Customize

Is it true you met L. Ron Hubbard?

Discussion in 'Situation Rooms' started by Reversetide, May 7, 2013.

  1. Gottabrain Member

    LULZ!

    Oh I LUVS you and this video, too. Makes me laugh - I spent :45 min looking for this particular video and gave up and there it is - PLUNK! Thanks, Finnah!
    • Like Like x 2
  2. glad to deliver just happend to stroll onto it while going through MarK Bunkers older videos and, I still think it was rude for the scientologist to interrupt Randi's supper
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Gottabrain Member

    Not. I know Hobs, knew him in the weirdo SO days, too. He gets angry, but he's not all in the clouds, either.
  4. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 5
  5. Random guy Member

    No, I don't think so. He style of writing is very different.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Gottabrain Member

    Wow, Asheera, the OP looks phenomenal. You're an artist. I'ts beaaauuuuutiful. :)

    I've found so, so many.
    These are the interviews I'd like to include from Bare-Faced Messiah. Some are amazing, never saw them before.

    Please add Barbara Kaye (Klowdan), L Ron Hubbard's former PR Assistant and lover interview
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/barbkaye.htm

    Nieson Himmel: Nieson Himmel was a young journalist with a keen interest in science fiction. That was how he had met the chemist Jack Parsons after the Second World War, and it was through Parsons that he met L. Ron Hubbard. He actually shared a room with Hubbard in Parsons' rambling mansion in Pasadena, where Hubbard and Parsons practiced bizarre sex magick and vied for the love of Sara Northrup (who later eloped with Hubbard and became his second wife). L Ron Hubbard's roommate when he lived at Jack Parsons' mansion:
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/himmel.htm

    Note to Asheera: There is an error on the title page and it says Ken Urquhart - this is incorrect and probably why this interview has not been found in a while. Can anyone correct this?

    Richard DeMille: Richard DeMille (right, with "Barbara Kaye") was one of L. Ron Hubbard's earliest celebrity recruits, though it was perhaps more a case of reflected glory - he was the son of the famous director Cecil B. DeMille. He became one of Hubbard's right-hand men during the traumatic two-year rise and fall of Dianetics, saw the establishment of Scientology and participated in Ron's kidnapping of his daughter and wife. He left in the mid-1950s as he became increasingly doubtful about the usefulness of Hubbard's work.

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/demille.htm

    David Mayo: David Mayo spent 25 years in the Church of Scientology, making him one of the most experienced people to have served in that organisation; most do not stay longer than 3 years. His long experience as auditor to the most senior Scientologists, including L. Ron Hubbard and his wife, gave him considerable status (as shown in the 1980 advertisement on the left). Following factional infighting in the early 1980s, he left (or more accurately was expelled) in 1983 and was subsequently denigrated as a "squirrel" par excellence. He nonetheless remained loyal to Hubbard's tenets and started an "Advanced Ability Center", using Hubbardian techniques and derivatives thereof. The AAC now appears to be defunct. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/mayo.htm
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Asheera Member

    Material added and I have reached out to Dave Touretzky for the webpage correction.
    • Like Like x 4
  8. Gottabrain Member

    Thank you so much, Asheera. :) I can't wait to find more tmrw. The way you turned this thread around just makes me grin. :D G'night.
  9. Anonymous Member

    John and Helen O'Brien from "Dianetics in Limbo"
    our disillusionment snowballed in 1953. There was no lessening of our conviction that some fluke had put us in possession of the means to know, analytically, a great deal more than our birthright on twentieth century Earth. There's still no doubt about that. But in addition to our growing doubts about the therapy, as soon as we became responsible for Hubbard's interests, a projection of hostility began, and he doubted and double-crossed us, and sniped at us without pause. We began to believe that the villains of dianetics-Scientology, who peopled the tapestry of its growth, had been created by its founder, along with the subject itself.

    So now we come to the saddest part, because the ideas which had fired us lost none of their validity, while the individual who had produced them seemed less and less their protagonist. Ron had said in December, "The one thing you mustn't do in the MEST universe is know.... Information dives out of sight in this universe faster than anything you ever saw." We began to think we were witnessing a classic example of this.

    Although other 'associates' had been set up, committed to send him ten percent of their gross, Ron wrote that we were his only source of income in America. But he was a strange partner in business, because he seemed determined to undermine us. He airmailed our U.S. subscriber lists offers of books for sale from England, but reneged repeatedly on promises to ship us a supply, after we'd backlogged orders to the ceiling by advertising them on his instruction. He said that all letters should be forwarded to him for his reply, and then, when they went unanswered, dubbed us the "Philadelphia Incommunicators." When I hired a secretary, he wrote directly to her, with pages of instruction about how I should be conducting the operation!

