If you have not read the article on Tony Ortega’s blog about Fair Game yesterday, I recommend you do so.
The author, Chris Owen, has been working for years compiling the facts and evidence about many aspects of the history of L. Ron Hubbard and scientology. Tony Ortega published another of his piece about scientology’s relations with governments a month or so ago that is also very well worth reading. You will find other articles from him on Tony’s site too.
Chris is performing an important function. Putting together the real and unvarnished history of Hubbard’s creation — sorting out the PR bs from the truth.
Many wonder why the so-called “LRH Biographer” has been on the scientology payroll for 20+ years and has produced nothing close to a biography. He never will. Because the minute you begin to research any area of Hubbard and scientology, you run straight into the lies that have created a fictionalized story of the life of the Founder and his movement. The more Dan Sherman tries to piece together the story, the more lies he uncovers. And of course, scientology will never publish anything less than veneration for LRH. Sherman and his team have spent years trying to come up with plausible information to explain the lies Hubbard told. They tried to prove Alexis was fathered by Miles Hollister (a glance at a photo of Alexis is all it takes to prove paternity) because Hubbard later claimed she was not his daughter even though he had dedicated Science of Survival to her when he first wrote it. They spent huge amounts of money unsuccessfully trying to find the Japanese Submarine Hubbard claimed to have sunk off the coast of Oregon. They tried to prove he was not bigamously married to Sara. That his Caribbean Motion Picture expedition was a roaring success. That his naval records didn’t say what they said. etc etc etc Sisyphus had it made in the shade in comparison. task.
So, nobody in scientology is ever going to tell the story. Chris Owen has been doing a yeoman’s job of this gargantuan task without the support of an organization or a staff of helpers or a financial backer.
I don’t commonly mention crowd funding sites, as there are a lot of them out there for very good causes, and as soon as one is mentioned others feel theirs should also be promoted on this blog. Pretty soon there would be no space left for the blog itself.
But this is an exception. Chris’ work is important and historic. He has proven himself many times over as a thorough, sober and intelligent researcher and source of information. I encourage you to visit his GoFundMe page for his book about scientology conflicts.
Here is how he describes his efforts on this page:
Since the early 1950s, the Church of Scientology has been waging a relentless war against those it considers enemies – critics, journalists, government agencies, ex-members and especially psychiatrists. It has created a worldwide intelligence apparatus and propaganda machine, notorious for its “always attack, never defend” policy. Along the way, it carried out the largest domestic espionage campaign in US history (Operation Snow White). Scientology has nonetheless managed to survive decades of scandals, exposés, lawsuits, raids and defections.
I’m writing a book which takes an inside look at Scientology’s campaigns against its foes, reveals the secrets of its intelligence operations and tells the story of how it has managed to weather its opposition. I’ve carried out research on three continents so far, reviewing thousands of documents. The book will tell many previously unreported stories from Scientology’s secret history and help to explain why the organisation has been so resilient in the face of opposition. It’ll also explain the ideology behind its activities and assess whether it is as big a threat to society as many have alleged. It’ll shed a new and at times startling light on Scientology’s often contentious history.
Over the past year, some of the research that will appear in the book has appeared on Tony Ortega’s blog, The Underground Bunker, and I’ve previously documented some of Scientology’s intelligence activities at Scientology’s Secret Service . My research on Scientology has featured in other authors’ books and I contributed to both the book and film versions of Lawrence Wright’s “Going Clear”.
The book is at an advanced stage of writing. My intention is to have it published some time in 2020. However, the research isn’t cheap, and support would be very much appreciated to help with this project. Donations will be used to support travel to a number of key archives and the cost of making physical and electronic copies of documents.
So, please do what you can to support him in any way possible.
I agree this is important work. I just donated to Chris’s go fund me. Thanks for the heads up.
It’s a great piece, that documents Hubbard’s own conspiring, arising out of his paranoid conspiracy theorizing about dark forces he imagined arrayed against him and Scientology. It also shows how that resulted in “pulling in” conflict while Hubbard was at sea, in ports and attempting to meddle in various countries: “Instead, trouble followed the Sea Org due to Scientology’s secretive and sometimes bizarre behavior. ” Just the other day, I noticed that one of Hubbard’s “Affirmations” of the late 1940s shows that he had been aware of his own paranoid tendencies: “No one there is now ‘out to get you.'”
I had been writing about Fair Game as part of the trajectory that started with Hubbard, and ended up with Scientology as we know it now under Miscavige. I see it as beginning with his “Affirmations” such as and “Material things are yours for the asking. Men are your slaves.”, running through various policies that expose Hubbard’s underlying ruthless and inhumane tendencies while he posed as “mankind’s best friend,” and ending up with the more obvious abuse and totalitarianism of the Miscavige regime.
Along with Fair Game, here are a number of pieces of policy, not in date order, but most of them from the first two decades of Scientology, that I think expose Hubbard’s real intent and agenda, and show why Scientology has developed into what is has under Miscavige:
To “tear up” meetings of defectors
To designate as “Kha Khan” and able to “get away with murder,” major producers in Scientology
To put “heads on a pike” and unjustly sacrifice people, when it suits the organization to make an example
“Responsibilities of Leaders” (“Bolivar”), an exhortation to rule with fascist ruthlessness
The admiring account of the Venezuelan dictator who supposedly solved the problem of leprosy, by just killing all the beggars in the country
The handwritten “I have a policy–I will beat their teeth in personally” note
And, of course, “no rights of any kind” and “dispose of them quietly and without sorrow”
Does anyone have any other major points to add?
Peacemaker,
I am not sure if it fits in with your trajectory, but I was struck by the fact (found in the same article from Mr. Augustine’s blog) that he had designated himself and his ‘followers’ in a separate ‘higher’ class than homo-sapiens. This creation of a ‘master race’ above the “wogs’ and far superior, struck me as the epitome of narcissism and self aggrandizement. This is also assuming that ‘wogs’ were “sub-human’ and targeted for ‘deletion’ under his policies, just like the beggars in Venezuela. That was the basis for my little run-around earlier in comparing scientology to the Nazi regime. It speaks to the evil that this man was. It is also one of the first things that struck me when I first started looking into the cult- the separatist and elitism that Hubbard sold to people and that Miscavige has taken to new levels with his obsessive ‘ideal org’ push and awards ceremonies. The Nazi party sold the same concepts to the people of Germany by convincing them that all of the problems they faced (depression, social ills etc) were the fault of a ‘sub human’ group, and that they (and they alone) could make things perfect. the parallels are numerous, as is the building of giant, ornate buildings to celebrate their successes….
