Which was Hubbard's Best Fictional Work?

Feral

Rogue male
L.R.H. was primarily a writer, to be blunt he was a fiction writer, to be even blunter he was a Science Fiction writer. All evidence in points to the fact he had an extremely strong propensity toward a vivid imagination.

I for one enjoyed "Battlefield Earth" and "Mission Earth", call me dumb but they were fairly pacey books that sucked me in.

The movie, not so much.

But I was thinking about Ronny and his love of story telling as well as those very blurry lines between fact and fantasy in his 'personal memoirs'.

So, what was his greatest creation?

I reckon it was "L Ron Hubbard", as in Ron the philosopher, Ron the war hero, Ron the film maker, Ron the photographer, humanitarian, poet, source, toy naval commander, you get the idea.

I can't get away from the letter he wrote Polly in 1939, where he'd discovered the Dynamic principle of survival and his personal expression of that was to "Smash his name into history'', and ''to make Napoleon look like a punk".

He later told the SO members charged with smashing his name into history that; the only guarantee that the tech would survive was 'LaRach's' name being branded the way he wanted.

He went so far as to expunge the US government's records of all data that didn't fit the image he was creating. Operation Snow White was the biggest infiltration of the US government in history. All of that to remove data that didn't fit the way he wanted to be remembered.

So, where does this compulsion to deceive the world about the truth about himself come from? Is it actually an occultish methodology of achieving immortality? Did it come from his OTO days?

I've wondered this a great deal, all evidence shows he was totally at ease at recruiting and enslaving others for his purpose, he even sacrificed his own wife after 'snow white' went balls up. She wasn't the only one by far.

Remember when Quinton died? Hubbard's response was "look what the stupid kid's done to me!", then there's the SO, RPF, GO, fair game and more.

So many things like those don't fit the fictional character "Ron the Humanitarian", that's why I think the Ron that Scientologists loved and deified was nothing more than a chimera, or as Mystic would say, a tulpa.

Often things are not the way they are presented, that has been a huge lesson for me in leaving the cult. Seems kind of obvious in hindsight.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
I think his whole writings on the subject of ethics are wonderful fiction.

Nice people with white hats and nasty evil villains in black ones called SP's.
 
Not an ex, but from the outside, I always thought that Hubbard's most dangerous fiction was the "what's true for you, is what you've observed" line...because if you accept it, it lays a core foundation for "fish to fly" and "birds to swim."

So yeah: his best fiction, because it starts blurring the line between the fic./non-fic. category that his other stuff would otherwise fall into.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Not a big fan of BE or ME...didn't think those were good but his pulps were pretty good and Fear was not half bad, as a novel. Fear may be the best of the bunch.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Not an ex, but from the outside, I always thought that Hubbard's most dangerous fiction was the "what's true for you, is what you've observed" line...because if you accept it, it lays a core foundation for "fish to fly" and "birds to swim."

It may sound innocuous, but to my eyes it's incredibly insidious, and so yeah: his best fiction. because it starts blurring the line between the fic./non-fic. category that other stuff would otherwise fall into.

I disagree. When you're talking about metaphysics, positive mental attitude and therapeutic gains which were what he was talking about, that concept is quite apt. In any event, this thread's about Hubbard's novels, stories and so on, not about stuff in Scn and Dn that people want to call fiction.
 
I disagree. When you're talking about metaphysics, positive mental attitude and therapeutic gains which were what he was talking about, that concept is quite apt...
I dunno, positive mental attitude and therapeutic gains can be objectively judged. Medicine does it day in and day out.

...In any event, this thread's about Hubbard's novels, stories and so on, not about stuff in Scn and Dn that people want to call fiction.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the OP.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Not an ex, but from the outside, I always thought that Hubbard's most dangerous fiction was the "what's true for you, is what you've observed" line...because if you accept it, it lays a core foundation for "fish to fly" and "birds to swim."

So yeah: his best fiction, because it starts blurring the line between the fic./non-fic. category that his other stuff would otherwise fall into.

So, what are you going to do? Have be true for you what you HAVEN'T observed? Geez. :confused2:

Observation is THE LINK between "things out there" and your conceptual framework about them "in here". If you discard observation, as a primary factor in relationship to your reality, then you are really setting yourself up to accept ANY bundle of nonsense that comes your way. Without the careful and honest use of observation, in ones own life, the line between fiction and non-fiction REALLY gets blurred.

