Microsoft. She calls it the Evil Empire.
As much as I love Apple products, and could never create and or manufacture something like that, I don't particularly like big organizations.
Somewhere over 50 employees, organizations loose sight of many individual ethical values. Corporations don't tend to have a heart. Many small companies do.
I think Hyatt Hotels is an amazing paradigm setter. The top corporate brass have to work on the desk, on the front lines of their hotels for a week or two every couple of years. They get to see, experience, and handle what works, what walks in the door.
The Disney Company doesn't pay well. They never have. BUT Disney offers a high degree of job satisfaction. They take care of their employees and their customers. They innovate. Workers are invested. They don't feel like cogs. That's worth more than money to many.
Running huge corporations or huge money businesses respond to "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Think: Enron, Wall Street, government at any level.
On the other hand, think of almost any Mom and Pop business that you know. Do you like them? do you trust them? I do.
I can't wait to see the new "Wall Street" movie with Michael douglas. it looks great.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
It doesn't take a genius to see that Abe Lincoln, JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King were all gunned down with the aid of parts of the US government.
Conspiracies, cartels, etc are a part of the game of life on this planet.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
How about Fed Exing us a couple and Lakey and I will taste test them, for a comparison with Knotts???
When I was a little girl, the first thing I learned to bake was pies...must be a Mennonite thing...
I was the family's designated barbecuer from age 3. I wadded up the newspaper, threw on the kindling, and put the wood burning 3 or 4 nights a week for all the nice weathered times of the year. And I barbecued the steaks and burgers by myself. Real wood fires trump charcoal any day of the week.
When I was 15/16, my girl friend taught me how to make pies. we used Margaret Rutherford's Pepperidge Farm Cookbook. I still have that in a handy place in our kitchen next to the Joy of Cooking, Craig Claiborne, Martha Stewart, etc.
My friend Elsa, and I learned how to do a spinach and mushroom quiche back when I was on the Clearing Course. We make that very same recipe at least once a month to this day.
cooking is fun.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
lkwdblds
Crusader
This post covers a lot of ground!
This post is quite long, to me the best way to reply with comments is to insert comments in red in the middle of the post.
I had not heard about the new Wall Street movie. The last few months I havn't been able to find a decent movie worth seeing. I will definitely see that one.
What do you think of Starbucks as far as a Corporate business? They have a lot of ambiance in their stores and their service is much like the service in a Mom and Pop store. They play interesting music and you can buy a small coffee there for $1.65 and stay there for a couple of hours working on your business or reading a book or whatever. Other coffee stores are often as aesthetic or more so than Starbucks and the service is just as friendly but the other store just doesn't do much business and Starbucks does. Why is that? It is apparent that Starbucks is selling their "why" while the other stores sell only their "what". The quality of the coffee does not seem to be a factor in the coffee store busines - they all serve good coffee- it is the intangibles that separate Starbucks from the others.
Lakey
This post is quite long, to me the best way to reply with comments is to insert comments in red in the middle of the post.
I had not heard about the new Wall Street movie. The last few months I havn't been able to find a decent movie worth seeing. I will definitely see that one.
What do you think of Starbucks as far as a Corporate business? They have a lot of ambiance in their stores and their service is much like the service in a Mom and Pop store. They play interesting music and you can buy a small coffee there for $1.65 and stay there for a couple of hours working on your business or reading a book or whatever. Other coffee stores are often as aesthetic or more so than Starbucks and the service is just as friendly but the other store just doesn't do much business and Starbucks does. Why is that? It is apparent that Starbucks is selling their "why" while the other stores sell only their "what". The quality of the coffee does not seem to be a factor in the coffee store busines - they all serve good coffee- it is the intangibles that separate Starbucks from the others.
Lakey
RogerB
Crusader
About a Decade Off here Mate
Lakey, Mate,
You're about a decade off on that date.
Hubbard began seriously axing folks around 1965-7. Remember the CC was released in 1967. The first SHSBC began 1961-2.
Although he did ax Jack Horner early on, and fight with Volnay also in the '50's.
Fact is, those who were very accomplished and independently minded with their own developed tech . . . . Jack Horner, and Chuck Berner and his wife, and Volney, (patent dispute there) as examples in early days; Hubbard stole from them there offerings which theft caused them to say "screw it" and to leave.
But many of the names you mention continued on into the '60's and beyond until the place became too nutty.
