Discussion:
L. Ron Hubbard
(too old to reply)
David Harper
2004-07-23 13:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
1947:

"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".

Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?

Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines and
coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.

Ignoring the incredulous "facts" that scientology holds true, I'm
still having trouble understanding how people fall into a theology
founded by this type of individual? Is Tom Cruise really that naïve?

Dave
Dilbert Perkins
2004-07-23 14:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Celebrities are kept in the dark regarding Hubbard. If actually faced
with the truth, their "handlers" are there to discredit it.

Apparently there is an office in the Church, higher than OSA, that is
responsible for the upkeep of Ron's image. Most of what the Church says
about Hubbard is fabricated to perpetuate his "image". You should read
"Bare-Faced Messiah":

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines and
coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.
Ignoring the incredulous "facts" that scientology holds true, I'm
still having trouble understanding how people fall into a theology
founded by this type of individual? Is Tom Cruise really that naïve?
Dave
David Harper
2004-07-23 18:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dilbert Perkins
Celebrities are kept in the dark regarding Hubbard. If actually faced
with the truth, their "handlers" are there to discredit it.
So, they're getting double-dupped? :-) Sounds like an ice cream.
"Yeah, give me two scoops of chocolate double-dupped".

Either way, I'm in amazed by their inability to see through Hubbard OR
their "handlers".

Dave
Mike Goldstein IDENICS
2004-07-23 20:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dilbert Perkins
Celebrities are kept in the dark regarding Hubbard. If actually faced
with the truth, their "handlers" are there to discredit it.
Apparently there is an office in the Church, higher than OSA, that is
responsible for the upkeep of Ron's image. Most of what the Church says
about Hubbard is fabricated to perpetuate his "image". You should read
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines and
coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.
Ignoring the incredulous "facts" that scientology holds true, I'm
still having trouble understanding how people fall into a theology
founded by this type of individual? Is Tom Cruise really that naïve?
Dave
I have been reading the various posts about L.Ron Hubbard and
following what people have been writing about him over the past 20
some years. Generally, people in the CofS see him as a god or
messiah. People who have left the CofS generally view him as a devil
or madman.
I had the experience of knowing and working with him quite closely on
the Flagship, Apollo, between 1972 and 1975. Of the maybe 300 people
on board only a few had any real personal contact with the man. I had
the experience of not only working directly with him quite a bit, but
also having a personal relationship with the guy. Unlike others I
know who had bad experiences with the man, I only had good experiences
with him, and considered us very good friends. My view of Hubbard is
not as a god or devil, but just as a man - a very able man who did
some very good things but who also had his share of screwups.
If anyone is interested, I would be happy to relay any experiences I
had with Hubbard or answer any questions that I can from my own
knowledge of the guy.

Mike Goldstein
iTal
2004-07-24 06:47:58 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Jul 2004 13:06:28 -0700, ***@rm.incc.net (Mike Goldstein
IDENICS) wrote:

<snip>
Post by Mike Goldstein IDENICS
I have been reading the various posts about L.Ron Hubbard and
following what people have been writing about him over the past 20
some years. Generally, people in the CofS see him as a god or
messiah. People who have left the CofS generally view him as a devil
or madman.
I had the experience of knowing and working with him quite closely on
the Flagship, Apollo, between 1972 and 1975. Of the maybe 300 people
on board only a few had any real personal contact with the man. I had
the experience of not only working directly with him quite a bit, but
also having a personal relationship with the guy. Unlike others I
know who had bad experiences with the man, I only had good experiences
with him, and considered us very good friends. My view of Hubbard is
not as a god or devil, but just as a man - a very able man who did
some very good things but who also had his share of screwups.
If anyone is interested, I would be happy to relay any experiences I
had with Hubbard or answer any questions that I can from my own
knowledge of the guy.
Mike Goldstein
It would be very interesting to hear about your first hand experiences
with LRH; any insights, evaluations you had/have about him and what
you know about how he treated/interacted with others and how others
felt about him.

Usually you hear nothing but on one side, the idealized PR spin and
blatant fabrications made in CofS publications to pump up his image
and clueless churchies echoing the same and, on the other side critics
and ex-Scienos talking about him with nothing but vile contempt and a
negative spin. The reality is probably not at either end of those
spectrums.

iTal
Mike Goldstein IDENICS
2004-07-24 23:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by iTal
<snip>
Post by Mike Goldstein IDENICS
I have been reading the various posts about L.Ron Hubbard and
following what people have been writing about him over the past 20
some years. Generally, people in the CofS see him as a god or
messiah. People who have left the CofS generally view him as a devil
or madman.
I had the experience of knowing and working with him quite closely on
the Flagship, Apollo, between 1972 and 1975. Of the maybe 300 people
on board only a few had any real personal contact with the man. I had
the experience of not only working directly with him quite a bit, but
also having a personal relationship with the guy. Unlike others I
know who had bad experiences with the man, I only had good experiences
with him, and considered us very good friends. My view of Hubbard is
not as a god or devil, but just as a man - a very able man who did
some very good things but who also had his share of screwups.
If anyone is interested, I would be happy to relay any experiences I
had with Hubbard or answer any questions that I can from my own
knowledge of the guy.
Mike Goldstein
It would be very interesting to hear about your first hand experiences
with LRH; any insights, evaluations you had/have about him and what
you know about how he treated/interacted with others and how others
felt about him.
Usually you hear nothing but on one side, the idealized PR spin and
blatant fabrications made in CofS publications to pump up his image
and clueless churchies echoing the same and, on the other side critics
and ex-Scienos talking about him with nothing but vile contempt and a
negative spin. The reality is probably not at either end of those
spectrums.
iTal
I certainly agree with what you say above about many people seem to
view him at either one end of the spectrum or the other. But he(like
anyone)had many "ways of being" and therefore at times he appeared
extremely sane and at other times, pretty nutty. So even if you are
given an opinion of him from a person who actually had a personal
contact with the man, the opinion would be based on that person's
experience of how Hubbard was in that occasion. For example, I
remember an incident when I was sitting in my office when I was the
Flag Banking Officer on the ship. Hubbard's dinning room was just
outside my office and I could hear him talking with the person who was
his Staff Captain at the time outside the dinning room. She had
fucked up on something and he was in a tirade just reaming her out,
and this usually dynamic woman was just squeaking
an occasional "Yes, Sir" between tirades. All the office doors in the
corridor started shutting as apparently people were very uncomfortable
with hearing all this. I guess I was a little weird as I was
fascinated by this aspect of the guy I'd not seen previously. Maybe
some person walking nearby, though, hearing all this and having
little or no other contact with the man, may later relay an opinion of
Hubbard as a complete madman. He certainly was being a madman in that
occasion, but he wasn't ALWAYS that way.
I remember another time, outside his dinning room, when he was
standing outside the dinning room reaming out his son, Quentin, for
something. He was standing over Quentin as Quentin was kind of
cowering in the corner. People who were approaching the area, once
they heard or saw what was going on, just quickly turned on their
heals and went the opposite direction. But I, being weird again, just
walked up behind Hubbard and listened, fascinated. He then stopped
yelling at Quentin and turned and gave me a look like, "Enjoying the
show!" I held out my hands in front of me with a look like, "OK! OK!
Sorry!" and left.
But once again, he wasn't always like that. He never yelled at me,
and I worked with the guy a lot. I only mention these things because
many people I knew, later described him at a "madman". It's true the
man could get really pissed off and rant and rave. And who of us
haven't snapped once in a while under stress. So what. He could also
be very charming and sane, and was that way during most of the contact
that I had with him.
I'm sure you have heard of the incident of the CofS hiring the
author, Omar Garrison, to write a biography on Hubbard. Probably,
Gerry Armstrong has posted lots on this over the years. When all
sorts of unknown data about his life started coming up upon
investigation, a lot of people got very upset. To discover that
things previously published about Hubbard were not true and that he
had done some things that discredited the image the CofS was
portraying of him, this was all very unstabilizing for those who were
"true believers". These people, who had believed the guy was some
sort of "god", were devastated by this information. For those who
wanted to hate him it reinforced their viewpoints. To me, it all just
sort of humanized the man. Not knowing or seeing him as a god or
devil, I remember just thinking, "Interesting, but so what". It didn't
take away from the good things the guy did, and he did do some good
things. Actually, I was not too surprised by this data. Once, when I
was on a post that Hubbard created for me called "LRH Properties
Chief", I had an assignment to write a biography on him for the PRO
Office. It wasn't much of a biography, just a 9 or 10 page issue to
go into PR packs. I was on the ship with only what information was
available there and didn't do any real research. I just went to
various things already published about him in articles, book jackets,
and the like. One of the experiences I was writing about was how LRH
supposedly studied with Snake Thompson, a personal student of Sigmuend
Freud. It was a story I had heard previously about Hubbard and saw a
little written somewhere. I wanted more details for my biography so I
asked Hubbard. He told me it was no big deal, that he was just a kid
traveling with his father or something and met Thompson, that was all.
I thought the whole thing was rather strange. Even though Hubbard was
honest with me, he apparently knew about the false rumors but had not
done much previously to quell them. Who knows, he may have even
started them.
It's true that the Church presented a "squeeky clean", dynamic
image of Hubbard and that he was in favor of this. I believe that
this was one of his failings that came back around to "bite him in the
ass" later. There are similar things such as in "Keeping Scientology
Working" where he says that no one other than him ever came up with
any real worthwhile technical advancements. But, there are plenty
examples of worthwhile tech advancements that someone else did come up
with that he took credit for, as well as tech fuckups that he made
that he blamed on others. From some viewpoint he thought this sort of
behavior was "pro-survival" for the advancement of "the cause". I
think that the old, "Greatest good for the greatest number of
dynamics", gives a good insight into this point of view. It justifies
doing shitty things as long as they are done for a "greater purpose".
However, I think that it's just another way of saying, "The end
justifies the means". People have been using this justification for
eons and creating all sorts of bad shit. Personally, I don't buy into
either of those datums. If you have to lie or do some unethical
action to keep some purpose or thing continuing, maybe that thing
should not continue. But whether it should or shouldn't continue, the
one thing I do know is that by doing such an unethical action and
justifying it you might as well be "selling your soul to the devil".
Such a cycle will just lead to more unethical actions and screw things
up sooner or later. Lots of examples of this in and out of
Scientology.
Anyway, I guess that I've been rambling on for a while and should
probably end this post. I was asked by the Anthony Phillips, the
editor of Ivy, to write an article on an experience I had with
Hubbard. I wrote the article for him some time ago but don't remember
if it was published or not. It's kind of a strange story, but it
talks about my first meeting with Hubbard. Here it is for what it's
worth:

AN EXPERIENCE WITH RON
By Mike Goldstein
Co-founder of Idenics

I had many experiences with Ron during the years I worked closely
with him on the ship, Apollo. But the most memorable experience is my
first face to face meeting with the man. As it turned out, this first
encounter proved to be the weirdest of experiences. I haven't relayed
this occurrence to too many people because it was so strange.
However, since so many people find "strange" interesting, here goes.
Prior to being posted on the Apollo I spent a year in the Sea Org
working in Los Angeles. During that year my only goal was to get to
Flag (another name for the flagship of the Sea Org, the Apollo) and
work with Ron. The day finally came when I was ordered to take over a
high post at Flag. The trip from Los Angeles to Flag turned out to be
a several day adventure, but during that trip I kept getting a very
bizarre thought in my head. I kept thinking that the Commodore (Sea
Org rank Ron gave himself) should meet me at the gangway when I got to
the ship. This, of course, was a bizarre thought as I was just a new
recruit coming to Flag, not worthy of any such attention. But I
couldn't get it out of my head! The more I tried to stop the thought
the stronger it was, and the more I kept telling myself, "Shut up!
Are you nuts!"
When I arrived at the ship, Hubbard was not the gangway to greet
me, and part of me was relieved that I could get that insane thought
out of my head. However, another part of me was pissed off! As
the days went on, the upset with Hubbard got stronger, just as strong
as the thought about him greeting me when I arrived. This anger
seemed just as insane as the thought and I just kept it all to myself.
I did have communications from Hubbard via dispatch and messenger,
but this was just normal stuff relating to my post, or job. But, the
upset persisted. Crew on the ship were encouraged to write daily
reports to Ron, but each time I tried to write one I just got pissed
off and trashed it. Finally, the only way I could get these bizarre
thoughts out of my mind was to put all my attention on my post. The
post was quite demanding. I was the ship's banking officer (FBO which
stood for Flag Banking Officer) in charge of managing all the ship's
money as well as all of Sea Org Reserves. It took submerging myself
in my job and even going several days without sleep to finally quell
these inner "ravings".
The day after I was finally feeling "sane" again, I had been doing
a banking mission on shore. The mission, itself, was very stressful
as I was trying to get local banks to do something that was not being
done in their existing services. As I returned to the ship in my
silly looking suit and briefcase in hand, my thoughts were riveted on
the mission problems. My office was located about amidships on "A"
deck. "A" desk was composed of the Commodore's dinning room and two
rows of cabins. The cabins were where Hubbard's family living
quarters, Hubbard's aides living quarters, and my office were located.
Amidships, outside the dinning room was a set of stairs, one going
down to "B" deck, and the other going up to the "prom deck". At the
top of the stairs on the prom deck was Hubbard's research room where
he worked, with two corridors of offices facing the research room used
by Hubbard's aides. One of these offices was just used as a sort of
library and communication center. The communication center is where
Hubbard's, his aides and my in/out baskets were located.
When I came aboard I decided to first go check my in-basket before
returning to my office. I walked up the stairs pensively looking down
as I climbed, thinking only about the banking mission. About half way
up the stairs I was suddenly struck with the feeling that someone was
watching me. I came out of my thoughts and looked to the top of the
stairs. Standing there with his hands on his hips, glaring down at me
with a frown on his face, was Hubbard. Without thinking I just glared
back at him. Then he barked at me, "I hope you have money in that
briefcase! You're the FBO! You should have five dollar bills you're
just throwing around!" Once again, without thought, I barked back at
him, "I will!" At this response, hands still on hips, he threw his
head back bellowing with laughter. He then looked at me with a big
grin on his face saying, "Come here", motioning me with one hand to
approach. As I approached the top of the stairs I noticed one of his
personal staff to his right and one of his messengers to his left,
both looking at me with dumb expressions of surprise. Then, when I
reach the top of the stairs, something really strange takes place.
As I step on to the platform at the top of the stairs with Hubbard,
it's as if the two of us are suddenly somewhere else. It was very
weird and it's hard to put into words, but it's like our bodies are
standing there but we're talking somewhere else. Not only that, but
I'm different. I'm not just this 22-year kid without much experience.
I'm also another "me", more experienced and extremely confident.
It's as if I were "split in two", with the 22-year old Mike Goldstein
watching this other guy having this lengthy conversation with Hubbard.
At first he asks me about the banking mission on shore. I start
telling him about it and my displeasure with the bankers, using words
like, "****-sucker", "mother-******", and "***-hole", to express
myself. He's laughing and we're talking like two old sailors.
At this point of the conversation, things turn a little more
serious. He starts telling me about problems he's having in
management and with the orgs and starts asking me for advise. For a
moment then, I sort of "split" again, with the 22-year old me
thinking, "Why is he telling ME this stuff, I don't know about any of
that!" But then there I am as this other "me", not only understanding
what he's saying and asking, but I am actually giving him advise as to
what to do and he's taking it all in!
I don't really know how long all this conversation is taking, as
time was kind of different in this "place". But there comes a point
when I, the 22-year old me, kind of pulls out of this thing and is
standing there at the top of the stairs again. I notice that the guy
to Hubbard's right is standing, sort of "plastered" against the
bulkhead with his eyes rolled back in his head and his body jerking
about. The guy to the left of Hubbard is sitting in a chair, hands on
the arms of the chair, his back "plastered" against the back of the
chair, eyes rolled back and body jerking around. All I can think
about what I'm seeing is "That's weird."
Then, 22-year old Mike Goldstein had another thought – "I'm sure
he's busy and maybe I'm taking up too much of his time". The next
instant I'm walking toward the corridor. I stop, turn my head around
and see Hubbard's back to me, talking with one of the guys in normal
conversation. I turn my head back and kind of shake it a little, and
continue walking toward the office where my in-basket is located, a
little dazed and thinking, "That was weird."
When I get to my in-basket, things are pretty much back to
"normal". I start getting somewhat excited, thinking, "I was just
talking with L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Dianetics and Scientology!"
And then the only thing I can think is, "And I said "****-sucker", and
I said mother-******!" "What's wrong with me!" All I could think now
was how I had used such bad language. This freaked me out so much
that I just hid out in the communications center office until Hubbard
went into his research room. Then, I scurried out the office, down
the stairs and into my office where I closed the door and sat down. I
sat there thinking, "What the HELL was that all about?!" Not coming
up with any answer I just decided not to think about it anymore. I
didn't, and the anger and upset that I had previously had and
suppressed, was gone. I just put it all out of my mind and went back
to work.
The next day I had been ashore again with the banking mission.
Upon returning I went up the stairs to my in-basket again. Just as I
walked past his research room and entered the corridor, I had the
feeling someone was behind me. I turned around and it was Hubbard,
and it all started happening again. Then, as I am using all those
same swear words, I sort of pull out again at that point, thinking,
"I'm doing it again!" then pause and think, "Oh, what the hell." and
just let what was happening, happen.
Similar "conversations" happened many other times after that but it
felt pretty good and I just "went with the flow" and let it happen.
Of course, I've done some inspection over the years as to what exactly
was occurring. I've come up with some "explanations" but none really
seem to give me the entire story. So, I won't try to explain what
happened with me and Hubbard. All I know, for sure, is that it did
happen and that it happened exactly as I've related it.


Told you it was weird.

Mike Goldstein
Hartley Patterson
2004-07-23 17:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
He said it in various forms several times. What he actually did then was
to invent Dianetics, a pseudo-psychiatric self-help system. It collapsed
as fast as it had grown, so Hubbard tried again with a religion and
succeeded.
Post by David Harper
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
They believe it. Really. They have mentally blocked off all the
inconvenient bits of Hubbard's life, which are to them insignificant
compared to Clearing the Planet. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions.
Post by David Harper
Ignoring the incredulous "facts" that scientology holds true, I'm
still having trouble understanding how people fall into a theology
founded by this type of individual?
They aren't told the truth. By the time they are told it, they have been
conditioned to instantly reject it.
Post by David Harper
Is Tom Cruise really that naïve?
He's just behaving like the other culties. He sincerely believes that
leaving the cult will ruin his life and his future lives. Nothing is
more important to him than Scientology.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and
how to outrun Thread.
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
Ted Azito
2004-07-24 00:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hartley Patterson
Post by David Harper
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
He said it in various forms several times. What he actually did then was
to invent Dianetics, a pseudo-psychiatric self-help system. It collapsed
as fast as it had grown, so Hubbard tried again with a religion and
succeeded.
Post by David Harper
Is Tom Cruise really that na ve?
He's just behaving like the other culties. He sincerely believes that
leaving the cult will ruin his life and his future lives. Nothing is
more important to him than Scientology.
It's probably more earthly stick than eternal carrot: the cult has
the goods on him. What those goods are I don't know.
Zinj
2004-07-24 00:49:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>, larboard34
@hotmail.com says...
Post by Ted Azito
Post by Hartley Patterson
Post by David Harper
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
He said it in various forms several times. What he actually did then was
to invent Dianetics, a pseudo-psychiatric self-help system. It collapsed
as fast as it had grown, so Hubbard tried again with a religion and
succeeded.
Post by David Harper
Is Tom Cruise really that na ve?
He's just behaving like the other culties. He sincerely believes that
leaving the cult will ruin his life and his future lives. Nothing is
more important to him than Scientology.
It's probably more earthly stick than eternal carrot: the cult has
the goods on him. What those goods are I don't know.
I think it's highly unlikely that either Tom Cruise or John Travolta are
supporters for, and members of the 'Church' of Scientology because of
extortion material culled from their 'PC Folders' or any other
extortion.