So, for me, what is "true for me" is largely based on what I observe or experience, always keeping firmly in mind that even those two things can have their pitfalls. And, those are always changing, in a state of dynmaic flux.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I disagree. When you're talking about metaphysics, positive mental attitude and therapeutic gains which were what he was talking about, that concept is quite apt. In any event, this thread's about Hubbard's novels, stories and so on, not about stuff in Scn and Dn that people want to call fiction.

Fluffy, read the OP again. It IS about fictions that Hubbard created, outside of the fictional books and stories! For instance, his contrivance of "Ron the Humanitarian", or "Ron the Musician". These things are an aspect of his storytelling about HIMSELF. Mockups of realities that had very little substance on their own, outside of the intentionally created image and reality through extensive Church actions and PR.

I mentioned this recently in another post. Hubbard was primarily a stroyteller. That combined with a strange sense of morality and magick made for an odd mix.

Hubbard wasn't an apparition, BUT the IMAGE he created, and got others to buy into, WAS an apparition. There are many such things, that Hubbard claimed or asserted or tossed out there as a "reality", that people bought into and accepted, that had absolutely little or no validity in themselves. That was the point of the OP. It is a very valid point.

The concept of ARC is another. It does have a certain valid use and relationship to people and events, BUT it is amazing how many people READ INTO and CREATE an entirely different reality about it.

The IMAGE of LRH was an amazing contrivance. This manufactured image was/is supported and fed with LRH pictures in every org, an LRH office in every org, endless daily & weekly briefings by the LRH Comm and LRH Pers PRO networks, LRH music playing non-stop, policies about "what would Ron do", "how I came to develop Scn all by myself", "how I rose above the bank", and ON and ON and ON, together created a thought form that has/had little or no relationship to observable REALITY and ACTUAL events. Hubbard largely manipulated on the mental plane.

But besides this example, there are many other examples throughout the subject of Scientology.

My example:

Flag is the Mecca of Technical Perfection

It is amost a hypnotic command. Like so much in Scientology, it is a fiction parading as a fact. It is a statement delivered with authority, aimed at being wholly accepted by the recipient, with no evaluation or examination. It is a PR line stated as "fact". At best it is an "ideal scene" to be aimed at, but it is NOT communicated in that manner. People create and contribute to the illusion (apparition, tulpa) by accepting and agreeing with the phony contrived statement! There is much of this in Scn, but also, there is much of this everywhere else! Hubbard simply seems to have known about this and acted intentionally along these lines to trick others into feeding his mockups and illusions.

"The Bridge to Total Freedom" is another contrivance.

"Exterior with full perception" is another. What does that actually MEAN to any person?

I do get what Mystic means, but I just wish he would take some time to explain it better for others, because most people DON'T get to what degree Hubbard dealt with Scientology along the lines of (Black) Magick, where one MOCKS UP something and gets others to go along with the mock up by contributing their own living energy through agreement and participation. Voodoo works exactly the same way. Some Shaman gets others to agree with his mockup, and you can be hurt or helped by what is done to the little dollie. More use of apparitions to manipulate and control others.

The idea here is that Hubbard invented various FICTIONS, that APPEARED to some as realities (apparitions, illusions) due to the agreement and mutual co-creation by and with others. Some believe Hubbard intended it that way, and some think it may have all been accidental. For me, I don't care. That it FUNCTIONS that way is enough for me.

Mystic Disclaimer: The tulpa/apparition known as L. Ron (LIPS) Hubbard never actually existed. He was an empty vessel, animated solely by dark forces. He was never "alive". So, any discussions of him, the organization he created, or the subject he was involved in are meaningless.
 
Last edited:

Mystic

Crusader
All of the spews of Lips Hubbard were fiction, and always with, he was programmed to think, a hidden purpose.


There is/are no "best".
 
So, what are you going to do? Have be true for you what you HAVEN'T observed? Geez. :confused2:...
No-one walks around with a tape and measure checking whether some metaphorical line is actually longer than another, (or just an optical illusion). We make assumptions based on observation, and the majority of the time that's good enough. But by the same token, we evolved to meet specific conditions, and our mental faculties and powers of observation are limited by what was useful in that context. So whilst I can prove that infinity is mathematically real, my brain can't properly visualize the concept; and in lieu of independent observations, I'd put every penny on the fact that the world is flat.