    But I think that none of this would have been important enough to bring us to the decision which we had to make to give up Scientology. There was one area, however, where tolerance and compromise proved to be impossible. And this was in Hubbard's reluctance to clean house.

    Ron repudiated, then reinstated for cash, a number of unethical opportunists in the field, writing us contradictory letters in the course of it.
    As soon as Ron reached Philadelphia, after a flight from Spain marked by dramatic mishaps, we tried to find ways to equate the differences between us but he would not, or could not, understand. He seemed bent on a weird foxiness. He was terribly changed, almost a stranger. About the double-crossing in minor ways - yes, he agreed that it had occurred. But he had an explanation for it. He said that he had wanted to hold down the HAS operation, keep it on a modest scale, until his sensational new techniques, which he had brought with him for the congress, were ready to be launched. We laughed out loud at that, because new therapies were such an old story to us.
    Hubbard set up headquarters across the river in Camden, and almost without discussing it, we began concluding the existence of the Hubbard Foundation in Philadelphia.

    On October 30, 1953, we had a final meeting with L. Ron Hubbard. We resigned from the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, arranged to transfer funds, etc., and then left the unimpressive premises. My parting words were inelegant hut, I still think, apropos. "You are like a cow who gives a good bucket of milk, then kicks it over!"
    • Like Like x 4
  10. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  11. Gottabrain Member

    Wow. Just wow. Parts of that story just gave me chills:

    And these simple statements give such depth and insight to the incredible dangers of Scientology's human mind experiments with imagination:

    Great find! Thanks so much, Anon. <3

    Asheera, can you please add this link to the Bill Franks description? It's Franks' Hubbard story I originally linked from an ESMB post. (this link is better)
    http://blog.scientologyrecovery.com/l-ron-hubbard-for-real-personal-stories/

    Please add Glenn Samuels: Glenn Samuels lived and worked aboard the Flagship Apollo where he was personally trained as a counsellor by Hubbard. Glenn left Scientology in 1982 after seeing Scientology’s corruption and greed firsthand. (link is to his firsthand experiences with Hubbard)
    http://blog.scientologyrecovery.com/how-did-scientology-get-so-mean-part-2/

    Please add Helen O'Brien (see above post): Helen and her husband, John Henry Neugebauer (nicknamed "Noyga") were with Hubbard since the earliest days of Dianetics and the first Dianetic foundations. In her book, "Dianetics in Limbo", Helen gives detailed recollections of interractions with Hubbard, her work at the Foundation and personal experiences with Dianetics and Scientology. She left, disillusioned,in 1953.
    http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/dil/Dianetics_in_Limbo.txt
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Asheera Member

    Added.

    I think the OP has now been sufficiently laden with dox.
    • Like Like x 5
  13. Gottabrain Member

    Yes, it nearly takes up the first page. lulz it's a work of art.

    Thank you. :)
    • Like Like x 3
  14. DeathHamster Member

    Protip: Real humans rarely use "invalidating". It's a bit of a red flag.
    • Like Like x 4
  15. DeathHamster Member

    Until I see some dox that Harlan Ellison attended the New Jersey science-fiction convention in 1948, I'd take his statements with a grain of salt. Accounts from Judith Merril and Frederik Pohl seem much more reliable.
  16. Can someone who understands Scientology jargon please tell me what they think this statement means using words and terms that someone without a Scientology background could understand?
  17. Asheera Member

    Caroline has come through with some highly interesting material:
    • Like Like x 2
  18. "Dianetics in Limbo" was an awedsome intriguing read!
  19. awesome :)
  20. billybob Member

    WOw...OMG mind reeling.

    Followed link and read quite a lot...anyway, then I skipped to end, and OMG
    ... SPOILER ALERT -

    oh fuck it, just read:

    " I notified the authorities, and the state police found him in
    the convertible, which he had driven deep into the Brandywine
    woods. He bought an inner tube and used it to connect the
    exhaust with the interior, then waited relaxed in the back seat,
    with his shoes off, drinking a coke. "


    Another death by car exhaust.