In actuality, there have been two "classes" of folks on the line.
Those who had their own discoveries and tech developed before they came into Scn (Horner, Volnay M. Chuck B and such) . . . and these are the guys who collided with Hubbards incessant plagiarism and deceit; and then there were the guys who learned from Hubbard but who also expanded beyond his offerings and began to improve and better apply the tech (Galusha, A. Walter, Kemp, Halperns etc.)
This later gang stayed on longer trying to assist and make the show a winning show, but they too ended up being betrayed by Hubbard and his sycophants.
I met Ray Kemp in London 1967-8, for example.
Rog
Lakey, Mate,
You're about a decade off on that date.
Hubbard began seriously axing folks around 1965-7. Remember the CC was released in 1967. The first SHSBC began 1961-2.
Although he did ax Jack Horner early on, and fight with Volnay also in the '50's.
Fact is, those who were very accomplished and independently minded with their own developed tech . . . . Jack Horner, and Chuck Berner and his wife, and Volney, (patent dispute there) as examples in early days; Hubbard stole from them there offerings which theft caused them to say "screw it" and to leave.
But many of the names you mention continued on into the '60's and beyond until the place became too nutty.
In actuality, there have been two "classes" of folks on the line.
Those who had their own discoveries and tech developed before they came into Scn (Horner, Volnay M. Chuck B and such) . . . and these are the guys who collided with Hubbards incessant plagiarism and deceit; and then there were the guys who learned from Hubbard but who also expanded beyond his offerings and began to improve and better apply the tech (Galusha, A. Walter, Kemp, Halperns etc.)
This later gang stayed on longer trying to assist and make the show a winning show, but they too ended up being betrayed by Hubbard and his sycophants.
I met Ray Kemp in London 1967-8, for example.
Rog
lkwdblds
Crusader
I wasn't aware that Lincoln was on that list.
I never heard Lincoln's death was part of a conspiracy before. The most obvious cover up to me is the JFK murder. It was obvious that he was getting too powerful and popular with the people for those behind the scenes. Besides just the USA, he was adored by the people of nearly every other country. Also, he had a stubborn streak and must have refused to knuckly under to some powerful vested interests. It just irks me that virtually all the media people, talk show hosts, and pundits deny a conspiracy. Even Dennis Prager, an intelligent talk show hosts debunks any JFK conspiracy.
On the other end of the scale, I feel that those who insist that the Bush administration planted explosives in the World Trade Center and brought down the buildings knowingly are nuts. Bush's motive for bringing down the buildings is supposed to be oil as in blood for oil. Now that the Bush presidency is over, how has Bush's lust for oil manifested itself? Bush was independently wealthy before his presidency and remains so, oil prices were going up when his term started and have continued to rise. The U.S. did not take over any of the Iraqi oil fields. Even so, people still chant the no blood for oil mantra. If someone believes that Bush brought down those buildings, I pretty much stay away from them. Only polite good roads, good weather but I will not enter into a dialogue with such as person.
Lakey
I never heard Lincoln's death was part of a conspiracy before. The most obvious cover up to me is the JFK murder. It was obvious that he was getting too powerful and popular with the people for those behind the scenes. Besides just the USA, he was adored by the people of nearly every other country. Also, he had a stubborn streak and must have refused to knuckly under to some powerful vested interests. It just irks me that virtually all the media people, talk show hosts, and pundits deny a conspiracy. Even Dennis Prager, an intelligent talk show hosts debunks any JFK conspiracy.
On the other end of the scale, I feel that those who insist that the Bush administration planted explosives in the World Trade Center and brought down the buildings knowingly are nuts. Bush's motive for bringing down the buildings is supposed to be oil as in blood for oil. Now that the Bush presidency is over, how has Bush's lust for oil manifested itself? Bush was independently wealthy before his presidency and remains so, oil prices were going up when his term started and have continued to rise. The U.S. did not take over any of the Iraqi oil fields. Even so, people still chant the no blood for oil mantra. If someone believes that Bush brought down those buildings, I pretty much stay away from them. Only polite good roads, good weather but I will not enter into a dialogue with such as person.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Roger, I am just trying to duplicate what Ted is saying
Rog and Ted - I am just trying to duplicate Ted's viewpoint and how Sinek's video can be applied to Scientology. What is throwing me for a loop is a specific sentence in Ted's post #2399 on this thread two days ago. First Ted distinguishes between two groups, the Innovators (2 1/2%) and the Early Adapters (13 1/2%). We all know and agree that LRH attracted mostly these two groups when he opened for business in 1950. He then gives dates after which various groups were no longer attracted to nor even welcome into Scientology based on what Hubbard was doing at the time.