I wouldn't exclude the extortion at single incidents or 'threats', but
my belief is that both are actually believing Scientologists, and
require no direct 'pressure' to 'stay in line'.

Any other reading of reality seems to me to fail to comprehend the
actual effectiveness of the 'Training' Scientologists are subjected to,
and the facts of life.

That 'wogs' can't comprehend how total the MindFuck is itself leads to
such silliness. The same kind of silliness that proposes that David
Miscavige and other 'high ranking' Scientologists *must* be cynical
insiders in the scam, which precludes being 'true believers'.

silly silly silly

Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Hartley Patterson
2004-07-24 08:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Azito
Post by Hartley Patterson
Is Tom Cruise really that naive?
He's just behaving like the other culties. He sincerely believes that
leaving the cult will ruin his life and his future lives. Nothing is
more important to him than Scientology.
It's probably more earthly stick than eternal carrot: the cult has
the goods on him. What those goods are I don't know.
The crunch came recently, when his publicist (allegedly) told him that
his high profile support for Scientology was a bad career move. He
promptly replaced her with his sister.
The first media articles have started to appear suggesting that
Scientology is 'yesterday's religion' in Hollywood, replaced by the
Kabbalah loonies. I predict that this will cause the CoS ability to
recruit 'personalities' to end.

I had supposed that if Travolta/Cruise etc had to choose between career
and the CoS that career would win out. It would seem I was wrong in this
case.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and
how to outrun Thread.
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
Spacetraveler
2004-07-24 10:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
And so because he said or wrote something like that in 1947, you
simply discard off anything else he has ever said or written? It is
not about believing, it is about applying and see if it works.
Post by David Harper
Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines and
coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.
Same here, because his son went against his father, we have to agree
upon that his son is right and his father wrong?
Post by David Harper
Ignoring the incredulous "facts" that scientology holds true, I'm
still having trouble understanding how people fall into a theology
founded by this type of individual? Is Tom Cruise really that naïve?
The only thing that counts is if in fact Scientology can be used and
get results in some way or another. Did you ever try? Did you
really? It can be as simple as applying his study technology.

Spacetraveler
wbarwell
2004-07-24 16:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
And so because he said or wrote something like that in 1947, you
simply discard off anything else he has ever said or written? It is
not about believing, it is about applying and see if it works.
He said it many more times since 47 and seemed to be rather fond of
this lil saying.

His overt and obvious greed starting in the 70's was out of control.

In hiding in the desert post-Snow White, he was soon having
suit cases full of $100 bills delivered to him weekly. He raped
the orgs to the tune of over $100 million in his last days.

Using as a fake excuse back payments for his writings.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines and
coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.
Same here, because his son went against his father, we have to agree
upon that his son is right and his father wrong?
Post by David Harper
Ignoring the incredulous "facts" that scientology holds true, I'm
still having trouble understanding how people fall into a theology
founded by this type of individual? Is Tom Cruise really that naïve?
The only thing that counts is if in fact Scientology can be used and
get results in some way or another. Did you ever try? Did you
really? It can be as simple as applying his study technology.
Spacetraveler
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.

Cheerful Charlie
Ted Azito
2004-07-25 00:36:07 UTC
Permalink
How much proof does it take that L Ron Hubbard was a walking pile of
dog shit? How thoroughly does it have to be documented? Every aspect
of his life is documented thoroughly, moreso than Hitler, more so than
Elvis or Marilyn or whatever expired pop idol, more than most of
today's living politicians. And virtually everything he did was base,
vicious, and rotten.

What are these gullibards going to accept as proof of his
uselessness? With other religious leaders of the past, who lived
before modern media, photography, bureaucracy, the determined
gullibard can take mullahs and preachers at their word-absolute
disproval is impossible, because "it could have happened". With
Hubbard, the proof is on paper, on film, and in the living memory of
dozens of people who knew Hubbard firsthand. Far more people who
interacted with Hubbard will testify to his perfidy than will loyally
endorse him, his ideas, his behavior.

Personally he was vicious and base: professionally and academically
he was totally inept: intellectually he was a mountebank and fraud. He
was also physically repulsive and sexually dysfunctional, not that
these things would matter except for their influence on his
sociopathic behavior.
Dave Bird
2004-08-03 10:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Azito
How much proof does it take that L Ron Hubbard was a walking pile of
dog shit? How thoroughly does it have to be documented? Every aspect
of his life is documented thoroughly, moreso than Hitler, more so than
Elvis or Marilyn or whatever expired pop idol, more than most of
today's living politicians. And virtually everything he did was base,
vicious, and rotten.
What are these gullibards going to accept as proof of his
uselessness? With other religious leaders of the past, who lived
before modern media, photography, bureaucracy, the determined
gullibard can take mullahs and preachers at their word-absolute
disproval is impossible, because "it could have happened". With
Hubbard, the proof is on paper, on film, and in the living memory of
dozens of people who knew Hubbard firsthand. Far more people who
interacted with Hubbard will testify to his perfidy than will loyally
endorse him, his ideas, his behavior.
All the same, he was merely human. I van sometimes smile at the
things he did. There are people out there in history who ordered
large number so people killed and made sure it happened. Next to
them, Hubbard really is small beer.
Post by Ted Azito
Personally he was vicious and base: professionally and academically
he was totally inept: intellectually he was a mountebank and fraud. He
was also physically repulsive
Why do you say this? He was not bad looking as a young man, although
he became a mess later. Likewise he was perfectly OK sexually in his
youth and prime, up to his mid-forties anyway, though he was probably
impotent later. So are many men.
Post by Ted Azito
and sexually dysfunctional, not that
these things would matter except for their influence on his
sociopathic behavior.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.
Spacetraveler
2004-07-25 08:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
And so because he said or wrote something like that in 1947, you
simply discard off anything else he has ever said or written? It is
not about believing, it is about applying and see if it works.
He said it many more times since 47 and seemed to be rather fond of
this lil saying.
His overt and obvious greed starting in the 70's was out of control.
In hiding in the desert post-Snow White, he was soon having
suit cases full of $100 bills delivered to him weekly. He raped
the orgs to the tune of over $100 million in his last days.
Using as a fake excuse back payments for his writings.
Waugh! A kinda short response for you, ain't it! Still you succeed
to ramble along......

Spacetraveler


<snip>
wbarwell
2004-07-25 08:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
And so because he said or wrote something like that in 1947, you
simply discard off anything else he has ever said or written? It is
not about believing, it is about applying and see if it works.
He said it many more times since 47 and seemed to be rather fond of
this lil saying.
His overt and obvious greed starting in the 70's was out of control.
In hiding in the desert post-Snow White, he was soon having
suit cases full of $100 bills delivered to him weekly. He raped
the orgs to the tune of over $100 million in his last days.
Using as a fake excuse back payments for his writings.
Waugh! A kinda short response for you, ain't it! Still you succeed
to ramble along......
I post facts you cannot deal with.
Unable to deal with facts, you repeat the now ritualistic
Space Traveler dodge accusing me of rambling, then you
cease dealing with anything I post.

Facts are, Hubbard was the clown that found out he could
gouge the suckers and get away with it and went hog wild
doicoral sea, navy, battleng exactly that.

No bad ol' SPs who sneaked into Scientology in the 70's
and raised the prices to ridiculous levels when Hubbo was
screwing off and not watching.

If you don't have a decent answer for such observations,
admit it why not?

You think snotty little cracks about "rambling" hide
the fact you don't have an answer for the facts of the matter of when
prices in Scientology skyrocketted and who was responsible?

"HARD SELL

If the Captain does not know that Advanced
Courses are the most valuable service on the planet
he will not be able to understand HARD SELL.
Therefore he must realize: That life insurance, houses, cars,
bonds, college savings are all transitory and impermanent
and based on things surviving, or on things that are in fact being
destroyed.
...
"Hard Sell" is based on knowing and promoting in this line (Truth!) and
not being reasonable about people who want "other things" or "other
practices".
.....

L.Ron Hubbard
Extract from Flag Mission order 375 14.8.70"
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.

Cheerful Charlie
David Harper
2004-07-25 01:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
And so because he said or wrote something like that in 1947, you
simply discard off anything else he has ever said or written?
No, but it does disclose "potentially" alterior motives. The fact
that CoS charges crazy rates per hour of auditing would support this
motive.