    Just like Quentin Hubbard.
    Just like that guy in Niel Gaiman's back yard.
    Just like Shawn Lonsdale.
    How many more?
    I know I'm missing more, I vaguely recall another story of a guy who was branded PTS and couldn't get audited and did it on a country road in the midwest.

    What's with that?
    Where do they all get that idea? It must spread in some way...
    Is that idea buried in Hubbard's writings somewhere?
    Like coat-hanger abortion?
    (Yup, I was a young innocent who had never heard of such horrors, until I read Diarrheatics.
    Thanks for the nightmares, Uncle Ron!)
    • Like Like x 3
  21. Gottabrain Member

    Yes, and extremely detailed, not only as to Hubbard's movements, actions, finances, the beginnings and growth of Dianetics after its initial book release, but how she felt in her personal sessions. Few of us seem to have ever read it before. Nice documentary gift to the true Hubbard history. It's both objective and subjective.

    What hit me most in that piece personally was, from her view, how Dianetics as a tek fell apart with the introduction of scn. To paraphrase, it lost its contact with reality as Hubbard began treating the imagination as real and dealing exclusively with the imagination. IMHO, the Dianetic technique on its own wasn't so bad, a psychoanalysis spinoff from Freud's work. Though prenatal memories and accurate past life memories were debunked at the time and ever since, and though those who claimed miraculous cures (cured asthma, etc) were later shown not to be cured at all, still, it had a bit of usefulness at that time. It was a shame the promises of miracles, etc. didn't prove true in the long run, despite Hubbard's emphatic promises.

    It is the only recollection clearly stating that Hubbard was against delving into the imagination due to the dangers (to the sanity of the individual) - but eventually did it anyway (I'll find those parts for you if you like). This has been my conclusion as a psychology counselling practitioner to help those hurt by Scn as well - that when we treat imagination as real in any form of counselling, including treating "past life memories" as real, the individual gets lost, losing the ability to differentiate what is reality and goes a bit crazy, if not completely insane. Hubbard went quite insane in the end, you know - and, according to numerous firsthand reports, had been erratic and acting loopy and irrational as early as 1953.

    Bits and pieces from others give a good picture of the culture of the time. So many cults began in the 50s & 60s, from TM to mysticism, resurgence in astrology, witchcraft. Communes were springing up everywhere. Open sexual culture, drugs... lots of hippies joined scn. Early photos of Hubbard show his long-haired hippie look. (The Church of Scientology has altered the same famous original photo to take the long hair out. lulz) Hubbard was quite a druggie himself (as were many in his initial group) - so it doesn't surprise me that to many, their early experiences with Dianetics were like an acid trip.

    Not quite. Quentin was initially found alive, then hospitalised. Lots of contradictory stories - you'd have to Google Quentin Hubbard.
    • Like Like x 3
  22. Agrreing tottaly, Hubbard actually filled the vacuüm that was called the fifties

    • Like Like x 1
  23. Very good post . Pretty much agrees with everything I thought of about the subject.

    This may be a derail of mine, and if it is, then I apologize but prior to the publication of DIANETICS; the story goes that Hubbard was a war veteran who was crippled and blind and that he cured himself of all such ailments. We all know that story. One is left to infer that he cured himself with DIANETICS. (Or from all the blinding knowledge contained in his book EXCLAMABER.)

    Fine.

    What I want to know is when that story first made the rounds. Did he put that story out in the first few years of Dianetics or did that come out much later? Somehow I can't quite see Hubbard being stupid enough to spin that story in 1950 or 1951 but one never knows.
    • Like Like x 4
  24. Gottabrain Member

    Oh yeh, he originally spun that story about Excalibur, which he was passing around in 1938, was laughed at and refused, then passing around again to try and get it published in 1948-49. http://www.lermanet.com/excalibur/index.html

    This is what it was about: http://www.american-buddha.com/cult.yesbookcalledexcalibur.htm Kind of like Science of Survival and History of Man rolled into one.

    Forrest J Akerman, Hubbard's former literary agent said in 1948-49, "He said that during the war, that he had been on an operating table and that he had died. And directly after he died he found himself in spirit form and he kind of looked back at the body he’d been in there, but then he shrugged his incaporial shoulders and said well, where do we go from here I wonder? And he said that his attention was attracted to what was sort of like a great wall of china with a fantastic wacking great ornate gate over there and he thought well, that looks interesting, I believe I’ll waft over there and investigate that. So he got over to the gate and as it happens in all the mystery movies, why, it opened without any human agency and he drifted through and my god! There on the other side of this gate spread out like an intellectual smorgasbord as the SUM TOTAL OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE!"
    http://www.lermanet.com/excalibur/index.html

    L Ron always had his favourite stories. Exstaff accounts of those who worked with him mentioned hearing his tall tales repeatedly.

