What's new

The Self-affirmations of L. Ron Hubbard

me myself & i

Patron Meritorious
Oh, hey, Moj- oh, I mean mm&i & we...

There are many ways of examining concepts, Scn-ish or otherwise. I assume you have a (non Scn/English) dictionary handy and don't need me to define the word "examine".

Well, agreed, there are many ways of examining concepts. I was merely asking for your way of examining concepts. Which a dictionary cannot do or explain to me.

I'm not looking for duplication Fluffy. I'm looking for you. And the only way I can find you is to hear you express yourself. Else wise all is natter about you.

If you don't want to explain yourself, no problem. I get it. Hell more often than not I don't want to explain myself either. And the ones that love me don't need an explanation anyway. And they are the ones I care about most, to begin with.

The issue I am experiencing has to do with the distinction between objective and subjective reality. And where those lines are crossed. That's all.

From my point of view its not personal.

It's universal.

Nonetheless I have grown over the years to at least sense the goodness of your being. Even as I struggle with the meaning of that goodness.

In a sense you are to me, a mirror of a part of myself, that I am presently unable to understand, myself. That's all.

And yesterday is gone forever (to me).

mm&i
&we
&et al

P.S. I suspect when you quit being offended by me....I will quit offending you.
 
Last edited:

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I'm not "offended by" you. And I explained my comment just fine. It was a very straightforward simple comment to begin with, in any event.

**replonk**
 

Peter Soderqvist

Patron with Honors
Nice attempt at PR damage control, taylored to the 'public' at ESMB. Hopefully, no one will quote Judge Breckenridge and burst the bubble.



Excerpt from a letter written, by Ron Hubbard to wife Polly a.k.a. 'Skipper', soon after the writing of the unpublished manuscript, 'The One Command' ('Excalibur'):

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=80902&postcount=43

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=64970&postcount=41

What was there about Hubbard's "chapters on the mind" that he wanted it to affect others' minds, but not his own mind?

Why not just link to the ($cientology) perimeter defense 'PR damage control' site from which much of this comes?

And, on another thread, tell about the wins on the student hat...

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=198121&postcount=145

Soderqvist1: I have read your links and they are truth. I am quite comfortable with it, because I don’t have any agenda to twist the truth one-way or the other. But that seems not to be the case with you, since my links are equally truth, yet you blame them!
 

Veda

Sponsor
Scientology's multi-layered PR tech:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1911

The advantages of stereo vision:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=187334&postcount=12

L. Ron Hubbard's 'Brainwashing Manual':

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3905

There's a pattern to these Affirmations ("Admissions"), 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."

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.

It should be mentioned that these Affirmations are not complete - that there are more. More from 1946, and - apparently - more from the 1930s. Before any of this was known, by way of the reading into the court record of sections of the Affirmations, L. Ron Hubbard Jr. had commented that his father used self-hypnosis and Affirmation-type short statements, repeated to himself through a sound-recorder, to boost his self-confidence. Ron Jr. also added that his father would sometimes combine drug use with these Affirmation-phrases. Both assertions were ridiculed as crazy by Scientologists, who knew that the founder of Scientology couldn't possibly have practiced self-hypnosis or have taken drugs.

One Affirmation omitted from this partial list of Affirmations is, "All men shall be your slaves. All women shall succumb to your charms. All Mankind shall grovel at your feet and not know why."

Another Affirmation that didn't make into this incomplete list is, "It doesn't give me displeasure to hear of a virgin being raped. The lot of women is to be fornicated."

One that did make into this collection is, "You can be merciless when your will is crossed, and you have the right to be merciless."

Hubbard, however, 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."

Scientology Inc.'s settlement agreement with Gerry Armstrong was a "global settlement." (It involved many separate cases, where any one person refusing to settle would derail the agreement for all others, thus imposing a form of duress on each person, who knew that others, often in debt to friends and family, having hospital bills, mortgages, etc. were in need of the funds from a settlement). Armstrong, under pressure of this "global settlement," agreed to the terms of 11 December 1986:

In essence, he was expected to remain silent on all things having to do with L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. The agreement also specifically stipulated the return of "All originals and copies of documents commonly known as the 'Affirmations' written by L. Ron Hubbard."