Kat
Kat, thanks for pointing that out. Hubbard’s “homo novis” (latin for “new man”) is certainly an important construct related to those points, though there’s not a policy I can think of where the sinister implications of it are as clear as the sort of examples I’m trying to lay out here – though if anyone can suggest one, I’d love to add it.
As you may have seen me note before, it’s a direct corollary to Soviet communism’s “new Soviet man” and Maoism’s “new socialist man,” just one of the ways in which Scientology is like the totalitarian ideologies and states that Hubbard liked to profess to hate; it’s also closely related to Nietzsche’s Übermensch, probably with a direct connection through Hubbard’s claimed “very good friend” Aleister Crowley, who had ties with German occult lodges including the Thule Society that spawned the Nazi party (a historical truth so bizarre it could hardly be made up, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society ).
If you haven’t read it already, Jeffrey Augustine wrote a piece about the concept and its implications, as well as the relation to “fair game” and “dispose of them quietly and without sorrow” (cited in my OP):
The Horrifying Real Secret of Scientology is Genocide
https://scientologymoneyproject.com/2015/02/02/the-horriying-real-secret-of-scientology-is-genocide/
Peacemaker,
The correlation between Hitlers occult obsession and Hubbard’s connection with Parsons and Crowley is just another example of how sinister this can get. The cult is (IMO) a strange juxtaposition between the people’s temple and nazism, with a liberal helping of Nietzche and others – maybe some Sun Tzu thrown in for good measure. As I feel very strongly that Hubbard never had an original thought outside of his space opera crap, I suspect you could find a direct source for every one of his affirmations and quotes.
IMO there are likely actual writings from Hubbard in later years laying out how to dispose of the “wogs”, but were probably destroyed or secreted away by his inner circle when it was obvious that he was insane.
The more paranoid he became the more likely he was to actually outline how to dispose of people. As he obsessively wrote everything down, these writings are highly likely to exist. Whether they were destroyed or have been locked away is a mystery that may not be know until the whole house of cards tumbled down. I doubt he could have stopped himself from writing explicit directions on how to carry out the genicide he obviously wanted.
I’m sorry I can’t add any new info to your quest, but I will keep my eyes open as I wander around gathering info!
Hubtard was a bully and a criminal. And, people who have read all of this documentation and STILL push his “religion” are likewise criminals.
You may be right. I, for one, don’t think Hubbard should ever be white washed, nor defended. Some ex-members may have fond memories of him, but he was what he was. Whatever “humanity” or lucid moments he MAY have had, does NOT change the fact that he was an overall, destructive cult leader, who harmed many people in his wake.
I like Miscavige’s nickname I read on here called The Rodent. That fits him to a T. I also think there are some desperate OSA people lurking and shadowing this blog and the comments trying to tamp down some of the nastier things people are writing and saying about him. To which I say more power to ya! That is if mr Rinder will green light their comments. It must be humiliating and embarrassing for DM to hear about all of this and also I’m guessing probably reading it too. He’s one nasty mean little runt isn’t he! I’ll bet mr Rinder knows all kinds of things that have been public disclosed. Yet! Maybe we’ll some of that in this new book. And also I have to say I am curious about mr. Miscavige’s sex
Life. Psychopaths have no boundaries so it would surprise me to learn that he has engaged in a wide spectrum of sexual abuse and assault involving all age groups and both males and females.
Next to a violent psychopath such as David Miscavige, I suppose Hubbard could be considered Little Lord Fontleroy, but Hubbard was a true malignant narcissist, a pathological liar and his paranoia reached DANGEROUS proportions. The majority of the defectors state that Scientology degenerated after Mascavige took over. As an outsider, I am convinced that the blame MUST start with Hubbard. He was the Victor Frankenstein that created the MONSTER that is Scientology. He may not be up there with Mascavige, but he was a BAD person. He was just slicker at disguising it.
As far as people posting (here or anywhere else) using multiple “socks” (short for “Internet sockets”, aka IDs or aliases, etc.), I’d like to say that IMO, in most cases, it is not usually difficult to identify one individual who uses multiple aliases because the style and the nature of the writing is often fairly easy to identify. However, if someone tries to disguise the fact they use multiples and they use some modern tools (like VPNs) to disguise the fact, it can become very difficult for the owner of the web site to be certain two different aliases are actually the same individual. Likewise, it becomes very difficult for anyone to hide the fact they are using multiple aliases.
Bottom line? It’s just my opinion, but this struggle can get very intense. However, it’s hardly ever worth the effort – both by the poster as well as the owner of the web site. On both sides, it’s a whole lot of effort with a very little payoff. Ultimately, there is just very little reason to invest so much time and energy on both sides of this issue (the poster as well as the owner of the web site). In this particular case, it seems to me this person uses multiple aliases just to add some humor or sarcasm to the nature of their posts.
There is a great deal more that can be said about this issue. But it seems to me the most important thing is that if Mike does not object, then I think the issue is pretty well decided.
Wow, that’s a whole ton o words O.o fake id’s online have been a thing for over a decade. Until the governments of the world issue people 1 email address and require REAL ID’s to make an online account for anything, it’s gonna happen.
All that stuff you listed falls under “things I cannot change” in the Serenity Prayer. Now just sort out the “wisdom to know the difference” part.
good post!
Would you be willing to say anything about Chris’s investigation and compilations as compared to Jon Atack’s “Piece of Blue Sky” works?
Not sure what you are looking for? Both have done truly excellent work.
Your description of Chris and his (heroic) works and endeavors pretty much encapsulates my general understanding of Atack’s contributions. I’m looking forward to delving into Chris’s output, and since you are familiar with both, I was interested in your insight as to how they might compliment each other’s works or contrast. I suspect Gordon’s comment below opines a simple and correct view….
