Tony Ortega book drops in May

Veda

Sponsor
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Tony, did you track anything new down about Sara? If you read the interviews and memoirs of the members of Parsons's OTO lodge, she was quite a piece of work, even for a group of Satanists in California.

That "piece of work," to whom you refer, befriended Paulette Cooper over 40 years ago, and I doubt if Paulette shares your harsh assessment of her.

Did she settle down

Yes, she settled down and raised a beautiful family.

in later years and repudiate all the weirdness she was into with Jack and Ron, or did she keep that up on the down low? She was indeed a victim of Ron, but the fact that she was practicing magik with Parsons based on Crowley's crap - and considered a shit-stirrer by that very, very strange crowd - often gets overlooked due to the madness Ron visited on her life.

The old men of the O.T.O. didn't like Sara, who was seen as a disruptive influence. She was a free spirit.

Sara wasn't even a teenager when her sister married Jack Parsons, and barely 16 when she was invited to join the O.T.O. Sara passed away in 1997 and her personal spiritual views, Udarnik, are none of your business.

Sorry, Udarnik, but I just find your language and your tone offensive.


_________​


Old timer John Sanborn, who knew Sara in 1950 and 1951, explained during a 1986 interview:

"Sara was a lovely woman. She was intelligent. She was quite young. I suppose she was around 24, and Hubbard was around 40. She had an aristocratic look..."​


________​


Alva Rogers, who - along with other artists and bohemians - lived at Jack Parsons' large house, during the time Sara was there, had this to say in a 1960s fanzine:

"She was young, blonde, and very attractive, full of joie de vivre, thoughtful, humorous, generous."


But this thread is not about Sara, it's about Paulette Cooper and the Destructive Cult, and its cult leader, that decided to "manufacture enough threat" to "terminately handle" her, and it's about the great news :) that a book about her, and honoring her, is soon to be published. :happydance:
 

Veda

Sponsor
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Heh heh. Eight months later. That's rich.

Oh, even the oldtimers are going to find a lot of new nuggets that I managed to track down. I hope you enjoy them.

Yes, the bomb threat frame up occurred eight month later, but Paulette had been a target of Scientology harassment, and "ops," and surveillance long before that. The letter from Sara to Paulette, a copy of which was found by the FBI during their July 1977 raid of Scientology, meant that Hubbard was not only reading Paulette's purloined personal medical file but also her correspondence with Sara.

Anything new you've found will be great to see, and I'm so glad a definitive record of this application of Scientology is finally being published in book form - and it was an application of Scientology, which is an important point, IMO, and one about which Scientology PR people are particularly uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:

RogerB

Crusader
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

That "piece of work," to whom you refer, befriended Paulette Cooper over 40 years ago, and I doubt if Paulette shares your harsh assessment of her.



Yes, she settled down and raised a beautiful family.



The old men of the O.T.O. didn't like Sara, who was seen as a disruptive influence. She was a free spirit.

Sara wasn't even a teenager when her sister married Jack Parsons, and barely 16 when she was invited to join the O.T.O. Sara passed away in 1997 and her personal spiritual views, Udarnik, are none of your business.

Sorry, Udarnik, but I just find your language and your tone offensive.


_________​


Old timer John Sanborn, who knew Sara in 1950 and 1951, explained during a 1986 interview:
"Sara was a lovely woman. She was intelligent. She was quite young. I suppose she was around 24, and Hubbard was around 40. She had an aristocratic look..."​


________​


Alva Rogers, who - along with other artists and bohemians - lived at Jack Parsons' large house, during the time Sara was there, had this to say in a 1960s fanzine:
"She was young, blonde, and very attractive, full of joie de vivre, thoughtful, humorous, generous."


But this thread is not about Sara, it's about Paulette Cooper and the Destructive Cult, and its cult leader, that decided to "manufacture enough threat" to "terminately handle" her, and it's about the great news :) that a book about her, and honoring her, is soon to be published. :happydance:


AGREED In red above . . . I find Urdanik to specialize in nasty destructive inventions about people he has never met to be his forté.

His rant on Alan was his latest . . . to be noted is that U joined ESMB at least 3 years after Alan died, certainly had never met the man nor read his works . . . .