Ted states in Post #2399. "13% Early Adapters. This I take to be the participants through the mid 50's and the LRH delivered 1964 Briefing Course." Apparently the words, "mid 50's" should not be there, they only confuse the issue if what you are now saying is true. These words led me to believe that some big change occured in the mid 50's. This implied to me that the late 50's and early 60's up until the 1964 BC were different that the early 50's. Then in 1964 when LRH delivered the BC, things temporarily went back to the way they were in the early 50's. However, at the end of that 1964 course, LRH changed again and now both the Innovators and the Early Adapters began dropping off the lines.
My effort to sort this out was to believe that the big thing that happened in the mid 50's was that the Innovators began leaving but not the early Adapters, they began to leave only after the 1964 BC.
What it now seems like to me is that the Innovators and the early Adaptors are really two subdivisions of the same group, the two different classes which you mention above. The period from 1950 to 1964 was actually just one period, (perhaps something occured in the mid 50's to separate this period into two parts but if that is the case, we are not told what it was). Thus we have one 16% group containing innovators and early adapters being attracted in the beginning and staying around until about 1964 at which point Hubbard started getting weird and most of them took off while a few such as Kemp tried to tough it out into the 70's. Do I now have it correct?
Sorry to be such a nit picker but I really want to understand this phase of Scio history. I am blowing confusion and things are clearing up when I find out the truth about this period of time. I hope others on this thread are also benefiting.
Lakey
Lakey, Mate,
You're about a decade off on that date.
Hubbard began seriously axing folks around 1965-7. Remember the CC was released in 1967. The first SHSBC began 1961-2.
Although he did ax Jack Horner early on, and fight with Volnay also in the '50's.
Fact is, those who were very accomplished and independently minded with their own developed tech . . . . Jack Horner, and Chuck Berner and his wife, and Volney, (patent dispute there) as examples in early days; Hubbard stole from them there offerings which theft caused them to say "screw it" and to leave.
But many of the names you mention continued on into the '60's and beyond until the place became too nutty.
In actuality, there have been two "classes" of folks on the line.
Those who had their own discoveries and tech developed before they came into Scn (Horner, Volnay M. Chuck B and such) . . . and these are the guys who collided with Hubbards incessant plagiarism and deceit; and then there were the guys who learned from Hubbard but who also expanded beyond his offerings and began to improve and better apply the tech (Galusha, A. Walter, Kemp, Halperns etc.)
This distinction of the two classes is very helpful, Thanks
This later gang stayed on longer trying to assist and make the show a winning show, but they too ended up being betrayed by Hubbard and his sycophants.
I met Ray Kemp in London 1967-8, for example.
Rog
Rog and Ted - I am just trying to duplicate Ted's viewpoint and how Sinek's video can be applied to Scientology. What is throwing me for a loop is a specific sentence in Ted's post #2399 on this thread two days ago. First Ted distinguishes between two groups, the Innovators (2 1/2%) and the Early Adapters (13 1/2%). We all know and agree that LRH attracted mostly these two groups when he opened for business in 1950. He then gives dates after which various groups were no longer attracted to nor even welcome into Scientology based on what Hubbard was doing at the time.
Ted states in Post #2399. "13% Early Adapters. This I take to be the participants through the mid 50's and the LRH delivered 1964 Briefing Course." Apparently the words, "mid 50's" should not be there, they only confuse the issue if what you are now saying is true. These words led me to believe that some big change occured in the mid 50's. This implied to me that the late 50's and early 60's up until the 1964 BC were different that the early 50's. Then in 1964 when LRH delivered the BC, things temporarily went back to the way they were in the early 50's. However, at the end of that 1964 course, LRH changed again and now both the Innovators and the Early Adapters began dropping off the lines.
My effort to sort this out was to believe that the big thing that happened in the mid 50's was that the Innovators began leaving but not the early Adapters, they began to leave only after the 1964 BC.
