The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ron was with Sara during the period all these letters were written to Robert Heinlein and he never mentions the previous family, I don't think. That's the family I was referring to: Sara-Alexis. He refers to Sara as Sara Hubbard and sent out an announcement about Alexis being born in March '50. He was a very happy dad. Also mentions he taught Sara how to audit him on the rudimentary techniques of the day.

ILove2Lurk

IL2L - The only thing I have a problem with is that Hubbard was writing to Heinlein in the middle of 1949 and Alexis was not born until early 1950 so she was not yet part of the family.

Hubbard certainly was multifaceted in dealing with Sarah and Alexis. Those two provide a great example of his multifacetness. You know the interview on board the Royal Scotsman where Hubbard told the reporter that he had only two wives, Polly and Mary Sue. Then when Alexis came to see him, he denied that he was her Father.

The books the C of S publishes featuring "Ron, the Author" show pictures of him living in Bay Head New Jersey writing the Dianetics book. His wife and daughter are not even mentioned. I understand that the house where he wrote the book was purchased by C of S and restored to its original conditions. It has been made into an LRH museum where people can go inside and take a tour of the house. Of course, all mention of Sarah and Alexis is suppressed.

The fact that he was committed to that family at one time and later denied the marriage and the daughter being his is a tremendous example of his multifacetness which you described a little earlier.
Lakey

 

[ILove2Lurk]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, the whole denial of Sara-Alexis I don't understand (especially when I have handwritten letters to the contrary) and it is probably the most disturbing and inexplicable event to me . . . clearing the planet or not. Very disturbing. I couldn't do this to my child.

It was and is an enormous mis-estimation by Ron and the COS to think that something so obvious could be hidden or lied about. And to this list we could add many more things.

All men of any noteworthiness, fame or infamy in recent history, I don't care if it's W. Churchill, Jack Kennedy, Nixon, Hitler, Ghandi, Ronnie Reagan, Teddy Kennedy, General Patton, Tom Cruise, whoever you want to name, have had their lives examined in minute detail in scores and scores of books. Shelves of books. (Well only a few for Tom Cruise.) All the good acts, accomplishments, sordid details, deep secrets eventually get into print in hardback books if a bit of real fame is achieved. You cannot run, you cannot hide. You will be memorialized in print. It's impossible to hide the details of one's life and silly to even think one could.

If the goal was to position LRH as the new messiah ("Messiah Project" in the Nancy Many book), how on earth could one think of sweeping anything under the carpet. The only correct strategy is to stand and do a mea culpa and let the cards fall where they may.

History will not be kind otherwise as we see in all three unauthorized LRH biographies and in COS histories like Inside Scientology.

And since the COS can't manage to write a biography, the vacuum gets filled by others. That's the way life goes and you can't stop life. The vacuum fills no matter what policy exists to the contrary.

So I'm mystified, flabbergasted and troubled by many of the facts that don't fit. You simply can't "smash your name into history" with a lot of unacknowledged skeletons lurking in the closet, as we've seen. Instead, you get a mockery by the world at large.

When you run for political office or make a run at fame, you'd better take a good look at your life first, cuz it'll all spill out.

This what I'm talking about is possibly the greatest mistake that was made and will eventually doom the subject. Sorry, but the world is not so kind or understanding about misteps and uncharitable acts. Right or wrong, they expect their messiahs to live and act sorta like messiahs, whatever that is in the public mind.

I was pretty devoted at one point; probably devoted as anyone. But some of the "real history" has really made me recalibrate my opinions downward about it all.

The public at large will not be so kind. History will not be so kind.

Is there a policy about this?

ILove2Lurk

 

[Veda]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The plan, apparently, was to "smash" such a deep hole that, over the passage of time, all of the critics would - as Hubbard put it - become "bone dust," all of the books written by detractors would also crumble to dust, and what would be left would be the "legend" of L. Ron Hubbard, and hard granite (or steel) with his name and his writings carved in it.

Now, a little more background for anyone looking in and wondering:

On family:

"The GE [Genetic Entity] is a family man. The GE is lost without the family. It's very strange but Homo Sap is a family unit. The GE is built on that basis...

"And your thetan, by the way, can much more easily go into a group. Families are not good groups."

From 10 December 1952, 'Flows, Patterns, and Intention', PDC lecture series.