If he was really interested in "clearing" people and helping humanity,
then he wouldn't have only catered to the well-off and wealthy people.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines and
coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.
Same here, because his son went against his father, we have to agree
upon that his son is right and his father wrong?
No, based on facts that his son said that are supported by evidence
(LRH's drug use, internal memos that have gotten out, etc).
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Ignoring the incredulous "facts" that scientology holds true, I'm
still having trouble understanding how people fall into a theology
founded by this type of individual? Is Tom Cruise really that naïve?
The only thing that counts is if in fact Scientology can be used and
get results in some way or another. Did you ever try? Did you
really? It can be as simple as applying his study technology.
Have you ever tried heroin? No? Why not? You think it's bad?? How
can you say it's bad if you've never tried it?

Not that scientology can do the damage to someone heroin can, but
there are other ways to find out things other than emperical evidence.

Based on the foundations of scientology (the whole Xenu story), it's
not hard to know it's snake oil.

Dave
Spacetraveler
2004-07-25 08:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Harper
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
And so because he said or wrote something like that in 1947, you
simply discard off anything else he has ever said or written?
No, but it does disclose "potentially" alterior motives.
And?
Post by David Harper
The fact
that CoS charges crazy rates per hour of auditing would support this
motive.
Which is against policy that L. Ron Hbbard wrote. But you did no
attempt to find out about that, did you? Do some research instead of
scraping on the surface!
Post by David Harper
If he was really interested in "clearing" people and helping humanity,
then he wouldn't have only catered to the well-off and wealthy people.
Again you do no research! Damn, this is tiring. Get educated first
before solely relying on people stories and second hand data and that
what seems so very 'obvious'.
Post by David Harper
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines and
coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.
Same here, because his son went against his father, we have to agree
upon that his son is right and his father wrong?
No, based on facts that his son said that are supported by evidence
(LRH's drug use, internal memos that have gotten out, etc).
What evidence?
Post by David Harper
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Ignoring the incredulous "facts" that scientology holds true, I'm
still having trouble understanding how people fall into a theology
founded by this type of individual? Is Tom Cruise really that naïve?
The only thing that counts is if in fact Scientology can be used and
get results in some way or another. Did you ever try? Did you
really? It can be as simple as applying his study technology.
Have you ever tried heroin? No? Why not? You think it's bad?? How
can you say it's bad if you've never tried it?
Many critics claim this. You are compairing a simple process, or
auditing command, or simple information how to communicate, or how to
study with taking heroin? Are you completely nuts?
Post by David Harper
Not that scientology can do the damage to someone heroin can, but
there are other ways to find out things other than emperical evidence.
There is no other way if you are dealing with an applied philosophy.
Post by David Harper
Based on the foundations of scientology (the whole Xenu story), it's
not hard to know it's snake oil.
And you have not understood the story about Xenu, and have not
understood a lots of other things either, like for example how the
book 'History of man' came about.

No use talking to you. You bought all the hearsay.

Spacetraveler
wbarwell
2004-07-25 08:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
No, but it does disclose "potentially" alterior motives.
And?
Post by David Harper
The fact
that CoS charges crazy rates per hour of auditing would support this
motive.
Which is against policy that L. Ron Hbbard wrote. But you did no
attempt to find out about that, did you? Do some research instead of
scraping on the surface!
Purest baloney. It was Hubbard himself fresh ashore from
the Apollo who created this crazy pricing. It was he who
wrote about this blaming it on "inflation". Who set policies
that these courses should cost so many hours of an average
worker's wage.

That sent out policies warning books and materials would
rise 5% per month.

Costs of 'services' skyrocketted. Costs of tape sets averaged $35 for
a stupid 60 min cassette. Course costs skyrocketted.

It was all Hubbard's greedy, money grubbing personal doing.
And he found enough suckers he was soon rolling in dough.

it was he who set up teh money grubbing regs systems and
had hat packs called Cruch sales made up. Hard sell was to wimpy
for the greedy old bastard.
Make Money! Make Money! Make other people produce so as to
make more money.

Yeah...

Don't think us old time critics here DON'T know this stuff.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
If he was really interested in "clearing" people and helping humanity,
then he wouldn't have only catered to the well-off and wealthy people.
Again you do no research! Damn, this is tiring. Get educated first
before solely relying on people stories and second hand data and that
what seems so very 'obvious'.
You most certainly are tiring. And no, you obviously have not done your
homework here. Dig up those old Hubbard policy letters et al that he issued
when he had establihsed his sorry butt in Clearwater and went money crazy.

See what old Greedy Guts actually wrote and check the pricing from old
price lists before and after the era of Hubbard Greed hit in the mid 70's.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines
and coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.
Same here, because his son went against his father, we have to agree
upon that his son is right and his father wrong?
No, based on facts that his son said that are supported by evidence
(LRH's drug use, internal memos that have gotten out, etc).
What evidence?
Google "pinks and greys", Hubbard, Mary Sue.

Read Atack and Miller.
Post by Spacetraveler
Many critics claim this. You are compairing a simple process, or
auditing command, or simple information how to communicate, or how to
study with taking heroin? Are you completely nuts?
The entire cult experince is like being on heroin.
It has ruined many lives, as has heroin.
And tragically, like heroin, it destroys lives of those around
people who get hooked on heroin or Scientology.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Not that scientology can do the damage to someone heroin can, but
there are other ways to find out things other than emperical evidence.
There is no other way if you are dealing with an applied philosophy.
Mao's Revolution was an applied philosphy too.
Magic words like "applied philosophy" don't make Hubbards
crap philosophy (it ain't no more than Hubbard does science),
and applied doesn't mean right, good, useful, or sane.

Hubbard's applied philosphy is so much crap, it does not get you the big
promises of grand IQ increase, cure all human ills, perfect memories
or super human poers. Come to think of it, Marx's, Lenin's, Stalin's,
Mao's and Hitler's applied philosophies were busts too.

Tossing high sounding buzz words around doesn't mean anything.
"We ain't no cult! We are an applied philosophy!"
No, its a cult.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Based on the foundations of scientology (the whole Xenu story), it's
not hard to know it's snake oil.
And you have not understood the story about Xenu, and have not
understood a lots of other things either, like for example how the
book 'History of man' came about.
It doesn't matter how it came about. Its all insane.
Nobody sane can read History of Man about the clams, barnacles
and teeth and not roll on the floor laughing their butts off.

Xenu et al is simply laughable.

As for Hubbard and the high costs of services and all,
you seem to have know zip about that.
Hubbard found out he could gouge the suckers and he
went hog wild.

Nobody else.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.

Cheerful Charlie
Spacetraveler
2004-07-26 09:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
No, but it does disclose "potentially" alterior motives.
And?
Post by David Harper
The fact
that CoS charges crazy rates per hour of auditing would support this
motive.
Which is against policy that L. Ron Hbbard wrote. But you did no
attempt to find out about that, did you? Do some research instead of
scraping on the surface!
Purest baloney. It was Hubbard himself fresh ashore from
the Apollo who created this crazy pricing. It was he who
wrote about this blaming it on "inflation". Who set policies
that these courses should cost so many hours of an average
worker's wage.
That sent out policies warning books and materials would
rise 5% per month.
Costs of 'services' skyrocketted. Costs of tape sets averaged $35 for
a stupid 60 min cassette. Course costs skyrocketted.
It was all Hubbard's greedy, money grubbing personal doing.
And he found enough suckers he was soon rolling in dough.
it was he who set up teh money grubbing regs systems and
had hat packs called Cruch sales made up. Hard sell was to wimpy
for the greedy old bastard.
Make Money! Make Money! Make other people produce so as to
make more money.
Yeah...
Don't think us old time critics here DON'T know this stuff.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
If he was really interested in "clearing" people and helping humanity,
then he wouldn't have only catered to the well-off and wealthy people.
Again you do no research! Damn, this is tiring. Get educated first
before solely relying on people stories and second hand data and that
what seems so very 'obvious'.
You most certainly are tiring. And no, you obviously have not done your
homework here. Dig up those old Hubbard policy letters et al that he issued
when he had establihsed his sorry butt in Clearwater and went money crazy.
Why then did he gave the copyrights to HASI (or HCO) and let this
organization go defunct in 1977? If, as you say he liked money so
much? Explain WHY?

You claimed that Mary Sue Hubbard moved them out of there before
getting defunct remember? You NEVER, NEVER, NEVER backed up that claim
and NEVER withdrew it either! (=FACT!) Can you admit being in error
about something? Can you?

http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=40e808fc%240%2417095%24811e409b%40news.mylinuxisp.com
Post by wbarwell
See what old Greedy Guts actually wrote and check the pricing from old
price lists before and after the era of Hubbard Greed hit in the mid 70's.
LRH ED 284 was writen 1976 I believe. An LRH ED is ónly valid during a
period of one year. Did you know about that? Thought so.