(paraphrasing)
“Its a vast swamp with endless shit-show fodder”
Hubbard has such a crazy history with so many layers between the stories that he has told and the reality which is often far more entertaining and bizzare. Atack put together a superb book that is so well sourced. His attention to details and due diligence he performed is truly remarkable. It stands on it’s own years later.
Is it the complete history? Not by a long shot. There is plenty of room for several books and I look forward to Chris Owen’s book. His work on the bunker is evidence that his book will undoubtedly also stand on it’s own and provide a different unique perspective with similar incredible standards of quality and due diligence
To whom that shall not be named, how CAN you follow the teachings of a madman/degraded being such as LRH? Ugh. Even thinking of the eternal shirker makes me puke in the back of my throat bruh.
I love this story and the idea of a new updated biography of Hubbard. I know that it will have zero impact on the cult, as everyone still in is brainwashed to such a degree that they do not want to see the truth at all. However, the more people who understand the lies that wove through EVERY aspect of Hubbard’s existence, the less chance of anyone new falling into its grasp. It might also wake up some straddlers who think it’s all Miscavige but Hubbard is still “source” and is pure as the new fallen snow.
This man made a life of creating lies and spreading venom. He tortured his wives and children, he was homophobic and misogynistic, he was a horrid human being. I love that the church spent so much time, money and effort attempting to find Hubbard’s “sunken submarines”. That story still cracks me up. It reminds me of the little kid who is convinced there’s a dragon in the room (in case you aren’t familiar, the reality is that his brother farted and he hears the noise and smells the stink) .. no matter what you tell him or show him, no explaination will work because he KNOWS that there’s a dragon in the room! Japanese subs- LOL- What a moron
Kat:, a new up-to-date, honest biography of LRH is only for us who are outside of scientology’s influence. I’m not sure that Chris can do a better job than Jon already has, though I’ve enjoyed some of the essays he’s published. I wish him well and would prefer I could contribute to his quest instead of being a retiree on a fixed income. Being retired is a GREAT thing; every day’s Saturday: Nothing I HAVE to do, my activities follow the merest whims that occur to me. Even better would be doing it with the gorgeous girl who I fooled into marrying me 20b years ago,both of us in our micro-yacht &Xanadu, wandering aimlessly in the Caribbean or perhaps along one of the Intracoastal Waterways as the mood strikes us. “Living well is the best revenge — George Herbert, 17th century poet. (Smart guy.)
Jere,
I am jealous!! Its miserable and rainy here, and just picturing a Caribbean sunset almost makes me hate you (j/k).
Live well my friend!!!
Kat
Yes, it must really rile you that 1 Scientology rudiments session does more for a person than a whole lifetime of psychological “help”. As for misogyny this a new ad hominem attack! Can you elaborate on this or is it another one of your imaginary items you throw in to the general pot of sprayed bile to stir up sensitive souls like Agnes Black and her ilk?
I will ask Mike to embed an MP3 of “Just my imagination once again, running away with me” by every comment of yours so people can get the right ambience, ethos and flavor of your incisive remarks.
Fool sez:
“As for misogyny this a new ad hominem attack! Can you elaborate on this…
It’s not my place to answer for Kat, but since she is a ‘never-in’ she probably hasn’t read DMSMH, the impeccably researched basis for our favorite cult and its ensuing ‘technology’. DMSMH clearly (pun intended) reveals Hubbard’s misogyny, there is no ad hominem attack here at all. His fixation on women wielding knitting needles to abort unwanted children and all sorts of ‘engramic’ commands these evil pregnant mothers utter is undisputed evidence of your Founder’s distain for women. This distain culminated in his throwing his third wife (he didn’t have a second wife or a daughter Alexis who he dedicated his second book to), Mary Sue, under the bus so he wouldn’t have to do jail time for Operation Snow White. Or are these facts “just my imagination”?
Now, 3-2-1, here comes some deflection, misdirection and obfuscation to avoid a direct and honest reply.
The only deflecting is your hyperbolic nonsense. So women have never used knitting needles on their unborn fetuses and never uttered engramic commands whilst doing so? If you can read disdain (or even distain) for women in general into that you must exaggerate just about everything you do! So taking your daft exaggeration further would LRH be “misogynist” if he stated “some women are criminals”? And by the same “logic” then are women who have difficult divorces now all men-haters? So if you think that is deflection God help you!
Sometimes the question has been mooted that Scientology has only men in high exec positions or even on staff until someone truthful pipes up and says it is nonsense. And then it all goes quiet with this theme and something else is then tried to denigrate.
FP, it’s one of your ridiculous jumps of fallacy and illogic, to go from an unfortunate (though relatively rare, especially nowadays) reality like knitting needle abortions, to a hypothetical such as the bizarre theory about “engramic commands” affecting fetuses that survive home abortion attempts – though it’s a particular rhetorical trick of Hubbard’s. There isn’t a shred of real evidence for that theory, though I’m sure there are anecdotes from the sort of regression sessions that have been proven to mostly generate false memories*.
I provided a substantial number of Hubbard’s most blatantly misogynistic quotes in another comment. Yes, it’s true that women ended up in high positions in the last decade or two of Hubbard’s reign. So perhaps you can explain the contradiction for us. Did Hubbard’s view change with the times, without his clearly acknowledging that his earlier writings were wrong? And what else then do you think he ultimately came to different conclusions about, than his early work sets out?
By the way, the website with the great graphic chart of logical fallacies, now has a similar one for cognitive biases. “Foolproof,” you might want to study up:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
https://yourbias.is/
* For instance, here’s a piece with an appropriate title:
Implanting False Memories
How reliable are memories of abuse “recovered” during psychotherapy?
“If I’ve learned anything from 40 years of working on these issues, just because a subject tells you that they have a detailed memory that’s very vivid, that doesn’t mean that it’s true.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/media-spotlight/201211/implanting-false-memories
I’ve previously provided links to multiple examples of the specific research supporting that conclusion, on previous occasions. Even quite a few of the parapsycholgical researchers and dabblers before Hubbard, and prior to the infamous Bridey Murphy case of the 1950s, has come to recognize that the phenomena were at best unreliable, if not entirely spurious.