Omar Garrison, Hubbard's official biographer - whom Armstrong had assisted - also signed a similar agreement.

Scientology Inc. took possession of Hubbard's 'Affirmations', which are more extensive than those currently available on the Net as the (1946) 'Admissions'. However, there were "leaks," as copies of the 'Affirmations' had been made by individuals not involved with the settlement, prior to the settlement, and are now "out there," and are (in part) currently available on the Net.

Scientology has the complete existing record of Hubbard's 'Affirmations' which, apparently, date from the 1930s through the late 1940s, and has no intention of allowing anyone to see them.

Hopefully, in time, more of these leaked 'Affirmations' will become available.

The content of Hubbard's 'Affirmations' is, of course, problematic for Scientology, however, there's more - It opens the door to two areas that Scientology Inc. considers dangerous to Hubbard's image: That Hubbard practiced self-hypnosis, and that Hubbard used drugs, notably psycho-active pharmaceutical drugs, much of his life, before and after 1950.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=56246&postcount=798

From Judge Breckenridge, summer 1984:

"As indicated by its factual findings, the court finds the testimony of Gerald and Joycelyn Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan...Omar Garrison, Kima Douglass, 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..."
 

Veda

Sponsor
Soderqvist1: I have read your links and they are truth. I am quite comfortable with it, because I don’t have any agenda to twist the truth one-way or the other. But that seems not to be the case with you, since my links are equally truth, yet you blame them!

I sense that you mean well, and don't want to frighten you away.

How about sharing your wins with ESMB?

If English is not your first language and you benefited from having done the Student Hat at the New York org, or knew someone who did, consider sharing that experience.

I can remember a young woman who wandered into the New York org many years ago - when Miscavige was still a kid - and did the Communications course and did benefit (she had been very shy), and then did the Student Hat and benefited from that also (her English improved considerably). The positive changes were dramatic, and she gave a wonderful talk about her wins, and thanked the staff and supervisors and others at the New York org - and then she did something that I didn't understand at the time: She quietly departed, returned to her native Puerto Rico, married a successful fellow (not a Scientologist), and had nothing further to do with Scientology. This lady was very wise indeed.

It took me a while to become as wise as she.

I'm not "anti" towards all "auditing." I think some aspects of the discipline of "auditing" can be beneficial. I am, though, aware that there are dangers inherent with "opening up ones mind" within Scientology's manipulative and subtly (or not so subtly) coercive environment, and to procedures (that predominate at the "upper" parts of the "Grade Chart"), where the person is primarily told rather than being asked.

So, if you can find the time, read the links provided - one is almost a hundred pages - and see if you get anything from it.
 

JustanotherEX

Patron with Honors
It seems odd to me how upset people get about the affs. He wrote them years before he started Scn. They're just maunderings and wishful thinking.

Fluffy, please don't get the idea I am trying to take a whack at you here. You think it is odd that people focus on the fact that Cap'n Ron used affirmations. I would like to try to explain why, that's all.

Ok, let's look at these affirmation things. Just what is an affirmation anyway? Boiled down to its basic essence, an affirmation is just a postulate.

Just a postulate? That's all? No, it is a postulate written large like this:

POSTULATE!!!!

A postulate repeated over time with the intent to have a direct effect on the "fabric of reality", if you will.

Now, I know we have probably all seen newly minted Scientologists exiting the courseroom having just learned about this fantastic new invention called a "postulate". They toy with it in an assinine manner and make all sorts of meaningless maundering postulates, mostly unrealistic and completely without weight. And oddly enough, you can see people high up on the bridge making postulates just as meaningless. That's a real curiosity to me! The Cap'n didn't invent the postulate, nor was he the first to define it, and he really never went into detail on how to formulate or use one! So? Ok, how do they work then? Your postulates become more powerful as you go up the bridge, right?

FAIL!

You might say that there is "technology" for their formulation and use. But that is no longer Scientology! Here you are moving off into "other practices".

VERBOTEN!