What it now seems like to me is that the Innovators and the early Adaptors are really two subdivisions of the same group, the two different classes which you mention above. The period from 1950 to 1964 was actually just one period, (perhaps something occured in the mid 50's to separate this period into two parts but if that is the case, we are not told what it was). Thus we have one 16% group containing innovators and early adapters being attracted in the beginning and staying around until about 1964 at which point Hubbard started getting weird and most of them took off while a few such as Kemp tried to tough it out into the 70's. Do I now have it correct?
Sorry to be such a nit picker but I really want to understand this phase of Scio history. I am blowing confusion and things are clearing up when I find out the truth about this period of time. I hope others on this thread are also benefiting.
Lakey
Last edited:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Lakey,
Me thinks you are being too pedantic. I just wanted to toss another view into the discussion. I felt Sinek had something very worthwhile to say, at least from the marketing and leadership perspectives.
I did say your perceptions and experiences may be different so you would naturally draw differing conclusions -- which you did. And that was certainly fine by me.
lkwdblds
Crusader
I was going for full conceptual understanding.
I was going for full conceptual understanding. I thought I had it in my last post and then Rog told me I was 10 years off on my time line! I think being 10 years off on my time track and wanting to clear up that point is not being overly pedantic. A failure to clear that up to me would be negligent
I kept pushing until I really got it. Doing that got me a real nugget of wisdom from Rog - that there were two classes of innovators in early Scientology. Some already had their own technologies worked out when they got in, while others, such as the Halperns first learned from Hubbard and then refined his technology.
By the way, one of the late adapters is here on this thread, Purple Haze. In talking to her, I was able to find out that she originated several pieces of the Tech which are still currently in use. Of course LRH claimed full credit but she said that was okay with her.
Lakey
I was going for full conceptual understanding. I thought I had it in my last post and then Rog told me I was 10 years off on my time line! I think being 10 years off on my time track and wanting to clear up that point is not being overly pedantic. A failure to clear that up to me would be negligent
I kept pushing until I really got it. Doing that got me a real nugget of wisdom from Rog - that there were two classes of innovators in early Scientology. Some already had their own technologies worked out when they got in, while others, such as the Halperns first learned from Hubbard and then refined his technology.
By the way, one of the late adapters is here on this thread, Purple Haze. In talking to her, I was able to find out that she originated several pieces of the Tech which are still currently in use. Of course LRH claimed full credit but she said that was okay with her.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
A comment on Self Fulfilling Propheceis
Self Fulfilling Prophecy A prediction which causes itself to be true.
I touched on the point of self fulfilling prophecy just the other day. I believe Joe Van Staden's post about why Scientology works for some was tacitly hinting at this point.
I know I have had an experience where I was low on some nutrient such as zinc or iodine or something and I was feeling real antsy and nervous until I got to the pharmacy and bought some and popped a pill or two. Driving home, I had a feeling of well being, the antsiness was gone. It seems to me that one time I got a phone message telling me that I must take potassium, I ran down to the pharmacy and bought some and took it, felt great afterwards and then got home and listened to my message again and it was zinc I was supposed to buy and not potassium. Back into the car, the antsy feeling returned and subsided again as soon as the zinc was consumed.
Conclusion, the act of taking a pill caused a feeling of well being, even if it was the wrong pill, as long as I believed it was the right pill, I felt better.
IF SCIENTOLOGY IS THE BEDROCK OF ONE'S ENTIRE LIFE, THE PERSON CAN NOT DEAL WITH IT NOT WORKING.
Let's say a guy is PTS and goes in for a PTS interview, he gets the steps done on him and the interview works, he spots his SP and handles him and he feels great. The guy knew it was going to happen that way and so it did. If the handling did not work, then the guy would find some way to blame himself. Perhaps he was not well fed or well rested or he did the rundown over a withhold or something.
WHY THE GUY CAN'T JUST ADMIT TO HIMSELF THAT THE TECH DID NOT WORK.
If he admits that Scientology did not work, then the main stable datum or underpinning supporting his entire life is yanked out from under him. He literally can not confront living if he admits that Scientology is not 100% true and always right. He views everything through a Scientology prism and if that prism is removed he can no longer view the world and make any sense out of it. He is totally at sea, as the saying goes. no terra firma beneath his feet. The being predicts that the PTS interview will clean up his life and make him happy again and the being does everything in its power to see that this prophecy is fulfilled.