Even if they'd word it differently, I think most people are aware that their subjective take isn't infallible, and their thinking is informed by it. Hubbard however promotes the opposite when it comes to his "science of mental health," and so when demonstrating "the proof of past lives" (or whatever), suggests false, subjective standards for verification.
 

Happy Aberree

Patron with Honors
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the OP.

You have understood the OP and thread perfectly.

My favourite one was always. "Scientology Can Handle That." It is just such a beautiful tragedy -especially the part where the guy gets fooled for the 88th time, but then there's the part where he gets fooled the 103rd time (that's good too), and then there's...
 

Gadfly

Crusader
No-one walks around with a tape and measure checking whether some metaphorical line is actually longer than another, (or just an optical illusion). We make assumptions based on observation, and the majority of the time that's good enough. But by the same token, we evolved to meet specific conditions, and our mental faculties and powers of observation are limited by what was useful in that context. So whilst I can prove that infinity is mathematically real, my brain can't properly visualize the concept; and in lieu of independent observations, I'd put every penny on the fact that the world is flat.

Even if they'd word it differently, I think most people are aware that their subjective take isn't infallible, and their thinking is informed by it. Hubbard however promotes the opposite when it comes to his "science of mental health," and so when demonstrating "the proof of past lives" (or whatever), suggests false, subjective standards for verification.

Well, yes, of course, when you take that statement and IMMERSE it the context of the subject of Scientology, it gets colored (greatly).

But, by itself, WITHOUT all of that Scn coloring this notion works quite well for me:

What is true for me is what I have observed (or experienced to be true).

Note: the term "experience", for me, involves a HUGE mixture of subjective and objective experiences of self AND of others (information garnered from the reports and views of others gained largely through extensive reading, and correlating what I have read against my own OBSERVATIONS, etc). Of course always leaving some bit of leeway on both the "validity of any report I have acquired second hand through reading", and the validity of mu own observatiopns and experiences.

Yes, the way "what is true for you" is USED and APPLIED within the framework of Scn is BONKERS. But, I like and enjoy how it is used and applied within MY framework! :thumbsup:

That is an example of a datum that I first came across in Scientology. I liked the idea. I attached the idea to my OWN expeirences and REALITY (different even then from the Scn realoty). I later I found other similar ideas as this, but never said in exactly in Hubbard's way. It aligned with a great deal of my OWN observation and experiences. And, I easily took, altered within my own framework, and USE the idea in the way I live. It quite a valid idea, for me, when connected to OTHER non-Scn ideas, and taken OUT COMPLETELY from the framework of official Scn. THAT is an example of sensibly "picking & choosing" and finding something of value "in the subject".

And no amount of spewing from any tulpa/apparition can change this this "useful" datum into dreck. It is the basis of the essay on Personal Integrity, and i have always found THAT essay to hit the naily RIGHT on the head. Of course, that is one of those IDEAS that cannot be appllied within the framework of official Scientology. Solution? Remove it from the Scientology context and paradigm.

But, some will agree and some will disagree. That's okay in my world. It is NOT okay in the world of Scientology (to agree and disagree).

Mystic Disclaimer: The tulpa/apparition known as L. Ron (LIPS) Hubbard never actually existed. He was an empty vessel, animated solely by dark forces. He was never "alive". So, any discussions of him, the organization he created, or the subject he was involved in are meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Well, yes, of course, when you take that statement and IMMERSE it the context of the subject of Scientology, it gets colored (greatly).

But, by itself, WITHOUT all of that Scn coloring this notion works quite well for me:

What is true for me is what I have observed (or expereienced to be true).

Note: the term "experience", for me, involves a HUGE mixture of subjective and objective experiences of self AND of others (information on others gained trhoeuh extensive reading, correlating what is read against my own OPBSERVAYTIONS, etc).

Yes the way "what is true for you" is USED and APPLIED within the framework of Scn is BONKERS. But, I like and enjoy how it is used and applied within MY framework! :thumbsup:

I think we basically agree. :)
 
Top