Hubbard said the solution to several people claiming to have been a famous personality of the past is that they weren’t that person but just took on his or her identity. For example, someone claiming to have been Julius Caesar might have just been his servant. Likewise, someone claiming to have been the Batman might have just been Robin, his sidekick. Great mysteries, these things.
Richard,
Since Hubbard was the REAL Caesar, Batman, Spongebob, and every other famous person, then it MUST be true since he would know!
Richard, that’s some of the weakest of Hubbard’s pablum. He must have pulled that out, on a day he was under the weather from his alcohol and drug abuse.
The scientific research into false memories still shows those are spurious. And still, no one can actually remember specific details like verifiable dates, languages they spoke, etc.
My understanding is that on OT 8, Hubbard attributes a lot of past lives to BTs, meaning the individual didn’t actually live them – and has wasted time in Scientology supposedly recalling them. That’s essentially concession that past lives are mostly, if not entirely, a spurious phenomenon, essentially what the scientific research shows.
If there’s anything going on at all, it’s probably a phenomenon of collective or species memory, like the Akashic Record – which is a better theoretical model that explains how multiple people could access memories of the same past life, and is at least interesting. Hubbard would almost certainly have known of it, but was much too egotistic and self-centered to consider any notion of common, collective humanity
Ms. B Haven,
I read Dianetics in college- I wasn’t impressed (no offense to those of you who enjoyed it), and I reread it prior to starting to post, just to refresh my memory of it. It was worse this time. I actually cringed in multiple places. I get how some would have looked at it as an enticing theory, especially at the time it was written, but I kept getting stuck on the inconstancies and fallacies in the book.
Kat
What are these “inconsistencies” and fallacies then? Or did you really mean “inconstancies”? But let’s hear them then, or was this just another clever way of avoiding the issue by issuing a blanket statement? Probably eh!
Fool,
You are so blinded to reality that it truly is pointless to point out any inconsistency or outright lie that Hubbard said or wrote. You wouldn’t acknowledge it even if it bit you in the ass. If you could admit to even one thing that you can acknowledge that Hubbard was wrong about in the policies and writings that you slavishly salivate over, I might attempt to debate you.
However, you cannot even admit that Hubbard’s view of women was extremely misogynistic and insulting to all women and that his treatment of his families (and the proof of his bigamous marriage) was horrible, then what is the point? These two areas have been researched and have been shown to be true- Hubbard’s OWN writings show you that they are true.
Yet you are unable to even admit that there might have been areas that Hubbard failed in. What is the point of arguing anything when you have such a bias that you can’t admit when the truth is displayed in front of you in your fearless leaders own words? Do you not see what you have become? You have surrendered your free will and ability to form an independent opinion. To a cult.
So my statement was correct then – your statement was just a blanket accusation and now you are waffling away from answering my question again by answering with generalities and your opinion. Or do you now want to give us a few of these “inconsistencies” and “fallacies” that you er, ahem, found (by not even reading the book)? And I see fallacy has now been added to with “outright lies”. And which “policies” were wrong (in your opinion) then?
Anybody with any intelligence reading all this knows that your comments are mostly full of hot air and generalized invalidation based on some sort of agenda that you obviously have.
Fool- admit that Hubbard was misogynistic and I will discuss anything you wish to discuss. If you cannot do that we have nothing to say since it proves that you cannot see any other view but your own and are completely uninterested in my points. and that would just be a waste of time, like arguing with a wall (which seems to be have the same emotional intelligence as you do)
FP, you haven’t addressed any of the inconsistencies and fallacies that I’ve most recently brought up in discussion, so Kat has some reason to be suspicious. But but to be fair, I think she should provide a least a couple of specifics, if only in bullet-point form – and I’d also like to see her do so, because I’m interested to know what she particularly noted from her perspective.
Unless you’ve gotten around to responding to me and I haven’t yet seen it, let me re-frame one of the issues I think you’ve dodged – using bullet points.
So as I’ve cited, Hubbard in a number of instances early on wrote that women having roles or positions equal to men, was wrong and a sign of the deterioration of structures in society, which is sexist and also meets the definition of misogyny as “ingrained prejudice against women” (OED). You’ve claimed that women taking executive and staff roles in Scientology, shows that Hubbard wasn’t misogynistic. It seems to me that there are only two things that can logically be concluded from those pieces of evidence:
* That Hubbard’s perspective changed, without his acknowledging that he had been wrong in earlier works, or
* That the rise of women in Scientology management, that largely took place after Hubbard ceded day-to-day control, was in contravention to his teachings, and part of what ideological loyalists (like yourself, FP) consider to be the departure from orthodoxy and deterioration of the CofS under the regime that took over
Which is your explanation?
** And here’s the related bonus question: Under Hubbard’s theory that “thetan” spirits “pick up” new bodies with the knowledge and experience of past lives available to them, why should it make any significant difference whether a thetan is incarnated as male or female, as he says in those writings about the roles of men and women?
Peacemaker,
I have no issue with pointing out the craziness in Dianetics, although I know that some still have strong ties to the book that started it all.
I will state for the record that I completely disagee with his assertion that actual medical issues are linked to emotionally distressing “memories” or emotional traumas that occurred in the last- that is THE most dangerous fallacy of the entire thing.
First, I thought the entire book was complete dreck- I try to be polite by saying I didn’t care for it, but the thing is nearly unreadable from first sentence to last.
The claims that Hubbard makes throughout are just moronic- and dangerous. Trying to treat an actual illness through “auditing” is a completely irresponsible and truly crazy thing to claim. I have a particular hatred for this premise after what happened to my husband. Anyone who has a brain in their skull should know that mental illness and physical illnesses may have some linkage, and that psychosomatic illnesses exist, but to claim to cure organic illnesses is abhorrent.
The Engram situation- first, he took the idea from others then stole the term, he also gives different definitions in the same book- couldn’t he keep it straight?
He claims that everything is scientific but never gives actual data- just stating something is scientifically sound doesn’t make it so. Scientific research is backed up with data that can be recreated independently- he gives absolutely nothing- no facts, numbers, double blinds, zero, zip, nada- yet couches it in a scientific tone that belies the utter crazy. This in and of itself makes his claims fallacies.