Should failure occur and Scientology be proved wrong, extremely serious consequences occur. One does not just walk away from such an event unscathed. The outcome is often a mental breakdown followed by illnes and sometimes premature death. Can anyone say cancer? That seems to be a common occurance when Scientology fails to work for a die hard believer.
Lakey
Self Fulfilling Prophecy A prediction which causes itself to be true.
I touched on the point of self fulfilling prophecy just the other day. I believe Joe Van Staden's post about why Scientology works for some was tacitly hinting at this point.
I know I have had an experience where I was low on some nutrient such as zinc or iodine or something and I was feeling real antsy and nervous until I got to the pharmacy and bought some and popped a pill or two. Driving home, I had a feeling of well being, the antsiness was gone. It seems to me that one time I got a phone message telling me that I must take potassium, I ran down to the pharmacy and bought some and took it, felt great afterwards and then got home and listened to my message again and it was zinc I was supposed to buy and not potassium. Back into the car, the antsy feeling returned and subsided again as soon as the zinc was consumed.
Conclusion, the act of taking a pill caused a feeling of well being, even if it was the wrong pill, as long as I believed it was the right pill, I felt better.
IF SCIENTOLOGY IS THE BEDROCK OF ONE'S ENTIRE LIFE, THE PERSON CAN NOT DEAL WITH IT NOT WORKING.
Let's say a guy is PTS and goes in for a PTS interview, he gets the steps done on him and the interview works, he spots his SP and handles him and he feels great. The guy knew it was going to happen that way and so it did. If the handling did not work, then the guy would find some way to blame himself. Perhaps he was not well fed or well rested or he did the rundown over a withhold or something.
WHY THE GUY CAN'T JUST ADMIT TO HIMSELF THAT THE TECH DID NOT WORK.
If he admits that Scientology did not work, then the main stable datum or underpinning supporting his entire life is yanked out from under him. He literally can not confront living if he admits that Scientology is not 100% true and always right. He views everything through a Scientology prism and if that prism is removed he can no longer view the world and make any sense out of it. He is totally at sea, as the saying goes. no terra firma beneath his feet. The being predicts that the PTS interview will clean up his life and make him happy again and the being does everything in its power to see that this prophecy is fulfilled.
Should failure occur and Scientology be proved wrong, extremely serious consequences occur. One does not just walk away from such an event unscathed. The outcome is often a mental breakdown followed by illnes and sometimes premature death. Can anyone say cancer? That seems to be a common occurance when Scientology fails to work for a die hard believer.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Stat update
I am about to make some new enemies and mention stats! When I woke up yesterday, our views stat was about 60,050 and now it is about 60,900, That shows 850 views yesterday, That is a very high day for us, about double our recent average per day. I was told back around early November of 2009 by Carmelo, that 250 per day on ESMB is considered high.
If you read the replies you see why interest picked up. I believe that Facey's topics, which returned us once again more to what the thread says in its title, brought back some people who had not been active here lately.
There has been a large surge of quality postings and replies regarding these topics but then the other topics we often comment on are also being posted simultaneously.
Back last year, I tried to figure out what to do to attract as large an audience as possible. The threads on ESMB which were attracting lots of views had either a Universal theme such as Vinnaire's "Oh!God!! thread or they had something to do with a famous person and their story or some major event, perhaps something like the Lisa Mc Pherson incident.
With my humble background and not being well known plus an inability to think of a Universal topic to write about, I set a modest goal of reaching 10,000 views. We hit that 2 days before my birthday in early December of '09. I think that the topic that Facey brought up is a universal topic. An insider's view of LRH, who he was and what really made him tick. How was the tech developed, is there merit and workability in the tech and if so how workable is it, how far can it take a person. This is the universal topic of interest which I was trying to come up with on my own back in autumn of 2009. I sure did not cook up that topic but by contributing and just helping to keep the thread going, it sort of arrived hear on its own. Ted's topic of Sinek's Golden Circle ties in extremely nicely to Facey's topic I thought IMMORTAL might be a vehicle to get a major topic going but she took a quick look here and was not interested and moved on. However, very shortly afterwards, the major topic I was looking for showed up.
I am about to make some new enemies and mention stats! When I woke up yesterday, our views stat was about 60,050 and now it is about 60,900, That shows 850 views yesterday, That is a very high day for us, about double our recent average per day. I was told back around early November of 2009 by Carmelo, that 250 per day on ESMB is considered high.
If you read the replies you see why interest picked up. I believe that Facey's topics, which returned us once again more to what the thread says in its title, brought back some people who had not been active here lately.