I suppose Cap'n Ron looked at his experience in the occult, and specifically with affirmations, and decided on your behalf that the subject had no merit and "You don't need to know!". Interesting how Scientology seems to turn ever inward and "you will become more powerful by and by", while postulates and affirmations tend to project outward "right now dammit!".

I would argue that you ought to know more about postulates and would bet good money that the assembled luminaries on this board would be able to divine the "rules of use" for postulates and affirmations in short order if they so desired!

In short, Fluffy, I have found the methods simple and effective for some purposes. I also have some exposure to modes of thought which are without scruple. That "state of being" is normal for a few people. Most people like that would probably be judged psychopaths. Now what could a psychopath do with effective affirmations? Well, he (or she) MIGHT create something like The Peoples Temple, The Branch Davidians, or The Church of Scientology!

And that is what leaves me so disturbed when I look at the occult background of Cap'n Ron and his use of affirmations.

For a little outside info on affirmations for the curious.... It's a pretty lightweight sort of document, but easy to follow:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2268506/Affirmation
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Well, I can see that. I think that a lot of things can be- and are- abused.

In the end, I think it's not the meat, it's the motion. Someone can create something with bad intentions and then someone else may, if the thing seems to work at all, come along and use it benignly. Conversely, someone can create something and have neutral or good intentions and someone can come along and misuse it.

Hubbard clearly had some highly greedy and selfish intentions from Day 1, as far as I can see. Cap't Bill? I think he kind of went nuts, perhaps.

Now, when I think of occultism in and of itself, I think that it can be used or abused. Either way. However, I do think caution should be indicated. I recently got a book- I forgot what series- it's these people who put out some "what they're not telling you" type alternative series. So they're marching to the beat of a different drummer, anyway. Anyway, the book was about the occult, and each chapter was about a different person who was into some element of the occult. One lady was a Pan worshipper, and so on. What struck me about these people is that with the exception of maybe one or two- almost everyone they described- and they were trying to be FAVORABLE- seemed mentally ill or disturbed to me. And some of the occultists I knew seemed seriously messed up.
So all I can come up with is that there are pitfalls there. Maybe it's "restimulative". Maybe it's innately problematic. Maybe it's just that disturbed people tend to gravitate to it- I know that's true of Scn. I don't know.

But I don't think that the affirmations themselves, for me anyway, in my own opinion and my personal take on things, constitute enough proof of any problematic nature of Scn.

What I find far more disturbing than the affs are policies saying things like let's get the critics, let's have an RPF, it's ok to leave if you want to but you have to be on a routing form, staff shouldn't get a living wage- I know I saw one like that, maybe two- all psychs are SPs, galactic conspiracies. Oh, and the Sea Org. Billion year contract? One day off a year? As a Scn'ist, I think it's "dramatizing slavery" and as just a person I'd say that it's a lot of rationalization of indentured servitude and is inherently abusive and problematic.

I find those things far more disturbing than I ever did the affs.
 

JustanotherEX

Patron with Honors
Well, I can see that. I think that a lot of things can be- and are- abused.

In the end, I think it's not the meat, it's the motion. Someone can create something with bad intentions and then someone else may, if the thing seems to work at all, come along and use it benignly. Conversely, someone can create something and have neutral or good intentions and someone can come along and misuse it.

Hubbard clearly had some highly greedy and selfish intentions from Day 1, as far as I can see. Cap't Bill? I think he kind of went nuts, perhaps.

Now, when I think of occultism in and of itself, I think that it can be used or abused. Either way. However, I do think caution should be indicated. I recently got a book- I forgot what series- it's these people who put out some "what they're not telling you" type alternative series. So they're marching to the beat of a different drummer, anyway. Anyway, the book was about the occult, and each chapter was about a different person who was into some element of the occult. One lady was a Pan worshipper, and so on. What struck me about these people is that with the exception of maybe one or two- almost everyone they described- and they were trying to be FAVORABLE- seemed mentally ill or disturbed to me. And some of the occultists I knew seemed seriously messed up.
So all I can come up with is that there are pitfalls there. Maybe it's "restimulative". Maybe it's innately problematic. Maybe it's just that disturbed people tend to gravitate to it- I know that's true of Scn. I don't know.