And from the 1946 'Affirmations':

There's a pattern to these 'Affirmations', a pattern that is reflected in later Scientology, and has been described as "schizophrenic," or "dichotomous."

The "Overt/Covert" pattern of the subject and organization of Scientology ["PR is overt. Intelligence is covert."] can be seen in these Affirmations.

Hubbard writes that he tells the truth (the visible, or "overt"), then writes [the covert], "No matter what lies you tell others, they have no physical effect on you of any kind." And, "You can tell all the romantic tales you wish. You will remember them. But you know which ones were lies. You are so logical, you will tell nothing that cannot be believed." [Note similarities to Hubbard's multi-layered 'Scientology PR Tech'].

Hubbard then goes on to explain how he can take the adventures of others and adopt them as his own - in other words, prevaricate and misrepresent - and yet, he "tells the truth," etc.

The 'Affirmations' continue: "You are just and kind. [Yet] You can be merciless to any who cross you rule... You can be merciless when your will is crossed, and you have the right to be merciless."

Hubbard does not see himself as anything but true and noble. "You are light and you are good. You have the wisdom of all and never doubt your wisdom."

He adds, "You have magnificent power but you are humble and calm and patient in that power. For you control all forces under you as you wish."

And, then, "Men are your slaves."

And, "Your writing has a deep hypnotic effect on people and they are always pleased with what you write...

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."


From Judge Breckenridge, 1984:

"As indicated by its factual findings, the court finds the testimony of Gerald and Joycelyn Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan...Omar Garrison, Kima Douglas, and Homer Shomer to be credible, extremely persuasive... In all critical and important matters their testimony was precise, accurate and rang true...

"The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar...

"The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egotism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

"At the same time it appears that he is charismatic and highly capable of motivating, organizing, controlling, manipulating, and inspiring his adherents..."


Sara Northup to Paulette Cooper. Sara Northup was the second wife of L. Ron Hubbard.

This letter was found amongst the many pages of stolen documents retrieved during the FBI raids of July 1977.

________________________________________________​

Mar 20, 1972

Dear Paulette,

Thank you for sending the photostat of the column concerning Ron.

I really think he is a terribly destructive man - and mad as a hatter.

Last fall a couple of men came here to my home on Maui (Hawaii). They looked like undertakers' assistants. They were very pale - wore cheap black suits, white shirts, dark ties.

They told me they were "agents", but they wouldn't tell me what, or who, they were agents for. They wouldn't show me any identification. They had a long list of personal questions to ask me and they had a "warning" to give me. They told me that people posing as reporters might try to get me to talk about Ron but I would be in trouble if I said anything at all to them.

They wanted to come in the house but I wouldn't let them. I told them I wouldn't speak with them unless they came with identification. They said they'd "check with headquarters and be back this evening". I never saw them again.

My older daughter [Alexis] (who is Ron's daughter) was home over the holidays. When she arrived back at college there was a man who had been waiting for her in the local inn. He had been there 3 or 4 days.

She asked him to come to her Dorm to talk with him. He told her he was Ron's agent. He had several typewritten pages of "statements" to read her. It had obviously been written by Ron.

It said to her that she was illegitimate - that I was a "street-walker" he had hired as a combination housekeeper-secretary. He said that he fired me and that I came back to his doorstep "destitute and pregnant" and that out of his great heart he had taken me in to see me "through my trouble".

He said that when Alexy was a "Toddler" she was a cute little thing so he took her and a cat, "Motor Boat", along on his wanderings "as pets" for 2 years.

He also said that during World War II I was a Nazi spy. (He used to tell people that I was a Communist spy who received orders from Moscow by telepathic control). I don't know why he had me change sides.

He said that I had been "used by those in control to discredit Mr. Hubbard." He said he forgave me but it made him very sad.

The paper was signed, "Your good friend, J. Edgar Hoover". The agent told Alexy he was an F.B.I. agent. He would not allow her to inspect it - would only read it to her. At the end he asked her if she had any questions.

She was both angry and shocked that Ron could do such a thing. She told him - "the agent" - it was self-explanatory and asked him to leave. She has had a feeling that her father was a rather romantic figure. These paranoid ravings were frightening to her. She had not realized how sick he was before this incident.