There has been a large surge of quality postings and replies regarding these topics but then the other topics we often comment on are also being posted simultaneously.
Back last year, I tried to figure out what to do to attract as large an audience as possible. The threads on ESMB which were attracting lots of views had either a Universal theme such as Vinnaire's "Oh!God!! thread or they had something to do with a famous person and their story or some major event, perhaps something like the Lisa Mc Pherson incident.
With my humble background and not being well known plus an inability to think of a Universal topic to write about, I set a modest goal of reaching 10,000 views. We hit that 2 days before my birthday in early December of '09. I think that the topic that Facey brought up is a universal topic. An insider's view of LRH, who he was and what really made him tick. How was the tech developed, is there merit and workability in the tech and if so how workable is it, how far can it take a person. This is the universal topic of interest which I was trying to come up with on my own back in autumn of 2009. I sure did not cook up that topic but by contributing and just helping to keep the thread going, it sort of arrived hear on its own. Ted's topic of Sinek's Golden Circle ties in extremely nicely to Facey's topic I thought IMMORTAL might be a vehicle to get a major topic going but she took a quick look here and was not interested and moved on. However, very shortly afterwards, the major topic I was looking for showed up.
RogerB
Crusader
To Simplify
Lakey, My Man,
Let's see if this simplifies it.
Management discussion aside on the issues of "Innovators" and "Adaptors" . . . . the Theoretical boffins love this kind of labelling
there is a simplicity to it. You could even look at any industry or new tech development. Even Take Henry Ford and his caper.
Hubbard came along with a "new" development cum idea. It collided with the ideas extant among many others working in the same of similar area. The good guys among them tried to co-act with Hubbard and contribute their wisdom in the vein that all men/women, scientists and folks of good will do. But Hubbard's thing was that he had to dominate and "make all men his slaves."
So these early guys who came on his lines ended up getting pissed (the innovators who were already there) and going off to do their own thing. What we mainly have, is Hubbard's notes on the history of those times, and he lied about those guys and their relationship. This at various times in the '50's.
When was the last ACC? Melbourne was Aug 1959, and I think there was one other after it. The SHSBC got underway some time late 1960 or the beginning of '61?
By the late 1950's "adaptors" were beginning to accumulate more and more (some of course connecting earlier). They hadn't developed their own stuff, so were looking to help and even add their input to Hubbard's scene with their "adaptions" and applications.
Realize that Hubbard's big lie (or at least one of them) was the proposition that he was some sort of special person that has "risen above the bank." This tended to convince the adaptors that Hubbard had special wisdom . . . . when in fact he was actually producing so much "new discovery" that in fact was half-baked research, incomplete and oft erroneous that our problem became keeping up with this stream of shit and trying to debug and clean of the confusion he was delivering.
Things got insane and nuts, as I have said, when he denied to us all that the own goals GPMs we had been processing were not our own, but implants. This is the end of April 1963. He later recanted, half-heartedly appologized and acknowledged that in fact own goals GPMs do exist (in Feb. 1964). Too late the damage was done, and he never revisited that correct line of research.
You've only got to read Mystic's comments on Alan's "Opening Pandora's Box" thread to see how stupid, damaging and irresponsible that stunt by Hubbard was.
It was here that things began to get more and more dicey, and folks began to start dropping off the lines. I remember looking, in 1970, at how many of the 1st 100-200 "true" Clears had dropped off the lines.
Realize the carrot of the next secret OT level that we need to do was always dangling out there ahead to do, and the proposition was that that is the answer to our case!!!
So, many "adaptors" stayed on lines with many still contributing and making useful input to Hubbard . . . . but one must realize the "adaptors" tended to think of themselves as "junior" to or as followers of Hubbard . . . hence the loyally staying on lines for a longer duration than the earlier "innovators."
By 1960, the "innovator" fraternity that would have come on lines had come and gone. The tech had become a little too contentious for that caliber of individual by the late '50s . . . Dianetics actually had great rationale to it in the climate of the times it was introduced into.
One must realize that the guys who became the remembered stellar names of the '50's weren't in the game for themselves.
These cats were all into helping their fellow man and into the advancement of civilization 
And many had already done so with their own discoveries and work.
Though it is also true that there were "adaptors" on the lines right from the beginning and some remained on the lines till the utter insanities of 1982-3.