I also can’t get past his co-opting different schools of thought and relabeling it. While reading it, my mind was labeling- Descartes….Freud….Jung….Freud again, oh my- Darwin…Gaulton…wait- there’s Maslow and Kierkegaard…Titchener .etc- he even threw in Wundt to a degree. Did this man ever have an original thought?
Claiming to have the answer to infinity/past lives and how the trauma affects present- whaaat?
Claiming that “bad” memories are planted in the womb- this one is particularly bizarre
Claiming that “clear” is an actual state without any scientific proof (or even any evidence at all)
Claiming that self auditing is dangerous- ??? Under what theory is self reflection and meditation dangerous
Claiming that your IQ will increase, you will have perfect recall, you can be free of allergies, arthritis, bursitis etc – sorry- had to repeat this one just for emphasis
I hated the whole thing and it was torture to read. (I swear I almost broke out in intellectual hives) I will go to the library so that I can give you specific examples of the areas where he actually contradicts himself and give you more inconsistencies.
You-I will gladly answer- fool, not so much. I am reluctant to even re-read the damn thing for the passages you want. I will not have the retched thing in my home, so my quotes will likely be off.
I broke down and ordered a used copy on amazon so that I can have it handy- to battle fool if nothing else. Ive also been cataloguing the schools of thought he stole the ideas from. I may have to leave it outside on the back porch.
Kat
FP, that’s probably your most foolish claim to date, about “ruds” and psychology. Is being confronted here with all the evidence that Scientology doesn’t work, stirring up cognitive dissonance, and getting you rattled?
If your claim were anywhere near true, there would be evidence for it – and if nothing else, people would be flocking to Scientology due to at least word of mouth, and seeing undeniably impressive “wins” and “gains” in scientologists they knew. Instead, we have the real world reality-check that Scientology is shrinking and failing, on top of about half a dozen research studies including a couple Scientology themselves did and tried to cover up (HDRF 1950-1, and FASE early 1980s) showing that Dianetics and Scientology don’t work, and that Hubbard’s premises and theories were false.
If you’re a typical indie, you’re part of some little circle that isn’t really succeeding in attracting and keeping any significant number of new people, and is at risk of dying out when your generation passes on. Despite all the self-reinforcing anecdotes about “wins,” and the grand theories about the “tech”, the world around you reflects the reality that there’s no “there” there, and that’s got to leave you clutching at straws to sustain your belief. Speaking of psychology, it’s a well-known mechanism that believers try to quell their own doubts, by turning instead to arguing their faith with outsiders* – I think that’s one of the things that you illustrate and expose in your presence here.
Now as for issue of misogyny, I have to admit, apart from the obvious evidence of it in everything from Hubbard Affirmations to Dianetics and other early writings, and the way Hubbard treated his first two wives and families, it’s not as evident in his later works and life. So maybe his attitudes changed with the times – but then how does that fit with the belief that he was channeling timeless truths? And if he were intellectually honest, and truly scientific in his approach, he should have acknowledged that some of his earlier writings and pronouncements on the subject were wrong or could be taken the wrong way – so what else was he wrong about, regarding which he failed to correct the record?
(first passages below from the original 1965 edition of A New Slant on Life, others as cited)
“A society in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation is a society which is on its way out.”
“The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs, since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women. This is not a sermon on the role or position of women; it is a statement of bald and basic fact.”
“If man is to rise to greater heights, then women must rise with him or even before him. But she must rise as woman and not as, today, she is being misled into rising – as a man. It is the hideous joke of frustrated, unvirile men to make women over into the travesty of men, which men themselves have become.”
Science of Survival, L. Ron Hubbard, pg 78
“The whole future of the race depends upon its attitude toward children; and a race which
specializes in women for “menial purposes,” or which believes that the contest of the sexes in the spheres of business and politics is a worthier endeavor than the creation of tomorrow’s
generation, is a race which is dying. We have, in the woman who is an ambitious rival of the
man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission she may
have. A society which looks down upon this mission, and in which women are taught
anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future
generation, is a society which is on its way out. The historian can peg the point where a
society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women.”
Science of Survival, L. Ron Hubbard, pg 148
“Training women extensively in political economy, symbology, or the care and cleaning of rifles is not conducive to a forthcoming sane generation.”
* Leon Feistinger, in particular, explained how proselytizing for a cause or creed reinforces true belief.
“Rather than abandoning their discredited beliefs, group members adhered to them even more strongly and began proselytizing with fervor.
….
Festinger also later described the increased conviction and proselytizing by cult members after disconfirmation as a specific instantiation of cognitive dissonance (i.e., increased proselytizing reduced dissonance by producing the knowledge that others also accepted their beliefs) and its application to understanding complex, mass phenomena.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger#When_Prophecy_Fails
Haha! Mountains of useless data later – all this effort. So if it “doesn’t work” – what are you worried about then and spending such time and effort to try and convince others that it doesn’t?
Fool,
Peacemaker gave you multiple examples of Hubbard’s misogyny from Hubbard’s own writings. You cannot even acknowledge gracefully that he was, in fact, a misogynist. Why is this? Because if you acknowledge that your great pillar of knowledge was less than perfect, you will then have to confront other truths that would be uncomfortable for you. This is your response for any argument that anyone makes. Your ‘leader’ was a flawed man who was not the source of anything. you simply cannot accept that he was simply a man with a very, very poor understanding of reality. He was a failure in everything he attempted, even his home-made ‘religion’. The only way that it ever worked was through subterfuge and deception- the oldest bait and switch game ever invented.
The sad reality is that now that everyone can research his writings (thank you internet), there is ample proof of his failings as a human being and as a man. In this time in history, his prolific writing becomes a liability that will help sink this misbegotten cult in reality (not like the imaginary submarine he claimed to have sunk which got him relieved of command in the Navy).
At least have the strength of character to acknowledge he was a misogynist! I could add other examples to Peacemakers list, but the point was made very well and needs no more.
This is about as divorced from reality as one could possibly conjure up.
Please explain how this is divorced from reality. Is it because you don’t like it? Hubbard himself wrote these things. You can’t say on one side that he was this great, infallible being who was the only being on earth with the truth- while on the other side saying he never was the things his own writings expose him of being.
Which women that Hubbard worked with have complained about his so-called and re-defined “misogyny?