I was furious that he would try to hurt Alexy - I wrote him a long letter telling him what I thought of him for inflicting his madness on Alexy but before I sent it Alexy called and begged me to do nothing. She said, quite rightly, that he was crazy enough to do anything. She asked me to just be thankful that we had escaped contact through all these years.

I really don't know why this recent interest on his part.

Last summer Alexy was in England and dropped by St. Annes Hill [Saint Hill Manor?] - she thought perhaps she could share dinner with him. She was naturally curious about him. She didn't see him.

Maybe he thinks she's going to sue him for back child-support? Maybe he thinks she's going to demand a portion of his estate? Maybe - - - ? I just don't know. Maybe he just resents the fact that I left him.

I hope that when you win your court case, as you must, that you collect court costs and reparations.

His sickness is not just destructive, it is also contagious. I hate to think how many weak people have been harmed by this man.

The day of my divorce from Ron was like a day of rebirth for me. I feel that Alexy and I escaped from a death-in-life situation.

I am really afraid of him. He has such control over his people - and so many of them - that even from England he could do something to hurt Alexy. You have no idea the lengths to which he can go (or, maybe you do?).

These visits from his "agents" are just warnings. The two who came to see me told me as much. It is really frightening not knowing what he might do next.

I had hoped that he had forgotten us - put us out of his mind. Perhaps he thinks I will testify against him in one of the many court cases?

Forgive this rambling letter. I never tell anyone that I was married to Ron - so I have no one to tell about these weird visits. I know you are concerned about Ron so you have the recipients of my meanderings on the subject.

I'm sorry that I never met you. Please do write and tell me what happens with your case. Ron has the advantage of money - but you have rationality on your side. Surely that must be more important.

_____________________________________________​

Eight months later the covert operation to frame Paulette Cooper for bomb threats was initiated.

 

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

actually, for me.

I think it is like a barrel of apples. One rotten apple can only affect a few at a time. The rest of the apples are just fine until it is their time.

I got out in 8 years, having only been insulted by stupids (Frank Benjamin and Fred Schwartz come to mind). I did OT 3 and found out that Sci wasn't all goodness and light. Then the increased prices hit, and I was gone. Enough was enough. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice , shame on me.

Others took much longer.

Others were out quickly.

When the rot gets to you, it's time to leave.

Slimey Schwartz.....part of the rot.

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Originally Posted by Leon
But, so LRH was a tyrant. So what? Why would that matter in the scheme of things?

Whut?

It resulted in the whole sale abuse of tens of thousands. It has produced an institution most noted for its destructive effects. Moreover, it has served to greatly reduce the positive effects for many who have attempted to use scientology techniques to ameliorate the lives of themselves of others.

Hubbard only partially helped to develop the tech. He has been far more responsible for the damage resulting from the public discrediting of scientology and the legitimate practitioners of scientology auditing tech.

No good ever came from lying about hubbard or seeking to whitewash his actual history. It is far better to address the truth about the man openly. In this way he can be separated from the actual benefits to be had from the subject, and not simply resorted to as a cult idol for scientologists.

To the degree there is any good in the subject of scientology it is not about hubbard. No benefit is to be had from ignoring or neglecting that simple fact.


Mark A. Baker

Yes Mark is correct . . .

You lot have been feisty while I've been away. I did a quick trip for a week in Iceland. More on that later.

Leon, I consider yours above to be an inappropriate put down of FoTi above. You're a trained tech person and auditor . . . you certainly know better than to dump on a person expressing themselves as they go through the healing process

Foti expressed her sorting-things-outs and conclusions that resolved how and why things screwed up with respect to her in $cn.

That merits an Ack and understanding . . . not an inval.

Rog

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Face,

One idle thought deserves another idle thought. I had one too.

If one is to accept the concept of 100% perfect standard tech as espoused in KSW #1 and the Class 8 lectures, then from 1968 to 1978 the "solution" for OTs with somatics was simply a Dianetics program and more garden variety Dianetics on the case.

snipped . . . . .

This discussion board and it's fine, intelligent people have really helped me put things in correct perspective. And that's one helluva "release" in itself.

Well, just an idle thought in response to an idle thought. I get them too, Face.

ILove2Lurk

ILove2Lurk,

This and your other recent and following posts are wonderful.

I'm delighted you unlurked. You are adding a lot to what's good on ESMB, ILove2Lurk.