Here is a change-point in Dn/Scn that few remember . . . . this will give you an idea of how superficial and deceitful Hubbard was; and also as to why he lost support in various ways over the years.
And by the way, this is the point and issue that first made me seriously question his integrity, when I read his accusations against we auditors for what he had actually done.
April 28, 1953: Hubbard relegates the techniques of DMSMH to being used only for assists and to have limited application, this in favor of the processes of Scientology as delineated in the books Scientology 8-8008 and Creation of Human Ability. (See pp 128, Scn 8-8008 3rd edition) On pp 11 & 12 Hubbard denigrates Dianetic processing compared to Scientology, and states:
Then on September 28, 1968, in an HCOB titled "DIANETICS" Hubbard blames all auditors for his action above with this statement as the opening paragraph:
It is to be noted that there is revisions and omissions of this stupidity in later recent editions of 8-8008.
If you want a fuller showing of that 3rd edition (and all through the 1950's versions) of 8-8008 here it is:
1956 3rd Edition, missing bits in later edition bolded
2007 edition, with material above (from 1950's editions) in bold deleted.
Rog
Lakey, My Man,
Let's see if this simplifies it.
Management discussion aside on the issues of "Innovators" and "Adaptors" . . . . the Theoretical boffins love this kind of labelling
there is a simplicity to it. You could even look at any industry or new tech development. Even Take Henry Ford and his caper.Hubbard came along with a "new" development cum idea. It collided with the ideas extant among many others working in the same of similar area. The good guys among them tried to co-act with Hubbard and contribute their wisdom in the vein that all men/women, scientists and folks of good will do. But Hubbard's thing was that he had to dominate and "make all men his slaves."
So these early guys who came on his lines ended up getting pissed (the innovators who were already there) and going off to do their own thing. What we mainly have, is Hubbard's notes on the history of those times, and he lied about those guys and their relationship. This at various times in the '50's.
When was the last ACC? Melbourne was Aug 1959, and I think there was one other after it. The SHSBC got underway some time late 1960 or the beginning of '61?
By the late 1950's "adaptors" were beginning to accumulate more and more (some of course connecting earlier). They hadn't developed their own stuff, so were looking to help and even add their input to Hubbard's scene with their "adaptions" and applications.
Realize that Hubbard's big lie (or at least one of them) was the proposition that he was some sort of special person that has "risen above the bank." This tended to convince the adaptors that Hubbard had special wisdom . . . . when in fact he was actually producing so much "new discovery" that in fact was half-baked research, incomplete and oft erroneous that our problem became keeping up with this stream of shit and trying to debug and clean of the confusion he was delivering.
Things got insane and nuts, as I have said, when he denied to us all that the own goals GPMs we had been processing were not our own, but implants. This is the end of April 1963. He later recanted, half-heartedly appologized and acknowledged that in fact own goals GPMs do exist (in Feb. 1964). Too late the damage was done, and he never revisited that correct line of research.
You've only got to read Mystic's comments on Alan's "Opening Pandora's Box" thread to see how stupid, damaging and irresponsible that stunt by Hubbard was.
It was here that things began to get more and more dicey, and folks began to start dropping off the lines. I remember looking, in 1970, at how many of the 1st 100-200 "true" Clears had dropped off the lines.
Realize the carrot of the next secret OT level that we need to do was always dangling out there ahead to do, and the proposition was that that is the answer to our case!!!
So, many "adaptors" stayed on lines with many still contributing and making useful input to Hubbard . . . . but one must realize the "adaptors" tended to think of themselves as "junior" to or as followers of Hubbard . . . hence the loyally staying on lines for a longer duration than the earlier "innovators."
By 1960, the "innovator" fraternity that would have come on lines had come and gone. The tech had become a little too contentious for that caliber of individual by the late '50s . . . Dianetics actually had great rationale to it in the climate of the times it was introduced into.
One must realize that the guys who became the remembered stellar names of the '50's weren't in the game for themselves.
These cats were all into helping their fellow man and into the advancement of civilization And many had already done so with their own discoveries and work.Though it is also true that there were "adaptors" on the lines right from the beginning and some remained on the lines till the utter insanities of 1982-3.
Here is a change-point in Dn/Scn that few remember . . . . this will give you an idea of how superficial and deceitful Hubbard was; and also as to why he lost support in various ways over the years.