Yet, he dreamed up such vitriol about the man . . .

Frankly, I'm surprised the mods didn't handle him and his shit.

So the question becomes, how come Urdanik is so active in doing destroys on decent people who either spread the truth about Hubbard's shit and nastiness or who as ex-$cn are getting on with life and winning at it (a la Keith Mumby).

What's the agenda . . . whose interests is Urdanik serving knowingly or unknowingly.

R
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

AGREED In red above . . . I find Urdanik to specialize in nasty destructive inventions about people he has never met to be his forté.

His rant on Alan was his latest . . . to be noted is that U joined ESMB at least 3 years after Alan died, certainly had never met the man nor read his works . . . .

Yet, he dreamed up such vitriol about the man . . .

Frankly, I'm surprised the mods didn't handle him and his shit.

So the question becomes, how come Urdanik is so active in doing destroys on decent people who either spread the truth about Hubbard's shit and nastiness or who as ex-$cn are getting on with life and winning at it (a la Keith Mumby).

What's the agenda . . . whose interests is Urdanik serving knowingly or unknowingly.

R

Gee, out of thousands of posts he only writes a couple based upon an an opinion formed from misinformation or lack of information and you expect us to discard all his other contributions here ( which are many and good ones) in favor of believing he has an agenda that may serve other interests? :eyeroll:

If you thought his posts were in violation of board rules, report them. If they weren't then the wise thing to do would be to educate, not castigate. The rules say attack ideas, not members.

Announcement of Cessation of Hostilities - a Truce and Moratorium on Personal Attacks
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...orium-on-Personal-Attacks&p=867441#post867441

veda's post shows the better way to address conflicts with another's posts.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...k-drops-in-May&p=994434&viewfull=1#post994434
 
Last edited:

Lone Star

Crusader
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Gee, out of thousands of posts he only writes a couple based upon an an opinion formed from misinformation or lack of information and you expect us to discard all his other contributions here ( which are many and good ones) in favor of believing he has an agenda that may serve other interests? :eyeroll:

If you though his posts were in violation of board rules, report them. If they weren't then the wise thing to do would be to educate, not castigate. The rules say attack ideas, not members.

Announcement of Cessation of Hostilities - a Truce and Moratorium on Personal Attacks
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...orium-on-Personal-Attacks&p=867441#post867441

veda's post shows the better way to address conflicts with another's posts.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...k-drops-in-May&p=994434&viewfull=1#post994434

Roger has a mind that automatically assumes there is a conspiracy. If someone posts in a manner in which he disagrees, then it must be due to "an agenda"....a "conspiracy of an outside interest".....

Oh, hold on a minute......Udarnik did spend some years in the Soviet Union before the wall came down!! :unsure:

Oh no!!!! Roger may be right on this one!!!!
:omg:
 

The_Fixer

Class Clown
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Gee, out of thousands of posts he only writes a couple based upon an an opinion formed from misinformation or lack of information and you expect us to discard all his other contributions here ( which are many and good ones) in favor of believing he has an agenda that may serve other interests? :eyeroll:

If you thought his posts were in violation of board rules, report them. If they weren't then the wise thing to do would be to educate, not castigate. The rules say attack ideas, not members.

Announcement of Cessation of Hostilities - a Truce and Moratorium on Personal Attacks
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...orium-on-Personal-Attacks&p=867441#post867441

veda's post shows the better way to address conflicts with another's posts.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...k-drops-in-May&p=994434&viewfull=1#post994434

Ditto here.

On the OP subject, looking forward to the book.

I'm with Operating DB here too. What is this HBO story we're talking about here?
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Gee, out of thousands of posts he only writes a couple based upon an an opinion formed from misinformation or lack of information and you expect us to discard all his other contributions here ( which are many and good ones) in favor of believing he has an agenda that may serve other interests? :eyeroll:

If you thought his posts were in violation of board rules, report them. If they weren't then the wise thing to do would be to educate, not castigate. The rules say attack ideas, not members.