I'm sorry I've been away and missed this traffic live! It's good stuff.

RogerB

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, the whole denial of Sara-Alexis I don't understand (especially when I have handwritten letters to the contrary) and it is probably the most disturbing and inexplicable event to me . . . clearing the planet or not. Very disturbing. I couldn't do this to my child.

It was and is an enormous mis-estimation by Ron and the COS to think that something so obvious could be hidden or lied about. And to this list we could add many more things.

All men of any noteworthiness, fame or infamy in recent history, I don't care if it's W. Churchill, Jack Kennedy, Nixon, Hitler, Ghandi, Ronnie Reagan, Teddy Kennedy, General Patton, Tom Cruise, whoever you want to name, have had their lives examined in minute detail in scores and scores of books. Shelves of books. (Well only a few for Tom Cruise.) All the good acts, accomplishments, sordid details, deep secrets eventually get into print in hardback books if a bit of real fame is achieved. You cannot run, you cannot hide. You will be memorialized in print. It's impossible to hide the details of one's life and silly to even think one could.

If the goal was to position LRH as the new messiah ("Messiah Project" in the Nancy Many book), how on earth could one think of sweeping anything under the carpet. The only correct strategy is to stand and do a mea culpa and let the cards fall where they may.

History will not be kind otherwise as we see in all three unauthorized LRH biographies and in COS histories like Inside Scientology.

And since the COS can't manage to write a biography, the vacuum gets filled by others. That's the way life goes and you can't stop life. The vacuum fills no matter what policy exists to the contrary.

So I'm mystified, flabbergasted and troubled by many of the facts that don't fit. You simply can't "smash your name into history" with a lot of unacknowledged skeletons lurking in the closet, as we've seen. Instead, you get a mockery by the world at large.

When you run for political office or make a run at fame, you'd better take a good look at your life first, cuz it'll all spill out.

This what I'm talking about is possibly the greatest mistake that was made and will eventually doom the subject. Sorry, but the world is not so kind or understanding about misteps and uncharitable acts. Right or wrong, they expect their messiahs to live and act sorta like messiahs, whatever that is in the public mind.

I was pretty devoted at one point; probably devoted as anyone. But some of the "real history" has really made me recalibrate my opinions downward about it all.

Dittos for me and nicely stated. I share those exact sentiments.

The public at large will not be so kind. History will not be so kind.

Is there a policy about this?

ILove2Lurk

IL2L - Everything you say above rings true for me also. One thing you fail to mention, is THE INTERNET! Despite all his Sci-Fi background, Hubbard never anticipated the Internet even though it was going strong only 10 years after his death.

I know of no sci-fi writer, predictor or seer of any kind who was able to foresee the advent of the Internet. Does anyone know of someone who mentions anything resembling the internet in earlier writings.

I believe this was the "Bolt from the Blue" which really nailed down the lid on the coffin of Hubbard's aspirations. Hubbard has a policy of sorts on this, something akin to, "The light of truth shatters suppression." The internet has given thousands of people the power to uncover truths and shine the light of truth onto the management of C of $.

This organization is built on a stack of untruths, religious vesting and shore stories. Without the internet, as when Hubbard was alive, the clever nest of phony religious vesting and shore stories was somewhat effective. With the internet, the light of truth is shined on C of S management and they really do not have an effective way to counter that truth. They try and tell more lies, dead agent those who are asserting the truths and get their members to lie as well. That is the best that they can do but it is not very convincing. They have a terrible image with the public and it is continuously getting worse.

Just look at some of the Tommy Davis interviews when he is defending the C of S or the Mike Rinder interviews when he was still in and held that hat. Tommy comes off looking like a shady used car salesman while even the more sophisticated and skilled Rinder was not all that convincing!
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

actually, for me.

I think it is like a barrel of apples. One rotten apple can only affect a few at a time. The rest of the apples are just fine until it is their time.

I got out in 8 years, having only been insulted by stupids (Frank Benjamin and Fred Schwartz come to mind). I did OT 3 and found out that Sci wasn't all goodness and light. Then the increased prices hit, and I was gone. Enough was enough. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice , shame on me.

Others took much longer. Others were out quickly.

When the rot gets to you, it's time to leave.

Purple Haze is similar to you Carmelo, she got out quickly as well.