But I don't think that the affirmations themselves, for me anyway, in my own opinion and my personal take on things, constitute enough proof of any problematic nature of Scn.

What I find far more disturbing than the affs are policies saying things like let's get the critics, let's have an RPF, it's ok to leave if you want to but you have to be on a routing form, staff shouldn't get a living wage- I know I saw one like that, maybe two- all psychs are SPs, galactic conspiracies. Oh, and the Sea Org. Billion year contract? One day off a year? As a Scn'ist, I think it's "dramatizing slavery" and as just a person I'd say that it's a lot of rationalization of indentured servitude and is inherently abusive and problematic.

I find those things far more disturbing than I ever did the affs.

Fluffy, those same policies that disturb you are the very examples of how I would structure things if I was totally without scruples..... And that was a major point I was trying to get across. Seems I failed.

You see, in retrospect it ends up I "plowed some of the same ground" Cap'n Ron did... studied some of the same theories, etc. And I never knew until I started looking about on the net! When I did learn? Some dark possibilities arose. If you don't percieve them and I have failed to get them across? Well, I don't know how to fix that. I can only state again that if I were operating under some of the unethical rulesets I have seen, the darker policies in Scientology would be very "constructive", relatively speaking. And that is presupposing that Cap'n Ron WAS taking his affirmations seriously. Of course, this is a thing we do not know and I admit that. Ergo, it is all speculation.

Now for perspective. Scientology is just a small specific subject. The occult can be said to stretch very broadly from new age "stuff" through various forms of mysticism, the kabbalah, gnosticism, paganism, witchcraft, Satanism, shamanism, to stuff I have probably never even heard of! If you want to find some looney-tunes kind of stuff, well you sure can as there are some pure and utter charlatans that fall under the umbrella of this very large subject. I find some things there to be nuts as well, but hey, if it works for them? As long as it doesn't harm me, I am ok with it. And just think, if you take some person off the street and start telling them about all the BTs, Xenu, tin cans, spot this, spot that, and all that mess, now wouldn't you expect that some of them might think YOU are nuts? To be honest, the idea that a Scientologist might say the followers of any other belief seem mentally ill or disturbed or that those beliefs are restimulative is something funny in itself! After all, Scientology is intentionally restimulative at times, no? Please don't take any of that wrong. I'm mildly amused with the concept.

You can also find some workable philosophies within the occult along with the nuts. Some quite old concepts that appear to be nearly universal. For example: What you outflow, you inflow. As you sow, so shall ye reap. Whatever energy you give is returned to you in like manner, etc. Such correlations are myriad between differing religions and philosophies and this gives the appearance that there are indeed some nearly universal truths out there. Does it really matter where they are found? Not to me.

And yes, I agree with you that most anything can be abused if one intends to! It's that question of intent on the part of dear Cap'n Ron that is in question for me.
 
Last edited:

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Examining a person's 'affirmations' may not always tell you who the person *is*, but, it will tell you who they *want to be*.

Ron's are very revealing.

Zinj
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
It reminds me of stuff I used to write when I was 14 and carried a loose leaf notebook everywhere with my ramblings and musings in it. Those would have told you something, too, but they would have been out of date within a couple years.
 

sparrow

Patron with Honors
What I don't get is that they are obviously bad news so why would Hubbard keep them around.

Doesn't make sense...

Don't care though.... ok i do.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
What I don't get is that they are obviously bad news so why would Hubbard keep them around.

Doesn't make sense...

Don't care though.... ok i do.

He was a writer.

Writers always keep everything around - they might turn into a story or a script some day.
 

sparrow

Patron with Honors
He was a writer.

Writers always keep everything around - they might turn into a story or a script some day.


Alanzo! Hey what's up!

So he was pretty saavy being a cult starter and all. Why would he keep those affirmations around? Seems like it would only hurt his cause?
 

sparrow

Patron with Honors
I just talked to my drunk cousin... he's ok..

watchin wonderin bout scientology though.....
 
Top