Announcement of Cessation of Hostilities - a Truce and Moratorium on Personal Attacks
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...orium-on-Personal-Attacks&p=867441#post867441

veda's post shows the better way to address conflicts with another's posts.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...k-drops-in-May&p=994434&viewfull=1#post994434

AnonyMary, thanks for the vote of confidence, but quite frankly I don't see any of the above as a personal attack. Certainly I don't see my missive on Alan Walter as a personal attack, and I find it amusing that I presented the evidence as to why I might have some reservations about Alan - many of which are the same reservations expressed by the same people about the same kind of behavior from Marty - and I get no substantive refutation of my opinion, only ad hominems and vague character witnessing.

This is a hot button for some people, and you know what? Loyalty to a friend is something the Co$ discourages, and it shows nobility on the part of people who rush to do so. That they may be doing so in defense of someone who may not totally deserve that loyalty is something for outsiders to legitimately point out, but those outsiders should not expect tea and crumpets for their trouble. I developed a thick skin in my short academic and long business career, and I don't mind taking a shot from people who disagree with me, even if I think their reasoning is unfounded. It's why this is a message board and not an echo chamber.

I think it's a good thing for lurkers who are toying with the one foot out one foot in approach of Feezoning or Knowledgism or whatever other Laffy Lite bullshit programs are out there, to see how the adherents of those disciplines react when challenged.

With that, I'll start a thread later today to deal with these issues, so we don't derail this thread.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

AnonyMary, thanks for the vote of confidence, but quite frankly I don't see any of the above as a personal attack. Certainly I don't see my missive on Alan Walter as a personal attack, and I find it amusing that I presented the evidence as to why I might have some reservations about Alan - many of which are the same reservations expressed by the same people about the same kind of behavior from Marty - and I get no substantive refutation of my opinion, only ad hominems and vague character witnessing.

This is a hot button for some people, and you know what? Loyalty to a friend is something the Co$ discourages, and it shows nobility on the part of people who rush to do so. That they may be doing so in defense of someone who may not totally deserve that loyalty is something for outsiders to legitimately point out, but those outsiders should not expect tea and crumpets for their trouble. I developed a thick skin in my short academic and long business career, and I don't mind taking a shot from people who disagree with me, even if I think their reasoning is unfounded. It's why this is a message board and not an echo chamber.

I think it's a good thing for lurkers who are toying with the one foot out one foot in approach of Feezoning or Knowledgism or whatever other Laffy Lite bullshit programs are out there, to see how the adherents of those disciplines react when challenged. I, of

With that, I'll start a thread later today to deal with these issues, so we don't derail this thread.


Cool.

Will look forward to that thread. It occurred to me that you might want to make the thread's title a famous Latin expression:

Set postquam dixisti de freak guru non quidem ex mojo.

Those words are just as true today as they were when first spoken by the Roman philosopher Culticula in AD 179. You needn't be concerned about explaining or translating it into English, because (like the Scn axioms) it is a self-evident truth.

Best!

hh



(translation): "People freak out when you mention their guru doesn't really have any mojo"
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Cool.

Will look forward to that thread. It occurred to me that you might want to make the thread's title a famous Latin expression:

Set postquam dixisti de freak guru non quidem ex mojo.

Those words are just as true today as they were when first spoken by the Roman philosopher Culticula in AD 179. You needn't be concerned about translating it into English because it is a self-evident truth.

Best!

hh



(translation): "People freak out when you mention their guru doesn't really have any mojo"


:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

AnonyMary, thanks for the vote of confidence, but quite frankly I don't see any of the above as a personal attack. Certainly I don't see my missive on Alan Walter as a personal attack, and I find it amusing that I presented the evidence as to why I might have some reservations about Alan - many of which are the same reservations expressed by the same people about the same kind of behavior from Marty - and I get no substantive refutation of my opinion, only ad hominems and vague character witnessing.

This is a hot button for some people, and you know what? Loyalty to a friend is something the Co$ discourages, and it shows nobility on the part of people who rush to do so. That they may be doing so in defense of someone who may not totally deserve that loyalty is something for outsiders to legitimately point out, but those outsiders should not expect tea and crumpets for their trouble. I developed a thick skin in my short academic and long business career, and I don't mind taking a shot from people who disagree with me, even if I think their reasoning is unfounded. It's why this is a message board and not an echo chamber.

I think it's a good thing for lurkers who are toying with the one foot out one foot in approach of Feezoning or Knowledgism or whatever other Laffy Lite bullshit programs are out there, to see how the adherents of those disciplines react when challenged.