Yikes, don't get me started on Fred Schwartz, stupid is as stupid does! I believe that you got out earlier than most because you already had a life you could fall back on. You knew who you were and were a pretty causitve guy, even before you got in. The same thing for Purple Haze, she shared those traits with you.

For others of us, we were wandering aimlessly in society, knowing something was wrong but not being able to put our finger on it. Our existing religions, friends, families, etc. were part of the system and did not perceive that things were wrong. We finally found something that offered hope, Scientology. Those of us who took longer felt the rot but were not stong enough or stable enough to leave quickly.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I see a difference in terminology between some of us here. I was using ESMB as my reference point. ESMB started in early 2007. All of what I learned about Hubbard and C of $ was learned after Sept., 2005 when I started researching on the Internet. Probably 85% to 90% of what I learned came from reading ESMB. I figured that if someone had the inside scoop in 2007, 2008 or 2009. they were not late cogniters. Those who learned things in 2010 and 2011 were late cogniters.

It is just an arbitrary assignment, figuring that if we have known something for 2 years or more we are not late cogniters.

Now, Toady, you are saying that you did not get out until the year 2000 and that makes you a late cogniter. I got out in late 2001 so I am also a late cogniter per your definition. The term is completely arbitrary but if we are going to use the term, we should agree on what would constitute a late cogniter. Better yet, it is not an important point and the term, perse, should just be dropped.
Lakey
Lakey

I appreciate - and respect -you may not consider something an important point but it tickles me when due to your consideration you suggest that all others also just drop it.

I'm not using the term " late cogniters " on your particular time line. Were I to try to define a term I didn't originate I guess I'd take a stab at it this way : Once the information was available to one and they did not cognite on it but they did somewhere on down the road, them I'd call a "late cogniter".

Fleshed out, Had I read Winters remarks, say in 1972, and gotten what he said then perhaps I'd never have been in scn. However another may have not seen what Winters wrote until today.

There is such a wealth of data from so many sources and so many more people to be reached with true information about scn that these squabbles over words seems to serve no worthwhile purpose.

I do go through life and somehow mange to muddle on past words that not only do I not fully understand but that I don't have a clue what they mean. Should I be losing sleep over that?

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It was actually me who came up with the term 'late cogniters' and I make no apology for it. I used it to describe some of the people who have turned up at Marty's Cult, who took years and years to notice the glaringly obvious criminal nature of the Cof$, and decide to withdraw their support from it. The sad thing is that in many cases, they continue to be Fanatic Fundamentalist Scientologists.

I define a Fanatic Fundamentalist Scientologist as being someone who believes in the Scientology Trinity:

1. The infallability or near-infallability of LRH.
2. KSW.
3. The existence of a Scientology Standard Tech.

Whether they are in the Cof$ or out makes little difference - they are still Fanatic Fundamentalists. Those still in the Cof$ would be 'the uncognited' maybe.

As regards the people who post on this thread, I don't feel that the term late cogniters or Fanatic Fundamentalist Scientologist applies. I would say that you are:

The Partially Decompressed,

because you mostly reject 1, 2, and 3, but still think that auditing is good stuff and like to ruminate upon it. I think there's no great harm in that. No more than the flogging of any other dead horse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e92vSua8XJY

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

<SNIP> Those of us who took longer felt the rot but were not stong enough or stable enough to leave quickly.
Lakey

Well, true if - and only if- one was willing to lose spouse, children, parents siblings, dear friends of many years.

There was a whole lot of external pressures to stay "in".

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, the whole denial of Sara-Alexis I don't understand (especially when I have handwritten letters to the contrary) and it is probably the most disturbing and inexplicable event to me . . . clearing the planet or not. Very disturbing. I couldn't do this to my child.

It was and is an enormous mis-estimation by Ron and the COS to think that something so obvious could be hidden or lied about. And to this list we could add many more things.

All men of any noteworthiness, fame or infamy in recent history, I don't care if it's W. Churchill, Jack Kennedy, Nixon, Hitler, Ghandi, Ronnie Reagan, Teddy Kennedy, General Patton, Tom Cruise, whoever you want to name, have had their lives examined in minute detail in scores and scores of books. Shelves of books. (Well only a few for Tom Cruise.) All the good acts, accomplishments, sordid details, deep secrets eventually get into print in hardback books if a bit of real fame is achieved. You cannot run, you cannot hide. You will be memorialized in print. It's impossible to hide the details of one's life and silly to even think one could.