Well as was honestly mentioned by that lady who worked directly with Hubbard only recently (before you jumped on the bandwagon here) there were lots of sniveling and snide comments about Hubbard working with young girls until the lady stated that there was never any thing in Hubbard’s behavior that warranted such, in fact the complete opposite. And so the snide comments all went quiet. Is Scientology a male-only domain then?
If you want to carry on trying to bend the definition of misogyny into what Hubbard states above then you do realize that most people here will see you for what you are – just an ardent critic with some sort of personal agenda.
I think you had better grab a dictionary and look up what misogyny means rather than trying to re-define it to suit your agenda for the folks on here. Same for Peacemaker.
FP, before we get to definitions, I want to point out that the issue highlights that Hubbard’s expressed sexism which you’re apparently claiming isn’t misogyny, still leads to a fundamental contradiction: you’re claiming that Hubbard’s bias is disproven because in later years in Scientology it wasn’t “only men in high exec positions or even on staff,” and yet Hubbard’s earlier writings clearly say that women shouldn’t be in such roles, such as:
“The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women.”
“A society in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation is a society which is on its way out.”
Now, here’s the entry from the authoritative dictionary of the English language:
“misogyny
NOUN
mass noun
Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
‘she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny’”
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/misogyny
The Hubbard pronouncements above, certainly meet the definition of prejudice against women, and misogyny as generally understood.*
I know that traditional religious fanatics argue something along the lines of “we love women equally – in the kitchen, where they really belong,” in language similar to Hubbard’s writings. You could argue similarly that Hubbard somehow isn’t really being misogynistic, but that is a narrowed definition – and then you’re putting yourself in the same boat, as the dogmatic adherents of the sort of traditional religion that Hubbard denigrated, and that Scientology is supposed to transcend. Hubbard’s statement certainly constitutes misogyny as commonly used nowadays, other than by fanatics and apologists.
The other, even more fundamental, inconsistency, is that Hubbard’s misogynistic, and at least unarguably sexist, statements actually contradict his professed theories about mind and spirit – if thetans just take on new bodies, then why does it matter which sex they’re in, other than minor differences in physical abilities? Can you explain why a thetan who was, theoretically, a general or business titan in a previous life in a male body, is somehow then then confined to traditional societal roles (the sort of constructs Hubbard generally denigrated) if they “pick up” a female body in another life?
* “Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny manifests in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, disenfranchisement of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
Noun: Hatred, contempt or dislike for women
What part of the definition are you struggling with?
Actually there is more kindness expressed to women – and children- by Hubbard than your flaming desires to hurl women into the workaday world usually as a checkout operator at Walmart. But then psychologists and communists want to break up the family unit (it’s good for “business”), force children into kindergartens all day and forego the much better and wonderful personal care that mothers give to children.
FP, it’s hardly “useless data” – unless you’re starting to reject Hubbard himself, and the quotes I cited. I’m sure it’s uncomfortable to confront, and that you’d like to find some way to shrug it off.
We can almost see your cognitive dissonance at work, trying to skirt issues for which you have no good response – and regarding which, you probably have your own suppressed doubts.
The problem is, Hubbard was a good enough con man – and hypnotist – to have fooled quite a few people, and ruthless enough to have set them up for significant harm. Scientology is still harming people, particularly the CofS, and attempting to co-opt benevolent organizations and infiltrate governments, spreading erroneous ideas and promoting ineffective if not even dangerous treatments, so there’s good reason to oppose it and its abuses until it is no longer a threat.
The typical contradiction of Scientology ideology and indoctrination exposed here, is that scientologists are trained to defend Scientology by asking why outsiders, who almost always know more about Hubbard than his followers, and often know more about at least aspects of his teaching and “tech,” put effort into opposing Scientology. And yet scientologists often put inordinate amounts of energy and resources into attacking psychiatry, which they almost always know little more about than the propaganda they have been feed by Hubbard and Scientology, and certainly would never “find out about for themselves” the way they think open-minded outsiders should regarding Scientology. They are also indoctrinated to deflect challenges by claiming that psychiatry and psychology are somehow more dangerous, but given that Scientology tech is applied to only about 10,000 people every year, and limited to those effectively screened for being low-risk or “able,” with some not insignificant rate of people going psychotic (“PTS type III”) or ending up dead, while psychiatry and psychology treat hundreds of millions, including all comers with the most serious conditions, it’s erroneous and fallacious to make an accusation of relative risk, particularly in the absence of concrete information to compare regarding the dangers of Scientology itself – which they refuse to provide, or even go to lengths to hide.
Speaking of bad information, I ran across something written recently by one of the remaining people who was around Hubbard in the early days, Roger Boswarva:
“Hubbard, being the fraud that he turned out to be, along with his dishonest and incompetent research, all based on his pursuit of a dishonest dollar, irresponsibly delivered INCOMPLETE and often erroneous technology/material.” http://www.forum.exscn.net/threads/alan-walter-pandora-box.49887/
Ha! “Speaking of bad information” – so you take a squirrel version of Scientology (“Knowledgism” which was Alan Walters “creation” I believe) with its wonderful idea of keeping entities as slaves to perform automatic functions so that one can sip Martinis on a beach while they are doing all the work, as a valid criticism! So a rabidly squirrel and diametrically opposed version of “Scientology” is ok to quote eh? God help you and all those who believe this nonsense.
“he was homophobic and misogynistic”
That’s putting it mildly Kat. If the FBI had been awake he would have been lawfully executed for his crimes. As he DID commit crime at that level per Federal state.
So do you think Dan Sherman has blinders on so that he believes all the church PR put out about LRH’s life? Or do you think Dan knows all the bad stuff and refuses to write a biography that would reveal the bad stuff? Today’s article seems to point to the latter, but I just wanted to get it clarified for myself which it is.
No, anyone who actually researches his life comes across so many holes in his stories they cannot help but know he was a teller of tall tales from the getgo.
I was having another look at Hubbard’s “Affirmations” of the late 1940s recently, and was struck that even he knew that he had trouble with habitually, if not compulsively, lying:
“You can tell all the romantic tales you wish.… But you know which ones were lies . . . You have enough real experience to make anecdotes forever. Stick to your true adventures.”