L. Ron Hubbard was not be seen anymore in public around early 1980,
how was the pricing back then?

There is more but the above suffices actually.
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines
and coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.
Same here, because his son went against his father, we have to agree
upon that his son is right and his father wrong?
No, based on facts that his son said that are supported by evidence
(LRH's drug use, internal memos that have gotten out, etc).
What evidence?
Google "pinks and greys", Hubbard, Mary Sue.
Read Atack and Miller.
I like especially the excellent referencing of Miller. "Interview
Mayo", Interview Eltringham". One can hardly verify anything at all of
what he says. It is easy to just adjust little here and there and it
will tell something else. And this is your authority? How marvelous
and convenient!
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
Many critics claim this. You are compairing a simple process, or
auditing command, or simple information how to communicate, or how to
study with taking heroin? Are you completely nuts?
The entire cult experince is like being on heroin.
It has ruined many lives, as has heroin.
And tragically, like heroin, it destroys lives of those around
people who get hooked on heroin or Scientology.
You have NO argument! People do what they do. Fact remains is that
these are simple bits and pieces of procedures and information. These
all by themselves do not harm. Comparing this with taking heroine is
completely ludicrous.
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Not that scientology can do the damage to someone heroin can, but
there are other ways to find out things other than emperical evidence.
There is no other way if you are dealing with an applied philosophy.
Mao's Revolution was an applied philosphy too.
Magic words like "applied philosophy" don't make Hubbards
crap philosophy (it ain't no more than Hubbard does science),
and applied doesn't mean right, good, useful, or sane.
Hubbard's applied philosphy is so much crap, it does not get you the big
promises of grand IQ increase, cure all human ills, perfect memories
or super human poers. Come to think of it, Marx's, Lenin's, Stalin's,
Mao's and Hitler's applied philosophies were busts too.
Tossing high sounding buzz words around doesn't mean anything.
"We ain't no cult! We are an applied philosophy!"
No, its a cult.
People make it a cult. Not the 'applied philosophy'. People are
responsible for themselves.
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
Based on the foundations of scientology (the whole Xenu story), it's
not hard to know it's snake oil.
And you have not understood the story about Xenu, and have not
understood a lots of other things either, like for example how the
book 'History of man' came about.
It doesn't matter how it came about. Its all insane.
Nobody sane can read History of Man about the clams, barnacles
and teeth and not roll on the floor laughing their butts off.
Xenu et al is simply laughable.
Once upon a time when someone would have said: "Once people will walk
on the moon!" They would have laughed about it. The
times-they-re-a-changin'.

Nothing what it says in the book 'History of man' necessarily has to
be taken as a fact that actually happened. It is a recollection of
information as told by PCs in session. Many Scientologists do not even
believe this to be reality, they think them being ideas.
Post by wbarwell
As for Hubbard and the high costs of services and all,
you seem to have know zip about that.
Hubbard found out he could gouge the suckers and he
went hog wild.
Nobody else.
Says the ignorant.

Spacetraveler
wbarwell
2004-07-26 09:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Spacetraveler
2004-07-26 23:39:36 UTC
Permalink
*********************************************************
Post by Spacetraveler
it was he who set up the money grubbing regs systems and
had hat packs called Crush sales made up. Hard sell was too wimpy
for the greedy old bastard.
Make Money! Make Money! Make other people produce so as to
make more money.
Yeah...
Don't think us old time critics here DON'T know this stuff.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
If he was really interested in "clearing" people and helping humanity,
then he wouldn't have only catered to the well-off and wealthy people.
Again you do no research! Damn, this is tiring. Get educated first
before solely relying on people stories and second hand data and that
what seems so very 'obvious'.
You most certainly are tiring. And no, you obviously have not done your
homework here. Dig up those old Hubbard policy letters et al that he
issued when he had establihsed his sorry butt in Clearwater and went
money crazy.
Why then did he gave the copyrights to HASI (or HCO) and let this
organization go defunct in 1977? If, as you say he liked money so
much? Explain WHY?
He naver gave anything away.
Sorry, it is in HCOPLs. Several of them.
He would soon be gouging huge amounts of money from the orgs.
Supposedly for past usage of his writings and books and tapes.
Now, if he had really given up his copyrights, how dd he manage
that?
The same way he gave up Scientology in 1966
and became a retired writer. He didn't, he was a liar.
Sorry, he did.
He lied about EVERYTHING, and he was a money hungry
bastard. He set up the NEDs courses, implemented these
new courses and set the prices.
I have a copy of the 1976 price list here in the Hard Sell
Hat Pack I have.
The Hard Sell Hat Pack??? 1976 pricing?
Dianetics went to $30,000.00 to $50,000.00.
Expanded grades, $20,000.0 - $25,000.00.
Dec 1976:
Clearing course costs $882 ($837.90 with 5% advance payment discount)
or
Auditing varying from $27.56 to -33.18 per hour (depending on how many
hours you bought in advance. A total of about 150 hours usually would
do the job I guess). Do your calculations.
Gouge, gouge, gouge.
NOTs was $28,0000.00
NOTs is usually referred to as OT 4-6

Dec 1976:
OT I through VIII as a package would cost $3,307.50

$28,000.00 ?? Marvelous calculations william!
Have you ever looked at the IRS findings why they stripped
CoS of tax exempt status? The old bozo was filling his pockets.
Before he died, he went ape and really ripped the orgs off.
The orgs were told for years Hubbard had let them use his works
without payment and now he was collecting. A lie,
but he drained CoS of $100 millions or more in his last days.
Wanna know how, talk to Warrior, who was a CoS finance guy who
was told to set things up so Hubbard could drain the org he was at
of $$$$$.
They were shipping vast sums to banks in Luxembourg and elsewhere.
Who set up these new courses and who set the prices sky high?
You were already totally off with you 1976 pricing, who would believe
your claims now?
Hubbard, that's who.
Where did the money go? Into offshore banks world wide.
Who got it after Hubbard croaked.
Who the hell knows?
The Sea Org reserves were known to be one repository.
Who's commander of the O? Miscavige.
Post by Spacetraveler
You claimed that Mary Sue Hubbard moved them out of there before
getting defunct remember? You NEVER, NEVER, NEVER backed up that claim
and NEVER withdrew it either! (=FACT!) Can you admit being in error
about something? Can you?
Miscavige moved 'em.
Evidence?
Forged Hubbard's signature too.
Took control of all the copyrights, and set up RTC to
handle the legal details, make sure copyrights were up
to date and gave himself healthy bonuses for sales
of Hubbard's crap through his connections with RTC and ASI.
Interesting. Earlier you spoke about that L. Ron Hubbard was fully in
control during the years he was 'missing' (1980-86). And now you claim
that Miscavige had to forge his signature. Why would he have to do
that if in fact he was in full control?

Confused? You are CHANGING stories, William.
Mary Sue got leaned on.
Evidence?
Wanna go back to teh Erlich docs and look at the
issues over the expert testimony as to Hubbard's
signature being forged?
Wanna know one good reason the bastards settled
with Erlich out of court?
To keep the forged signatures from being an issue in a long,
drawn out court battle where they were suing Erlich for
for copy right infringment.
Forgery! Read the R.V.Young declarations about
how they cheated to cover copyrights that had slipped
into public domain!
Funny vbusiness galore!
Why do YOU know.
Zip. nada, nuthin'.
You are a non-expert.
And you are confused, you adjust as you go along. It is like this, you
HAVE to claim that I am no expert to emphasize that your claims are
worth their money. This in an effort to cover up that you are no
expert at all. I know I made you study a variety of things, because
you had problems to keep up with my pace. And that's why you slip. And
you DO slip.
Post by Spacetraveler
LRH ED 284 was writen 1976 I believe. An LRH ED is ónly valid during a
period of one year. Did you know about that? Thought so.
The prices stayed high and nobody else set 'em but Hubbard.
I have the 83 price lists.
Did you not say that Miscavige forged his signature? Why did he have
to do that? Tell all of us that? Why, as you say L. Ron Hubbard was
in control, HE (L. Ron Hubbard) set the prices?

Confused?
Total to OT 7? $131,742 to $ 161.643
- 10% service completeion awards. If you di dthat right and didn't
get shafted.
Who set these prices? Again, Hubbard. I've seen the HCOB
where he rationalized the high prices based on average wages.
HCOPLs It's all HCOPLs. http://www.ronsorg.nl/prices/prices.htm
Post by Spacetraveler
L. Ron Hubbard was not be seen anymore in public around early 1980,
how was the pricing back then?
Set by Hubbard! Who had his taped orders going straight
to his goons who ripped off the orgs. Again, ask Warrior,
who was one of the guys who was asked to help in the effort.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by Spacetraveler
What evidence?
Google "pinks and greys", Hubbard, Mary Sue.
Read Atack and Miller.
I like especially the excellent referencing of Miller. "Interview
Mayo", Interview Eltringham".
Why should I bother with your opinion rather than their eyewitness
testimony?
Face the fact that Miller is rather difficult to back up with his
rather inexact referencing.

<snip rambling and repeating....>

How many more times do you want be disproven? How many more times do
you intend to lose face?

Reminds me of the Rolling Stones song: "But don't play with me, 'cause
you're playing with fire."

Spacetraveler
wbarwell
2004-07-27 23:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spacetraveler
*********************************************************
Post by Spacetraveler
it was he who set up the money grubbing regs systems and
had hat packs called Crush sales made up. Hard sell was too wimpy
for the greedy old bastard.
Make Money! Make Money! Make other people produce so as to
make more money.
Yeah...
Don't think us old time critics here DON'T know this stuff.
Post by Spacetraveler
Post by David Harper
If he was really interested in "clearing" people and helping
humanity, then he wouldn't have only catered to the well-off and
wealthy people.
Again you do no research! Damn, this is tiring. Get educated first
before solely relying on people stories and second hand data and
that what seems so very 'obvious'.
You most certainly are tiring. And no, you obviously have not done your
homework here. Dig up those old Hubbard policy letters et al that he
issued when he had establihsed his sorry butt in Clearwater and went
money crazy.
Why then did he gave the copyrights to HASI (or HCO) and let this
organization go defunct in 1977? If, as you say he liked money so
much? Explain WHY?
He naver gave anything away.
Sorry, it is in HCOPLs. Several of them.
He would soon be gouging huge amounts of money from the orgs.
Supposedly for past usage of his writings and books and tapes.
Now, if he had really given up his copyrights, how dd he manage
that?
The same way he gave up Scientology in 1966
and became a retired writer. He didn't, he was a liar.
Sorry, he did.
He lied about EVERYTHING, and he was a money hungry
bastard. He set up the NEDs courses, implemented these
new courses and set the prices.
I have a copy of the 1976 price list here in the Hard Sell
Hat Pack I have.
The Hard Sell Hat Pack??? 1976 pricing?
This hard sell pack has a comaprison of the old bridge and
the new 1983 bridge showing the range of costs to get to OT VII
on either. The old bridge was from a low of $131,000 to
a high of 163.750.
The 1983 new Bridge was with 10% discounts, $118, 568 to
a high of $145,479.