If the goal was to position LRH as the new messiah ("Messiah Project" in the Nancy Many book), how on earth could one think of sweeping anything under the carpet. The only correct strategy is to stand and do a mea culpa and let the cards fall where they may.

History will not be kind otherwise as we see in all three unauthorized LRH biographies and in COS histories like Inside Scientology.

And since the COS can't manage to write a biography, the vacuum gets filled by others. That's the way life goes and you can't stop life. The vacuum fills no matter what policy exists to the contrary.

So I'm mystified, flabbergasted and troubled by many of the facts that don't fit. You simply can't "smash your name into history" with a lot of unacknowledged skeletons lurking in the closet, as we've seen. Instead, you get a mockery by the world at large.

When you run for political office or make a run at fame, you'd better take a good look at your life first, cuz it'll all spill out.

This what I'm talking about is possibly the greatest mistake that was made and will eventually doom the subject. Sorry, but the world is not so kind or understanding about misteps and uncharitable acts. Right or wrong, they expect their messiahs to live and act sorta like messiahs, whatever that is in the public mind.

I was pretty devoted at one point; probably devoted as anyone. But some of the "real history" has really made me recalibrate my opinions downward about it all.

The public at large will not be so kind. History will not be so kind.

Is there a policy about this?

ILove2Lurk

" Never tell lies in PR."

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes Mark is correct . . .

You lot have been feisty while I've been away. I did a quick trip for a week in Iceland. More on that later.

Leon, I consider yours above to be an inappropriate put down of FoTi above. You're a trained tech person and auditor . . . you certainly know better than to dump on a person expressing themselves as they go through the healing process

Foti expressed her sorting-things-outs and conclusions that resolved how and why things screwed up with respect to her in $cn.

That merits an Ack and understanding . . . not an inval.

Rog

My reply was most certainly not aimed and FoTi in particular. It was a general disagreement with what has apparently become the main overall driving aim of this board - which is to slag LRH. The value of any healing process for anyone anywhere lies in moving past the bad condition, learning from it - and in doing this, taking from it what is good while rejecting what is bad - and then creating a new and better life with the good.

Eternally dwelling on how bad LRH was, as many here seem so intent on, simply gets people into a mind-frame of victimhood and fixes them there. As I said earlier LRH was a bad dog, but the dog is now dead, so move on.

The Tech team where I was was we all knew and recognised that LRH was a bullshit-artist. A "typical American loud-mouth" if you will. We often laughed about it and the way he liked to trumpet his own horn and celebrate his "breakthroughs". We laughed, and then took what was worthwhile and used it. Unfortunately it seems that the less tech training a person has the deeper and more easily they fell into the trap of adulation and cultishness. We never did that. We never applauded his picture and we never wrote bullshit success stories. And I reckon none of the exes from our neck of the woods look back on the experience of the Org years with anything much different than gratefulness and amusement, no matter how hard those years were.

 

[Veda]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

" Never tell lies in PR."

Hubbard begins his 'PR Series' by stating that Scientologists should never tell lies in PR. As one studies his 'PR Series', and other related writings, one discoverers that that is a lie. Which may seem odd at first, until one realizes that one is, after all, studying Scientology.

#1: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392325&postcount=38

#2: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392327&postcount=39

#3: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392331&postcount=40

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... I would say that you are:

The Partially Decompressed,

because you mostly reject 1, 2, and 3, but still think that auditing is good stuff and like to ruminate upon it. I think there's no great harm in that. ...

That's very BIG of you.




Mark A. Baker

 

[ILove2Lurk]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

. . . The value of any healing process for anyone anywhere lies in moving past the bad condition, learning from it - and in doing this, taking from it what is good while rejecting what is bad - and then creating a new and better life with the good.

Eternally dwelling on how bad LRH was, as many here seem so intent on, simply gets people into a mind-frame of victimhood and fixes them there.

. . .

And I reckon none of the exes from our neck of the woods look back on the experience of the Org years with anything much different than gratefulness and amusement, no matter how hard those years were.

Leon, thanks for this.

Yes, this is what to do. And have a good . . . not good, but great life despite any bumps that may have been in the road. Bumps happen.