And by the way, this is the point and issue that first made me seriously question his integrity, when I read his accusations against we auditors for what he had actually done.
April 28, 1953: Hubbard relegates the techniques of DMSMH to being used only for assists and to have limited application, this in favor of the processes of Scientology as delineated in the books Scientology 8-8008 and Creation of Human Ability. (See pp 128, Scn 8-8008 3rd edition) On pp 11 & 12 Hubbard denigrates Dianetic processing compared to Scientology, and states:
"Today, when you see Dianetics being advertised and used, you are looking at the formal practice of psychiatry and medicine, and indeed some of those organizations which are still carrying forward under the name of Dianetics or other similar terms are official members, for the most part, of the same organizations that espouse electric shock and pre-frontal lobotomy. . . . Dianetics, the subject was dropped as a psycho-therapy by my organizations."
Then on September 28, 1968, in an HCOB titled "DIANETICS" Hubbard blames all auditors for his action above with this statement as the opening paragraph:
"The most incredible part of the auditing period preceding Sept 1968 was that auditors, calling themselves such, actually could forget, mislay and abandon secondary and engram running as a skill."
It is to be noted that there is revisions and omissions of this stupidity in later recent editions of 8-8008.
If you want a fuller showing of that 3rd edition (and all through the 1950's versions) of 8-8008 here it is:
1956 3rd Edition, missing bits in later edition bolded
2007 edition, with material above (from 1950's editions) in bold deleted.
Rog
Last edited:
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Roger,
Your words are sweet breaths of roses and sweet peas on the air.
Your words are sweet breaths of roses and sweet peas on the air.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Well, Roger, you pretty well put that topic to bed.
Rog - There isn't much more to say about the subject of LRH. I'm still looking forward to Face's next installments to see what else he has to say.
I really like those labels, innovators, early adapter, laggers and the early and late majority. They are colorful and descriptive and they are fun and hopefully useful to use.
If I would have seen those writings of Hubbard's from 1953 banning Dianetics as a therapy and then read his 1968 writings plus had my own GPM's invalidated and supplanted with Group GPM's which everyone shared in common, I think I would have packed it up and left as you and others did. Its hard to be certain because the Lakey of today is a lot smarter and more wary than the Lakey of 35 years ago. Today's Lakey would have left in a hearbeat, the Lakey of 1975 I think would have left but I can't be sure if I was strong enough then to actually make the break. I wish I would have had this info before I quit my job at IBM in late 1971. Had I stayed with IBM, I would now be retired and have a huge cushion of stocks and money accumulated.
Rog, seldom has a post answered ALL my questions so well, I am speechless and have nothing more to say or ask on that topic. Thanks so much!
Lakey
Rog - There isn't much more to say about the subject of LRH. I'm still looking forward to Face's next installments to see what else he has to say.
I really like those labels, innovators, early adapter, laggers and the early and late majority. They are colorful and descriptive and they are fun and hopefully useful to use.
If I would have seen those writings of Hubbard's from 1953 banning Dianetics as a therapy and then read his 1968 writings plus had my own GPM's invalidated and supplanted with Group GPM's which everyone shared in common, I think I would have packed it up and left as you and others did. Its hard to be certain because the Lakey of today is a lot smarter and more wary than the Lakey of 35 years ago. Today's Lakey would have left in a hearbeat, the Lakey of 1975 I think would have left but I can't be sure if I was strong enough then to actually make the break. I wish I would have had this info before I quit my job at IBM in late 1971. Had I stayed with IBM, I would now be retired and have a huge cushion of stocks and money accumulated.
Rog, seldom has a post answered ALL my questions so well, I am speechless and have nothing more to say or ask on that topic. Thanks so much!
Lakey
RogerB
Crusader
Lakey,I didn't leave . . . I was a believer to the end, even if then with caution in the context that the man was known to be a liar.
The tech had demonstrated some workability, and I wanted to get it all. The tech of the '50's was remarkable.
Fact is, I was booted out, and booted out by the criminal element of the organization in 1983-4.
It was not till a decade later in the mid-1990's that I realized how criminal and fraudulent Hubbard and much of his tech is.
Indeed, the "upper levels" are a scam in my view. They are an irresponsible, colossal error based on superficiality and hype of a good story to deliver $$$$ into his bank accounts. Indeed, it may well even have been known by Hubbard that he was practicing a scam with that stuff.
Rog
- Status