The old bridge was listed for pricing from "1975 - 1978".

The point of this exec dir was to show that taking inflation into
account, the new bridge was ever so much cheaper than the old.
In 1983, $118,568 would have bought you a rather nice upper
scale house.

Such a deal!

$118,568 of snake oil, drink hearty.

The '83 price list shows that starting with Purif ($5,273)
to "Ned to Clear" and a "Sunshine rundown" cherry on top
was from $45,797 at the low to a high of $68,425.

That is just to get you to clear. Prepay and get that 10%
discount.

Whoopie.
Post by Spacetraveler
NOTs was $28,0000.00
NOTs is usually referred to as OT 4-6
OT I through VIII as a package would cost $3,307.50
$28,000.00 ?? Marvelous calculations william!
I just read the price list I have before me.

You seem to be miscalculating this.
Argue with Executive Directive FSO 1100 20 December 1983.
Not me.

NOTS here is listed as 3 to 4 intensives at $21,819 to $29,092.
Solo Course II - OT III is $15,864.
Solo Nots (Home) is $12,000.
And we have other courses here to get to OT VII Ot Preps/elgibility is
$5,657.

Again, Scientology's own price list, not mine.
You have complaints, take it up with flag.
I just post what the official flag explanation for prices says.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.

Cheerful Charlie
Spacetraveler
2004-07-28 22:12:10 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
I have a copy of the 1976 price list here in the Hard Sell
Hat Pack I have.
The Hard Sell Hat Pack??? 1976 pricing?
This hard sell pack has a comaprison of the old bridge and
the new 1983 bridge showing the range of costs to get to OT VII
on either. The old bridge was from a low of $131,000 to
a high of 163.750.
The 1983 new Bridge was with 10% discounts, $118, 568 to
a high of $145,479.
The old bridge was listed for pricing from "1975 - 1978".
That meant that Flag had existed since 1975. The pricing you provided
sounded to me like late 1978. At Flag only that is.
Post by wbarwell
The point of this exec dir was to show that taking inflation into
account, the new bridge was ever so much cheaper than the old.
In 1983, $118,568 would have bought you a rather nice upper
scale house.
Such a deal!
$118,568 of snake oil, drink hearty.
The '83 price list shows that starting with Purif ($5,273)
to "Ned to Clear" and a "Sunshine rundown" cherry on top
was from $45,797 at the low to a high of $68,425.
That is just to get you to clear. Prepay and get that 10%
discount.
Whoopie.
I don't care about 1983. L. Ron Hubbard was not to be seen since 3
years by then.
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
NOTs was $28,0000.00
NOTs is usually referred to as OT 4-6
OT I through VIII as a package would cost $3,307.50
$28,000.00 ?? Marvelous calculations william!
I just read the price list I have before me.
You seem to be miscalculating this.
Argue with Executive Directive FSO 1100 20 December 1983.
Not me.
You quote from an issue dated ÄDecember 1983. WE DISCUSSED 1976
PRICING!!!!!!!!
Post by wbarwell
NOTS here is listed as 3 to 4 intensives at $21,819 to $29,092.
Solo Course II - OT III is $15,864.
Solo Nots (Home) is $12,000.
And we have other courses here to get to OT VII Ot Preps/elgibility is
$5,657.
Again, Scientology's own price list, not mine.
You have complaints, take it up with flag.
I just post what the official flag explanation for prices says.
You don't give me 1976 pricing, I gave them!

Quoted again:
Dec 1976:
Clearing course costs $882 ($837.90 with 5% advance payment discount)
or Auditing varying from $27.56 to -33.18 per hour (depending on how
many hours you bought in advance. A total of about 150 hours usually
would do the job I guess). Do your calculations.

Dec 1976:
OT I through VIII as a package would cost $3,307.50

All the way to OT VIII from nothing you certainly would come a very
long way with say $5,000.

Face it! The above pricings are FACTUAL!

Spacetraveler
wbarwell
2004-07-28 23:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by iTal
<snip>
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
I have a copy of the 1976 price list here in the Hard Sell
Hat Pack I have.
The Hard Sell Hat Pack??? 1976 pricing?
This hard sell pack has a comaprison of the old bridge and
the new 1983 bridge showing the range of costs to get to OT VII
on either. The old bridge was from a low of $131,000 to
a high of 163.750.
The 1983 new Bridge was with 10% discounts, $118, 568 to
a high of $145,479.
The old bridge was listed for pricing from "1975 - 1978".
That meant that Flag had existed since 1975. The pricing you provided
sounded to me like late 1978. At Flag only that is.
It says what it says. Are you saying that prices at flag rose from 1975
to 1978?

What its says is, that teh bridge from 1975 - 8 in those years
was within a high and low range of costs to get to 1975.

It doesn't means something else. It is clear and simple English.
Post by iTal
Post by wbarwell
The point of this exec dir was to show that taking inflation into
account, the new bridge was ever so much cheaper than the old.
In 1983, $118,568 would have bought you a rather nice upper
scale house.
Such a deal!
$118,568 of snake oil, drink hearty.
The '83 price list shows that starting with Purif ($5,273)
to "Ned to Clear" and a "Sunshine rundown" cherry on top
was from $45,797 at the low to a high of $68,425.
That is just to get you to clear. Prepay and get that 10%
discount.
Whoopie.
I don't care about 1983. L. Ron Hubbard was not to be seen since 3
years by then.
But the costs when Hubbard was running Stuoidology were more
expensive than 1983? Are you telling us Hubbo was gouging people
and the nice people who were taking over saved Scientology from Hubbard
rapacity?

Not only was Hubbard's Bridge version II cheaper, but with
inflation taken ito account asserts this ED, it was vastly cheaper.

Obviously, you did not take a second to consider the costs
I carefully typed up for you to see that in the mid 70's when Hubbard
was indeed running the show after he oganized moving into Clearwater
and setting up shop, were more expensive than in the days you claim those
bad ol' squirrels took over.

If I anm going to type stuff up, do take a second to read it and think
before running bullheaded off making obviously wrong claims.
Post by iTal
Post by wbarwell
Post by Spacetraveler
NOTs was $28,0000.00
NOTs is usually referred to as OT 4-6
OT I through VIII as a package would cost $3,307.50
$28,000.00 ?? Marvelous calculations william!
I just read the price list I have before me.
You seem to be miscalculating this.
Argue with Executive Directive FSO 1100 20 December 1983.
Not me.
You quote from an issue dated ÄDecember 1983. WE DISCUSSED 1976
PRICING!!!!!!!!
AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!

The Bridge at Flag December 1975 -1978
....
10) OT I - III $4,500
11) OT 7 (RD) 2,500
12) OT IIIX No Charge
13) OT IV (RD) 28,000
14) NOTS 100-250 hours 28,000
to (35,000)
15) OT IV - OT VII 6,000
Student Hat 1,000
TRS Course 750

$70,750 at the low end here...

$85,500 at the low end to go clear.


Flags price list. Not mine.
Post by iTal
Post by wbarwell
NOTS here is listed as 3 to 4 intensives at $21,819 to $29,092.
Solo Course II - OT III is $15,864.
Solo Nots (Home) is $12,000.
And we have other courses here to get to OT VII Ot Preps/elgibility is
$5,657.
Again, Scientology's own price list, not mine.
You have complaints, take it up with flag.
I just post what the official flag explanation for prices says.
You don't give me 1976 pricing, I gave them!
No, I give you 1976 pricing. I have the flag
hard sell pack listings right here before me.
You have what? 1975 - 1978 includes 1976.
True or false. On Earth. In present time.

This is the sales pack that is used to show prospective
clams that prices had dropped from the old 1975 -78
Bridge pricing.

Its either meaningful or it ain't.
Its their price list, not mine.
Post by iTal
Clearing course costs $882 ($837.90 with 5% advance payment discount)
or Auditing varying from $27.56 to -33.18 per hour (depending on how
many hours you bought in advance. A total of about 150 hours usually
would do the job I guess). Do your calculations.
Clearing course here is $2,500. (1975 - 1978)
But it is but a small portionof the bridge.

"3) Dianetics - 150 -250 hours $30,000 to $50,000"
"4) Expanded Grades 100 - 125 hours $20,000 to $25,000"

You cherry pick one lil ol' dinky course and ignore the biggies!

$50,000 at the low end of the price scale in these two courses alone!
Flags price list. Not mine.
This is from their own sales pack. Its not something taken from a dodgey
website or some bit of stuff from some critical SP book.

This is official clam material that regs were supposed to study!
Post by iTal
OT I through VIII as a package would cost $3,307.50
Absolutely wrong.

I have the price list right here!
$70,750 at the low end of things.
From OT I - III to OT VII.

Not MY price list! Flags!
Post by iTal
All the way to OT VIII from nothing you certainly would come a very
long way with say $5,000.
Face it! The above pricings are FACTUAL!
Yes, mine are. 1976, $70,750 at the low end of Flag official estimates.

Not my numbers. Flags.

ED 1100, 20 September 1983.

This is where I am getting MY numbers!
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.