With that, I'll start a thread later today to deal with these issues, so we don't derail this thread.

That was kind of my point :wink2:
 

uncover

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Cool.

Will look forward to that thread. It occurred to me that you might want to make the thread's title a famous Latin expression:

Set postquam dixisti de freak guru non quidem ex mojo.

Those words are just as true today as they were when first spoken by the Roman philosopher Culticula in AD 179. You needn't be concerned about explaining or translating it into English, because (like the Scn axioms) it is a self-evident truth.

Best!

hh

(translation): "People freak out when you mention their guru doesn't really have any mojo"

I vote for a more simple title.... something like:

"All about Laffy Lite bullshit programs which are out there"



 

JustSheila

Crusader
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Yes, she settled down and raised a beautiful family.

The old men of the O.T.O. didn't like Sara, who was seen as a disruptive influence. She was a free spirit.

Sara wasn't even a teenager when her sister married Jack Parsons, and barely 16 when she was invited to join the O.T.O. Sara passed away in 1997

_________​


Old timer John Sanborn, who knew Sara in 1950 and 1951, explained during a 1986 interview:
"Sara was a lovely woman. She was intelligent. She was quite young. I suppose she was around 24, and Hubbard was around 40. She had an aristocratic look..."​

________​


Alva Rogers, who - along with other artists and bohemians - lived at Jack Parsons' large house, during the time Sara was there, had this to say in a 1960s fanzine:
"She was young, blonde, and very attractive, full of joie de vivre, thoughtful, humorous, generous."


But this thread is not about Sara, it's about Paulette Cooper and the Destructive Cult, and its cult leader, that decided to "manufacture enough threat" to "terminately handle" her, and it's about the great news :) that a book about her, and honoring her, is soon to be published. :happydance:

I think Sara is fascinating. Although the thread is not about her, she was brought up on this thread due to her friendship with Paulette Cooper and some mention of her in Tony's upcoming book.

My take on Sara was that she was a strong-minded young woman who had a lot going for her and plenty of confidence and charm. She was not about to be dominated and/or possessed and for these old men who were so into controlling others and subjugating women, she would definitely be "trouble." She was not to be controlled or dominated. That would be just irresistible to these sorts of men, especially Hubbard.

She pulled Hubbard away from Parson's men's clique. That in itself is like - wow. She tried to raise a normal family with him. Although Hubbard repeatedly and relentlessly attacked and harassed her in the most insane ways, he STILL couldn't dominate or subjugate her. That he went on rampage after rampage of others afterward, from Paulette Cooper to anyone who criticized Dianetics or Scientology only substantiates her story more. The extensive documentation of Paulette Cooper's harassment that came from the FBI raid is irrefutable.

Hubbard attacked anyone who would not bend to his will. Sara survived that. She was a very strong woman in her own right.

I think what Veda said about Sara initially joining Parson's group tagging along after her sister might indicate she was less committed to the Parson's cult and beliefs than the others in the first place.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

I think it's a good thing for lurkers who are toying with the one foot out one foot in approach of Feezoning or Knowledgism or whatever other Laffy Lite bullshit programs are out there, to see how the adherents of those disciplines react when challenged.

With that, I'll start a thread later today to deal with these issues, so we don't derail this thread.

I think this is an excellent idea and I look forward to seeing it later today!
 

KissMyStats

Patron with Honors
In that short blurb "the Church" is used eight times.

It's great that Paulette Cooper finally has a book - and hopefully a movie! - dedicated solely to her, but is it really necessary to so frequently reaffirm the fraudulent "religious" identity of corporate Scientology?

Simply calling it "the Church," and with such matter of fact frequency, will make some people back away from the topic, as they are disinclined to enter into a conflict between someone and a "Church."

(Believe it or not, most people are not organized-religion-despising-atheists, thus the utility of the "religion angle.")

:) In any event, it should be interesting to see what new information is brought to light, and it's wonderful to see Paulette Cooper getting the recognition she deserves.


This has the potential to be an extremely poignant and powerful book.[/QUOTE


I think that seeing the word "Scientology" will interest potential buyers more than the word "Church".
 
Top