What's new

Why are Lance Armstrong and L. Ron Hubbard the same person?

They both want to smash their names into history, and they don't care who they hurt, who they have to defraud, to achieve their ends. They both lie, they both seek an advantage over others, they both stack the deck in their favor. But why did they choose to live a lie to achieve this fame? Moreover, why did they think they could get away with it? Are they akin to the soldier who charges the machine gun nest believing he isn't going to die, he is going to cheat death? Or are they bereft of moral values?

In the case of both Hubbard, and Miscavage ( or whoever is running to pr dept. ) you see the willingness to lie, to deny, sometines when it is painfully obvious it is a lie. Yet, they still do. Armstrong was much the same. Being the publicity hog he is, now he is capitializing on his dishonesty. Perhaps we could steal from Hubbard and say: Any fame is better than no fame.

Mimsey
 
Re: Why are Lance Astrong and L. Ron Hubbard the same person?

Ethercat - can you fix the misspelling in the title? I did't catch it till too late. Mimsey

<Title fixed. M1>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boson Wog Stark

Patron Meritorious
Re: Why are Lance Astrong and L. Ron Hubbard the same person?

There were two weird aspects to the juxtaposition of Haggis/Wright on Scientology and Oprah interviewing Lance Armstrong on the same Rock Center show.

1. Hubbard was a liar, who trained a cult of people to ignore outside opinion and lie to keep their secrets. Hubbard did it for fame, greed and power. Lance lied to keep his secret, for fame and greed.

2. The irony of Oprah interviewing a liar, as he tells the truth, yet she was the one who never confronted Tom Cruise about real issues in Scientology, nor did she ever have a show about the victims of Scientology, for fear of offending Tom Cruise.

As far as judging Lance, or putting him in the same category as Hubbard, that's kind of a stretch for me. He inspired so many people with cancer, and who survived cancer, and probably raised a lot of money for cancer research and support groups, while making a lot of money himself. But yeah, it was inspiration that was derived from deception. In that way, Hubbard inspired people too, with deception, even about his accomplishments. So, the irony for me was that Oprah was being the vehicle to present Lance's story, yet it took Wright to expose Scientology. Oprah was positioned such that she could have exposed Scientology years ago.

I understand that it could be said of Tom Cruise, that his films have moved, entertained and inspired people too, but the thing is, he hasn't come out and admitted he's been lying about Scientology or that it can have dangerous aspects for people not in the celebrity tier especially.

Lance's victories and deception were terribly unfair to the professional cyclists who tried to compete without steroids/blood doping, who invariably lost against the ones who were. I didn't follow Lance's story very well, but I do remember how he was being accused of it, and how those accusers suffered for doing that, and at first he came out so shining, at first anyway. I remember thinking to myself that even if he was on steroids, it was still a remarkable comeback.

I think the difference between Hubbard and Lance is this: Armstrong is not encouraging young athletes to use steroids whereas Hubbard/Miscavige/Cruise/Rathbun are encouraging people to use Scientology.

Another difference between Hubbard and Lance would be that Hubbard developed and advocated Scientology whereas Lance did not develop steroids/blood doping or advocate it.
 
Last edited:
I suspect they both suffer(ed) from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Or they are/were both sociopaths.

There's really only a fine line between these two diagnoses, and both seem plausible. Also, some would argue that all sociopaths are narcissists. But I digress...
 
Top