Cheerful Charlie
Phil Scott
2004-07-29 03:11:28 UTC
Permalink
.

How does this grab you space boy?


Some time ago, a few of the old timers on the NG and maybe Tory can
verify this. Many WISE members and high end scn's were buying homes
etc and other realestate and putting it in the name of the CoS.

Here is what I thing the motives were:

1. With the property in the name of the CoS the WISE member or
scientologist could then write huge monthy *rent checks to the scn inc
holding company, or CSI or whomever... that gives them a huge tax
write off that they wouldnt have gotten on any legitmate amount of
rent.

the extra money each month then would have been 'invested' for them...

So thats the WISE member motive.


What would be the CSI motive? Well, they would have a home they say
was renting at say 3x the normal amount or better yet business
property ...then they can use that figure to support a high valuation
and since they 'own' the property... they can take a mortgage out on
the property for the inflated amount..... and run with the money.....
as long as they keep sucking in more people to put thier homes in the
name of CSI or one of the other front groups.

This keeps working like any ponsi scheme as long as you have new blood
coming into the loop, so that deal can keep paying the interest.

The shit hits the fan when you can no longer recruit enough people
(such as with slatkin in prison and his network collapsed and some on
the way to prison themselves).

So then you are left with all this realestate mortagaged 500% beyond
its actual value, with cult members who can no longer pay the bogus
rents... there is then no money left to pay the banks.... and the
entire mess collapses.

I think there will be hundres of Scn high rollers, including Travolta
and Cruise etc with property in the name of the CSI who will loose the
property or have to pay the bank 5x what its worth to keep the mess
swept under the rug.

Many WISE members will not have that kind of money.... so these will
go into default, and the banks, unless CSI digs into its fast
dissapearing reserves to pay off the bogus loan, will see the scam and
at that point the entire house of cards will come down.


From what Ive seen of recent events I cannot be sure this is correct
...but being a wagering man, and give Gold base drying up and many
other signs, such as the tarped over recruiting center in
Hollywood....and many past reports of members putting their property
in the name of the CSI .... id bet a cup of coffee against 500 dollars
that this or some version of this, is what is going on.

and the Slatkin investigation would have exposed more than a little of
it....if it were huge, the US govt would be helping to keep it quite
to prevent a run on the banks involved...and judging my the scope of
the scn realestate ventures world wide....there would be hundreds of
banks.


The entire tactic also fits CoS past practices with the credit card
scams and Reed Slatkin.


*****
Note to existing scn's and WISE members:
If your house or especially commercial property is in CSI's name or
some other scn front group, you would be well advised to check into
CSI's
mortgage position on the property.. and plan accordingly.

If you have been paying CSI bogusly large rent checks to gain tax
advantages that could get nasty with the IRS as well...thats felony
fraud over $1,000 or so.... Reed Slatkin would end up with a lot of
company.


Please notice that I have been warning WISE and OSA people about this
in public on this NG for over 10 years... then Slatkin happened... and
now the CoS reno's are stopping mid cycle....and dang.... some of the
boys with the money in top management have become scarce.


Pleas will be made...'You need to make one HUGE payment now, we are
under heavy attack, we all must pull together ...etc".... do
yourself a favor, go see an attorney now...and not a cult of
scientology attorney either.






Phil Scott
(415) 927 7573
wbarwell
2004-07-28 00:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spacetraveler
*********************************************************
Have you ever looked at the IRS findings why they stripped
CoS of tax exempt status? The old bozo was filling his pockets.
Before he died, he went ape and really ripped the orgs off.
The orgs were told for years Hubbard had let them use his works
without payment and now he was collecting. A lie,
but he drained CoS of $100 millions or more in his last days.
Wanna know how, talk to Warrior, who was a CoS finance guy who
was told to set things up so Hubbard could drain the org he was at
of $$$$$.
They were shipping vast sums to banks in Luxembourg and elsewhere.
Who set up these new courses and who set the prices sky high?
You were already totally off with you 1976 pricing, who would believe
your claims now?
I have the flag official ED that has the official price list of old and new
bridges for comparison purposes.

This was in teh Hard Sell Pack. Why? To sell processing.
"See its really much cheaper than the old bridge! Such a deal!
It used to cost up to $163,000 to get to OT VII, Now it can be done for
$118, 658! nad thanks to inflation (look at this chart), the dollar now in
1983 is worth 845 of that in 1975, its cheaper to go to OT VII now than
ever before, if you prepay!"

This is what this set of comparison price lists are for.
Sales tool.
That is why its in the hard sell pack.

Geddit?
Post by Spacetraveler
Forged Hubbard's signature too.
Took control of all the copyrights, and set up RTC to
handle the legal details, make sure copyrights were up
to date and gave himself healthy bonuses for sales
of Hubbard's crap through his connections with RTC and ASI.
Interesting. Earlier you spoke about that L. Ron Hubbard was fully in
control during the years he was 'missing' (1980-86). And now you claim
that Miscavige had to forge his signature. Why would he have to do
that if in fact he was in full control?
Sighhhhhhhhhh. You REFUSE to engage brain in thse little
'discussions', don't you?

Hubbard told the world he had resigned from running Scientology in 1966.
He died in 1986. Two decades, twenty years. Miscavige only did his worst
in the last tow years of Hubbard's existance, especialy in the last year,
as Hubbard lay dying from strokes, old age and mental deterioration.

For 18 long years, Hubbard ran Scientology with an iron hand, as anybody
who dealt with the old bastard up close and persoanl can tell you.

He did so while he floated on his stupid toy navy until he came ashore in
76. he planned that and ran Scientology when it came ashore, he set up GO
and plot and planned Snow White, and much much more.
David Miscavige wasn't even around much of this time, it was all Hubbard.

Hubbard made up the OT stuff, teh NOTs stuff, The NEDS stuff. He set up the
pricing, it was he who made up the 5% increase a month crap. It was he who
who "Make money! Make money! Make more Money!"
It as he who told david Mayo he had an "insatiable lust for money and
power".

Nobody told him to do these things, no sneaked them into Scientolog when
his back was turned.

He lied about everything.

And you bought the lies.
And you will battle from lie to lie bitterly refusing to think.

Making bad excuses every inch of the way.
Fine, be that way. Its not like you have much credibility.
Anybody can download A Piece of Blue Sky and bare Faced Messiah
and other books and find out what really happened.

And start chasing down HCOPLs and other materials that show Hubbard was
well in control long after he lied about having stepped down from
Scientology.

The Snow White documents from Hubbard are all over the net.
He was well in charge and pulling stings like the fat old "Fabian"
spider he was, skulking in his Dunedin, Florida hotel suite,
the center of his Scientology web.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.

Cheerful Charlie
Keith Henson
2004-07-25 14:50:14 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by David Harper
Post by Spacetraveler
And so because he said or wrote something like that in 1947, you
simply discard off anything else he has ever said or written?
No, but it does disclose "potentially" alterior motives. The fact
that CoS charges crazy rates per hour of auditing would support this
motive.
The fact that scientology *can* charge such high prices is evidence.
See below.

snip
Post by David Harper
Post by Spacetraveler
The only thing that counts is if in fact Scientology can be used and
get results in some way or another. Did you ever try? Did you
really? It can be as simple as applying his study technology.
Have you ever tried heroin? No? Why not? You think it's bad?? How
can you say it's bad if you've never tried it?
Drugs are the correct model for scientology and *all* cults. Put "sex
drugs cults" (without the quotes) in Google and take the first link to
see an article I wrote about it.

The short version is that our social reward circuits are activated by
intense attention and mediated by brain chemicals. Drugs and cults
are activating the same circuits and sex (reproduction--selection) is
the reason we evolved these circuits.

Of course scientology gets *subjective* results. You will find heroin
addicts saying exactly the same kind of good things (it works!) about
their drug of choice.
Post by David Harper
Not that scientology can do the damage to someone heroin can, but
there are other ways to find out things other than emperical evidence.
Actually, scientology *can* do as much damage to a person's life as
heroin. Talk to Lisa McPherson about it. Or go here for a long list:

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
Post by David Harper
Based on the foundations of scientology (the whole Xenu story), it's
not hard to know it's snake oil.
The Xenu story irritates scientology to a huge degree because a person
who knows about it is not likely to be "raw meat."

I think LRH did the Xenu story as "research" or a joke or maybe both
to see if he could get his scientology addicts to swallow utter
nonsense for more "auditine." Same reason he called scientology
course "a bridge" when there is no question he knew the joke about
selling rubes "a bridge."

Keith Henson
Spacetraveler
2004-07-26 09:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Henson
snip
Post by David Harper
Post by Spacetraveler
And so because he said or wrote something like that in 1947, you
simply discard off anything else he has ever said or written?
No, but it does disclose "potentially" alterior motives. The fact
that CoS charges crazy rates per hour of auditing would support this
motive.
The fact that scientology *can* charge such high prices is evidence.
See below.
*can*? http://www.ronsorg.nl/prices/prices.htm
Post by Keith Henson
snip
Post by David Harper
Post by Spacetraveler
The only thing that counts is if in fact Scientology can be used and
get results in some way or another. Did you ever try? Did you
really? It can be as simple as applying his study technology.
Have you ever tried heroin? No? Why not? You think it's bad?? How
can you say it's bad if you've never tried it?
Drugs are the correct model for scientology and *all* cults. Put "sex
drugs cults" (without the quotes) in Google and take the first link to
see an article I wrote about it.
The short version is that our social reward circuits are activated by
intense attention and mediated by brain chemicals. Drugs and cults
are activating the same circuits and sex (reproduction--selection) is
the reason we evolved these circuits.
Of course scientology gets *subjective* results. You will find heroin
addicts saying exactly the same kind of good things (it works!) about
their drug of choice.
Post by David Harper
Not that scientology can do the damage to someone heroin can, but
there are other ways to find out things other than emperical evidence.
Actually, scientology *can* do as much damage to a person's life as
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
All the above is descriptions of what people do.