And in doing so, well, prove everybody wrong!



That's what I do.

ILove2Lurk

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... Unfortunately it seems that the less tech training a person has the deeper and more easily they fell into the trap of adulation and cultishness. ...

I've heard that line many times over the years and disagree with it completely.

To the contrary, most of the 'deep koolaid drinkers' I've known or met considered themselves to be 'highly tech trained'. I agree that many 'highly tech trained' were NOT excessively caught up in cult worship of hubbard, but I don't credit their training with that outcome.

For me the primary distinction between those who 'bought the bullsh!t' and those who did not has far more to do with the individual's native critical thinking abilities. Those who possessed an independent ability to examine data critically from BEFORE their involvement with the church tended to continue to do so DURING their involvement. They were accordingly less inclined to be swept away by enthrusiasm with the group irrationality. Similarly, those for whom hubbard's work formed the primary foundation of their own abilty to reason critically tended to buy the standard line lock, stock, & barrel.

You can argue that many of the best auditor's were already highly intelligent/competent/reflective individuals before their involvement with the church and thus avoided the worst excesses of hubbard idolatry. Quite likely you would be right to do so. Certainly I've known many highly trained & skilled scientologists who are very intelligent and who avoided the worst aspects of the cult mentality encouraged within the church.

However, many 'highly trained' scientologists have been extremely thickheaded in their obsession with the 'rightness' of hubbard. Many of these still continue to be so. For these I would maintain that their extensive training has only reinforced their own inability to think or reason critically and independently of another's (in this case hubbard's) stated views.

Accordingly I concluded long ago that: becoming 'highly trained' in scientology tech is NOT an effective remedy for an inability to reason clearly.

But that shouldn't be surprising to anyone as a moment's reflection will show that the development of critical thinking skills isn't what is actually addressed in the course of tech training. Therefore, it can not serve as the purpose behind tech training.

The "you need to be more fully trained to understand" line was always just another of scientology's built-in serfacs. It is certainly not one which is in any way unique to scientology, but it is one often resorted to within the cult to reinforce 'command lines' and to shore up the 'position' or status of those who believe themselves possessed of some form of innate (and wholly imaginary) spiritual authority within the church (all the way from lrh on down the lines).


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I appreciate - and respect -you may not consider something an important point but it tickles me when due to your consideration you suggest that all others also just drop it.

It was just a suggestion. If it is truly important to someone, I am willing to consider that and change my mind. Since it is important to you then consider my mind changed. I now consider it important!

I'm not using the term " late cogniters " on your particular time line. Were I to try to define a term I didn't originate I guess I'd take a stab at it this way : Once the information was available to one and they did not cognite on it but they did somewhere on down the road, them I'd call a "late cogniter".

Excellent definition! I am willing to adopt that as the definition. I would have picked a different word such as a "delayed cogniter". The verb delay is a bit more specific, it shows a lapse of time from the time information was assimilated until it was acted on.

Late to me infered more the period in time where a particular person acted. Having said that, I would like to adopt your definition.

Fleshed out, Had I read Winters remarks, say in 1972, and gotten what he said then perhaps I'd never have been in scn. However another may have not seen what Winters wrote until today.

There is such a wealth of data from so many sources and so many more people to be reached with true information about scn that these squabbles over words seems to serve no worthwhile purpose.

I do go through life and somehow mange to muddle on past words that not only do I not fully understand but that I don't have a clue what they mean. Should I be losing sleep over that?

Well, in casual or leisure activities in life, maybe someone can be a little lax about definitions but when trying to set a definition on a discussion board, having the correct meanings of words clearly in mind seems important to me.

Sometimes, people seem to be having a squabble but it is only that they are using a different definition for a key word in the subject being discussed. When they agree on the definition of the word, they find out they both are in agreement on the subject as well.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well, true if - and only if- one was willing to lose spouse, children, parents siblings, dear friends of many years.

There was a whole lot of external pressures to stay "in".

Excellent point!!! When I first found out a lot of things in the Org didn't make sense I was single, my family was not involved, etc.. I could have left easily and didn't.

For those people with strong family ties, dear friends of long duration, etc., there were many more pressures to stay in and my comments do not apply. Thanks for pointing this out Toady!
Lakey

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

" Never tell lies in PR."

That's got to be the funniest post of the day