“You never illustrate your point with bogus stories. It is not necessary for you to lie to be amusing and witty.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmations_(L._Ron_Hubbard)
Thanks, Mike. Then based on your article and comment on Dan Sherman, biographer for LRH, I think you should put him on the list of the HALL OF SHAME. I know the list is for people who left the SO and didn’t speak up about the crimes they witnessed. BUT let’s make an exception for Danny Sherman. He is a public person, not SO, so that should make it even easier for him to leave. He should be shamed for refusing to tell the truth about LRH’s biography and for spewing lies and PR about it instead for decades. And Dan has worked closely with DM too. Maybe he has some DM atrocities he has witnessed or lived through? He should leave and talk. Then he can die with a clear conscience.
Cindy,
When I started posting, I made a promise to myself that I would do at least one thing every day that would further the destruction of this cult. Not sure if it’s helping, but I will keep doing at least that one thing a day. You’ve given me another thing to put on my pile of “to do” lists.
I’m not sure how yet, but I will try to chip away at him!! Tzu said that A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step
Kat
I have seen Chris Owens previous research and writings and he is Da Bomb. Seeing the truth about Lron would so infuriate Dave Miscavige that reason alone is good enough to donate to Chris’ gofundme.
I was surprised to see that $cientology didn’t fund that group that was going to look for Japanese sub wreckage off Portland. It would have been like an episode of “Looking for Sasquatch’.
A nice, big sharp journalistic knife being honed razor sharp on a leather strop. I can already smell the cult blood in the air. Maybe this will be as good as Jon Atack’s seminal work “A Piece Of Blue Sky”.
Hopefully he’s gotten some insider help from cult escapees who once worked in the OSA. ??
I wonder if David Miscavige worries much that he is now being watched by the FBI and the IRS and others who are soon to be swooping in and scooping him up in a massive and unprecedented raid. (Yes he is and yes they are.) Boyfriend Tom Cruise (and secret husband) will pay his $1m bail, but they’ll seize DM’s passport and put him on an ankle monitor. After he’s convicted, he’ll be warehoused in a psychiatric hospital and buried in a fog haze of Thorazine. After several years of intensive therapy, they’ll ship him up to the maximum security prison at Pelican Bay where he’ll become a popular plaything of a couple of Nazi Low Rider gang members.
David Miscavige, the feds are coming for you. Enjoy! We sure will! ?
From your lips to our Higher Power’s ears!
Oh, what a lovely post!
I think this is one of the very best posts I have ever read on this blog. I hope no one will mind if I ask you to please come again and post often. You put a smile on my face and a spring in my step. Thank you.
Nice dream.
That was pretty entertaining. Not sure which parts, if any, are intended to be tongue in cheek, but for the casual reader, it’s popcorn-munching material. ?
I should probably just let this go and not comment on you post, but I need to say something. I hate Miscavige as much as you do and I hope to live long enough to see his karma catch up with him – but the venom you’ve displayed here is uncalled for, and it’s not helpful. I don’t think the FBI and the IRS will be swooping in any time soon, no evidende that Cruise and Miscavige are in a gay marriage, and I don’t wish the horror of prison rape on anybody. Yes, I have my own fantasies, mostly about Miscavige getting assassinated by one of his minions, but these are not helpful either. DM will get what’s coming to him one way or another (“As ye sow, so shall ye reap”), so let’s all just do what we can, one way or another, to defeat the horrible monstrosity that is scientology. End of sermon.
Thank you, Bix, for a much needed serving of common sense.
I have uncommon sense. But I don’t know what to do with it.
Start a religion with it Dude. You never know… you might just make the big time if you can learn to lie like they do in Scioland.
Agreed. Thank you. 🙂
Thank you, bixntram. A cool head is usually much stronger, lasts longer and accomplishes much more than a hot one. There are so many wonderful people working to rid the world of this sick cult, tirades of venom only serve as detours.
@bixntram Agree. The over-the-top-vitriol tends to paint critics in a bad light.
If I was an Ethics Officer I would use that kind of post to show how crazy critics are.
I must agree. I’m afraid I got carried away with my angry feelings on account of the terrible damage that has been to so many people – especially to so many people who have had their families destroyed.
But that does not excuse me from speaking about terrible crimes and wishing and hoping that DM gets to experience the same kinds of crimes he has perpetrated on others.
Thank you for bringing me back to reality. I certainly understand the way the OP feels and it certainly is so easy to get carried away with the hate. But as the old saying goes, “two wrongs do not make a right”. Very glad you spoke up and brought my mind back to reality. Thank you.
Agreed. And it’s good that you say something! The over-the-top fantasizing of this poster (who is also posting under other socks lately, IMO) is sick and soiling the comments section and is counterproductive. But maybe this is the purpose
It’s possible that this person has been posting under a variety of long winded names over the last several topics. The content and style is similar and note the use of the emoticons which nobody else is using.
I’d say that’s an apt observation. Multiple accounts with the same style and tone, cluttering up a comment section with a lot of nonsense non-sequiturs, random backhanded references to “OSA”, as well as over-the-top claims and vitriolic statements about the tiny tyrant. Hoping to get others to join in or argue back or whatever. These are all very familiar phenomena to those who have spent much time in online forums about the cult. It can be a good way to derail discussion and really sour the atmosphere in general, if people take the bait. It is best to just ignore it and scroll on by, but it is also helpful for those who recognize such things to name it and hip others to what’s going on. Thanks for doing so.
great comment.
Miscavige is already serving the worst life sentence I could imagine for him: He has to be D. Miscavige all 24 hours of every day, all 7 days of every week, for the rest of his natural life.
Beyond that, deponent knoweth not.
Very nice comment!
Just being himself has to be awful! Can you imagine being SO rich and yet being afraid to go anywhere outside of your own luxurious but extremely limited compounds? Can’t communicate with anyone who isn’t a known, trusted sycophant or an attorney on the cult payroll? How boring, you know? What a narrow little life this man leads. No wonder his only excitement is face ripping and giving SRAs to his cowering juniors and his ribbon cuttings at the Ideal M’Orgs. Think about it; these outings plus his scuba diving trips off the Freewinds are his only human interactions. He can’t go to a restaurant. He can’t fly into a major city like NY or Paris and see a play. he can’t hop on an ocean liner and check out the summer glories of Alaska. He can’t communicate with ANY press. There’s so much he just cannot do, so many many people with whom he simply CANNOT communicate. Wow! The more I think about it, the more I’m close to actually pitying this man.