People do what they do. Fact remains is that these are simple bits and
pieces of procedures and information. These all by themselves do not
harm. Comparing this with taking heroine is completely ludicrous.

People make it a cult. Not the 'applied philosophy'. People are
responsible for themselves.
Post by Keith Henson
Post by David Harper
Based on the foundations of scientology (the whole Xenu story), it's
not hard to know it's snake oil.
The Xenu story irritates scientology to a huge degree because a person
who knows about it is not likely to be "raw meat."
I think LRH did the Xenu story as "research" or a joke or maybe both
to see if he could get his scientology addicts to swallow utter
nonsense for more "auditine." Same reason he called scientology
course "a bridge" when there is no question he knew the joke about
selling rubes "a bridge."
That is personal opinion and is not true actually.

Nothing what it says in the book 'History of man'(nor Xenu for that
matter) necessarily has to be taken as a fact that actually happened.
It is a recollection of information as told by PCs in session. Many
Scientologists do not even believe this to be reality, they think them
being ideas.

Spacetraveler
Zinj
2004-07-26 18:06:25 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@hotmail.com says...

<snip>
Post by Spacetraveler
All the above is descriptions of what people do.
People do what they do. Fact remains is that these are simple bits and
pieces of procedures and information. These all by themselves do not
harm. Comparing this with taking heroine is completely ludicrous.
People make it a cult. Not the 'applied philosophy'. People are
responsible for themselves.
Applying the 'Applied Religious Philosophy' makes it a cult. Scientology
is how it is because it's exactly as it was designed by Hubbard to be.

Applying Scientology Philosophy as designed by Hubbard makes any
organization applying it anti-social, totalitarian, paranoid,
vindictive, greedy and unscrupulous.

Even the best intentions can't 'apply' Scientology® as designed by
Hubbard *without* those results. Admittedly there are some self-
proclaimed 'Scientologists' who make good faith efforts to remove the
'worst' aspects of this 'Religious Philosophy' in their own application
of it; but they are certainly outside the 'Church' of Scientology, and
even so, the evil of Hubbard's design is so pervasive that almost
complete bowlderization of 'The Tech', castration of the 'Philosophy's'
goals and complete abandonment of the totalitarian enforcement
mechanisms still can't totally remove the poison Hubbard deliberately
injected into every element.

If there is ever any real 'benign' Scientology, it will be Scientology
in name only, and about as related to Hubbardian Scientology as Disney's
'Pirates of the Carribean' is related to Blackbeard.

Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Spacetraveler
2004-07-27 08:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by iTal
<snip>
Post by Spacetraveler
All the above is descriptions of what people do.
People do what they do. Fact remains is that these are simple bits and
pieces of procedures and information. These all by themselves do not
harm. Comparing this with taking heroine is completely ludicrous.
People make it a cult. Not the 'applied philosophy'. People are
responsible for themselves.
Applying the 'Applied Religious Philosophy' makes it a cult. Scientology
is how it is because it's exactly as it was designed by Hubbard to be.
Disagree heavily. You mix that what people make of something and what
is actually found in the writings of the founder.

No one ever was able to push me around, and I never was anything like
a cultmember.

Sorry you have to do some research about what it actually says in
these writings, and what is meant by it.
Post by iTal
Applying Scientology Philosophy as designed by Hubbard makes any
organization applying it anti-social, totalitarian, paranoid,
vindictive, greedy and unscrupulous.
Even the best intentions can't 'apply' Scientology as designed by
Hubbard *without* those results. Admittedly there are some self-
proclaimed 'Scientologists' who make good faith efforts to remove the
'worst' aspects of this 'Religious Philosophy' in their own application
of it; but they are certainly outside the 'Church' of Scientology, and
even so, the evil of Hubbard's design is so pervasive that almost
complete bowlderization of 'The Tech', castration of the 'Philosophy's'
goals and complete abandonment of the totalitarian enforcement
mechanisms still can't totally remove the poison Hubbard deliberately
injected into every element.
If there is ever any real 'benign' Scientology, it will be Scientology
in name only, and about as related to Hubbardian Scientology as Disney's
'Pirates of the Carribean' is related to Blackbeard.
There are many policies which list your rights, and what you can do
when you are wronged by someone inthe organization. Unfortunately
very, very few bother or confront to locate them and actually enforce
them. It is that simple.

Spacetraveler
Dave Bird
2004-08-03 10:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Harper
Ok, I'm new here, but didn't Hubbard say the following in a speach in
speech
Post by David Harper
"If you really want to make millions, the fastest way is to start your
own religion".
Hubbard apparently came out with this quote on several occasions
(it is not original to him). He set out to write a patched together
psychotherapy which was high-priced given it was junk, but cheaper
than real medical psychotherapy. At first he looked to get no more
than his forty dollars per book -- expensive for a book then -- and
was surprised at the degree of his success. But he wasted that money,
and cottoned on to selling the sessions as well. When he fell out
with his financial backer Don Purcell, and seemed likely to lose
ownership of Dianetics, he substantially revised it and explicitly
added past lives under the new name Scientology. Later still, he
discussed the RELIGION ANGLE with HELEN O'BRIEN (try Google search
on these terms). His main aims were to become exempt from taxation
and to have a shield against being prosecuted for unlicensed practice
of medicine. Clearly, for Ron, it was just a money-making scam.
Post by David Harper
Based on statements like this (as well as some "facts" the theology
was based on), do most scientologist high up in the "management"
really believe the theology, or do they just see it as a way of making
money off new recruits?
I have changed my mind over the years. I think most of the current
leadership, certainly Miscaviggge himself, believe in the Tech and
are trying to carry out Ron's intentions... yet, paradoxically, feel
quite entitled to use Church money as their private piggy-bank too.
Post by David Harper
Hubbard's son has also stated quite a bit about his father... such as
his father used to beat his wife, had mistresses, did amphetamines and
coke, fed his children drugs, had violent rages, etc.
All of which is true and corroborated; not everything Nibs says
can be taken for gospel though.
Post by David Harper
Ignoring the incredulous "facts" that scientology holds true, I'm
still having trouble understanding how people fall into a theology
founded by this type of individual?
I often get queries about "how could people fall for the doctrine
knowing what nonsense it is (or what a complete buffoon its author was)
from an honest presentation." The answer is THEY DON'T. Virtually
everyone who has read objective outside information about the doctrine
or founder will run away giggling when approached for recruitment.
Only those ignorant of its real nature get recruited. They get
recruited after being fed a very partial and rose-tined picture
of both Ron and his doctrines, from one side only, and pretty much
outright lied to by withholding many important things they will be
told are true later when they are sufficiently softened up.

This is why Cof$ does not like the information getting out.
Post by David Harper
Is Tom Cruise really that naïve?
The situation of celebrities is a special one.

It is true that the celebrity lifestyle has many rewards in money
and adulation. Those who seek it are often vain and insecure people
who need it to salve their own weaknesses. It is intensely vulnerable
in that you can be on the top now, and on the rubbish-tip within six
months if your next film or album flops: even if that doesn't happen
it is likely to fall far short of a lifetime career, as some folk
are in the limelight for not much more than their twenties until
their peak strength or beauty fades, other bands are force-grown
too soon with too few ideas and unlikely to last past a 3rd album.
Also, while there are crowds of people who want to hang out with you
in public or get your autograph or get money or have trophy sex,
there are very few except family you can simply be yourself with.

So celebrities can be vulnerable if approached in the right way,
especially before they get to the top (or when they have passed their
peak) and are looking round for possibilities. They are then given
scientology in exchange for endorsements. Again, it will only work
if they donut first know the real facts of Scn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by David Harper
Post by Mike Goldstein IDENICS
I had the experience of knowing and working with him quite closely on
the Flagship, Apollo, between 1972 and 1975. Of the maybe 300 people
on board only a few had any real personal contact with the man. I had
the experience of not only working directly with him quite a bit, but
also having a personal relationship with the guy. Unlike others I
know who had bad experiences with the man, I only had good experiences
with him, and considered us very good friends. My view of Hubbard is
not as a god or devil, but just as a man - a very able man who did
some very good things but who also had his share of screwups.
If anyone is interested, I would be happy to relay any experiences I
had with Hubbard or answer any questions that I can from my own
knowledge of the guy.
I'd be very interested to hear about Hubbard directly. I've heard the
testimony of various people on the Apollo, rather less who were close
to Hubbard himself; Hannah Eltrincham is one that springs to mind.

What was the job that put you so close to Hubbard himself?
Post by David Harper
One of the experiences I was writing about was how LRH
supposedly studied with Snake Thompson, a personal student of Sigmuend
Freud. It was a story I had heard previously about Hubbard and saw a
little written somewhere. I wanted more details for my biography so I
asked Hubbard. He told me it was no big deal, that he was just a kid
traveling with his father or something and met Thompson, that was all.
I thought the whole thing was rather strange. Even though Hubbard was
honest with me, he apparently knew about the false rumors but had not
done much previously to quell them. Who knows, he may have even
started them.
This has been discussed and investigated on the newsgroup. Snake
Thompson pretty certainly did exist and have contact with Hubbard,
though it has the sound of one of his myths.




-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
< > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
'-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
\ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
LRonHubbard is shelled byGoats inHell.READ http://www.ronthewarhero.org
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...