Very true. It’s a terrible life he has created for himself.
Aqua,
This man created his own prison and is probably quite comfortable being in it. Otherwise he could very easily change it. No, IMO, Miscavige is so addicted to the power and influence he wields that he doesn’t even realize how he is ruling over a bunch of sycophants. He probably still thinks he’s ruling the world and doing it stellarly. Anything that goes wrong is someone else’s screw up. He’s become Hubbard in more ways than one.
..not to mention the family he has cut himself off from. His Dad, his brother and niece that I know of..probably others as well. He has no (visible) wife, no children, no grandkids, … who climbs up on Uncle Davey’s back for a piggy back ride at Christmas?
I think of DM as a nasty little hornet we’ve caught in a jar…that we…..
shake for fun.
Even though I know bixntram is correct insofar as “two wrongs do not make a right”, I truly can’t imagine ever being able to forgive the person who destroyed my family and I can’t imagine how anyone else could ever do that either.
I’ll tell you how, Skyler. Miscavige couldn’t have destroyed your family without their permission. Sorry to fling this at you so bluntly. THEY are responsible too. They did not HAVE TO cave. Many ex-Scns who had plenty to lose, didn’t cave, you know. YOU didn’t cave to the cult. Why did they? Many strong people on this blog have weak and cowed family members they dearly love who disposed of them quite easily. Weak people are dangerous to love, to need, to depend upon. You can make excuses for them and they can appear to be quite pathetic and deserving of excuses, but in the end, they don’t have what it takes to do the right thing. Love them, need them and depend upon them at your peril. They’ll break your heart when the going gets tough. So, yes, Miscavige is an unspeakable horror creature, a cruel, petty tyrant, a sociopath who enjoys inflicting pain and ruining lives – all of that, certainly. But in the end, who grants him the power?
Aqua…..
I think you discount how IN, In can be. The complete 100 percent mindset that is embedded to the very core.
I disconnected from a friend who said they were no longer a part of the “established church” and was now going to be independent. This was someone I had worked with on staff and had some social dealings with, but not a close friend. The person IS a close friend of an ex-spouse of mine. (whom I am still close to)
I disconnected because I knew he would never come to his senses unless ethics were applied. I wanted desperately for him to come to his senses and come back, do whatever it took, and get back on the bridge.
I knew management was screwed in a bunch of ways, (it had always been) (I’d seen much) but LRH was LRH and the teck was the teck and the only way we could win was for us to keep together as a group and keep applying ethics – even when it was hard – so that we could be strong enough to take the planet. You HAVE TO apply ethics. It’s Ethic-tech-Admin, in THAT order. No quibbles.
I missed being able to drop the friend a line, but I continued to hope. I’d seen others fall away and come back. I hoped it wouldn’t be too late.
Decades in, teck and admin trained, staff… I knew LRH Teck inside out and knew it was true to my very core. It was my strength and happiness. I was the most grateful for having been lucky enough to be introduced to it so very long ago when I was very young.
This is why I disagree when you speak with this uncompromising tone. The harshness of your stance actually reminds me of the relentless and constant Hubbard stance that one is responsible for one’s own condition and every single aspect of that condition, and that that stance is the only route to OT.
Having lost everything i knew as true, I’ve thrown it all out and now am starting from scratch… and thus… I have no certainties or must bes.
I would rather know nothing than cling to past lies. Therefore, I simply work to stay above my own inner turmoil and try to learn not to judge every single person I meet in all things. (as is the scio way)
My good heart and true nature have not changed, I was a good person while in…just wholly misguided. (misguided: understatement of the century)
I like you… but I really wish you’d soften.
🙂
Hey RIP,
I understand why you feel the way you do. I also understand the way Aqua feels the way she does. Maybe “understand” is not the right word. Maybe it’s closer to “empathize”.
But I would still blame the cult and The Cabbage more than my family members because … the cult has dealt with thousands of examples and most family members have only dealt with a handful. So, the cult is in a much stronger position. They know a lot more about what is happening and as such, IMO, they bear a much greater share of the responsibility.
But I don’t dispute what Aqua has said. I think she has a great deal of “right” in her viewpoint. I see this as an example where there is no single definitive answer.
The Cabbage knows it’s all BS, he is the main spewer of lies now that hubbard has had his deserved demise.
I hold him wholly responsible for everything he puts out. He DOES know.
Any SO Exec who knows the truth of how hubbard died, knows there are not more OT levels, knows the bridge is BS – those guys I have no empathy for.
The ED of the local org? Nope. He’s a poor sop who is stuck in, believing. Random staff calling to twist my arm into donating? Nope.
I also hold Pat Broeker responsible. That SOB was with Hubbard when he died, I sat and watched him on stage spew his BS about the OT levels and the big long number etc… HE KNOWS. (and it was hearing and seeing HIM that settled down the huge doubt that the death had created in me) He knows, he left, and he’s been out there living a life in Europe or something, while Scn has gone on and sucked in hundreds/thousands of people who then have given up their lives and billions of dollars.
Pat has NO excuse. He owes it to the world to speak out. He’s free and thousands of SO members are not.
I’m UTR… but if I had information that could do real damage to SCN I’d be shouting it from the rooftops, consequences be damned. I’ve got stories, but nothing that could do anything at all to stop Scn.
I just can’t rip up those still in and believing. As I’ve said before… just a bit ago…that was me. Even my story of the Hellish Trauma I endured that then popped me out in one fell swoop – broke 40 years of conditioning in a heartbeat…. that… wouldn’t touch the cult. I don’t tell my stuff in detail because of what I have to lose and the fact that telling it would do bugger all to aide bringing down the cult.
…….
Thanks for chatting!
🙂
That would be a VERY big change from the current scene.
A lot more interesting than another 70 years of slow decline, and maybe another 15,000 lives ruined.
Wow. I guess all Rinder has to do it not publish it. That’s up to him folks. Personally I like it! Sounds like the OSA goons don’t ?
A cult ruin its members blows up.
Talking people ruin the cult.