    Psychopaths and pathological liars do that, too.
    • Like Like x 4
  25. Hubbard curing himself of blindness was a story that was printed in a lot of Scientology books when I was in the cult. But I was in the cult over two decades after the publication of DIANETICS. I just can't see him claiming that story in the early 1950's because the war would have been recent history and he risked being exposed since he was newly famous due to the sales of DIANETICS. I suspect he laid that story on his flock once he had the cult of Scientology going strong, but I could be wrong. Would be interesting to find out just when this particular lie came out.
    • Like Like x 3
  26. Gottabrain Member

    You are making the assumption that L Ron would not tell lies that he could be caught telling. That's not true, though. He lied about everything from having a 2nd wife to accusing others of being communist spies. He brazenly lied as a child and throughout his adult life. He was a pathological liar. Even his old sci-fi mates knew him to be a big bullshitter.

    He told the SAME story for Excalibur that he told for Dianetics and he told again in Ron's Journal 67 about OT 3, with slight variations, i.e., he was dying and nearly blinded from war wounds in the Dianetics story, in surgery for the Excalibur story, and for OT-3, he had nearly died finding the stuff out some 30 years later, to "tape a safe route out" lulz. Hubbard might have even had some sort of experience in the dental chair from nitrous oxide, but I think it more likely that he read or heard a similar story elsewhere and decided to use it, found it effective and re-used it over & over. Jaycee, think about it - have you known any pathological liars in your life? Do they ever actually worry about being caught in a lie? They don't. And they use other people's stories when it suits them, too.

    The rest of the quote goes:
    "And the spirit went back and laid down in the body and he opens his eyes and looked at the nurse and said "Ah, I was dead wasn’t I?" Just as the surgeon walked in the room. And if looks could have killed ah….. the surgeon you know… [said to] the nurse, "What did you tell this man he died for? He’s gonna have a heart attack now, he really will die." "No, no, no, that’s alright," he said, "it doesn’t disturb me… I know… She didn’t tell me, I know I died there for a moment or so, and ah.." And then he thought…"I often do wake up and I’ve had a wonderful dream and I want to recapture it, and according to him, I don’t know what kind of an operation he could have had that he bounced off the operating table and over to his quonset hut and got a couple of reems of paper and a couple gallons of scalding hot black coffee and sat down at his magic typewriter and a couple of million words flew out of his fingers in the next few days called "X CALIBUR" or "The Dark Sword". So he said, when he got out of the …rid of the war, I don’t know whether… I guess he was in the Navy. You know, he got out of the Navy. He begot himself of this magic manuscript and he shopped it around to some publishers in New York.
    And he kept getting turned down because they said, oh my god, this is .. this is too revolutionary! If you just had a small advance on Freud or Adler or _?___. But this just wipes out ..the slate clean and starts all over again and it’s just too much to absorb.
    Umm, the only clue he ever gave me about it, which I didn’t understand, he said it would eliminate all fear from a human being."…
    From Interview with Forrest J. Ackerman http://www.lermanet.com/excalibur/index.html
    • Like Like x 2
  27. Can someone please tell me what this statement from the John and Helen O'Brien from "Dianetics in Limbo" piece means using words and terms that someone without a Scientology background could understand:
    "The one thing you mustn't do in the MEST universe is know.... Information dives out of sight in this universe faster than anything you ever saw."
  28. You "mustn´t do" to "know" what it means, but anyway:
    MEST = a coined word, meaning matter, energy, space and time, the physical universe. (in opposite to the spiritual "universe")
    Therefore the sentence could be interpreted as:
    But you mustn´t know that...
  29. Thanks for living up to your name explainer but I still do not grasp what it is saying. "mustn't do to know" is just more jargon no? Does it mean 'don't take any actions to inform yourself'? Does it mean, 'being informed will leave you uninformed'? I am intrigued by what it might be implying but still have no clue what it is saying. If you would, how would you explain it to an old granny or to a little kid, who has never heard of Scientology?
  30. Can jargon/lingo be completely explained with out the use of terms from the same batch of jargon/lingo? Perhaps it cannot be. It is like you need Bruce Willis to show people who exactly what a Bruce Willis is, I cannot use another well known bald guy who purses his lips all the time to explain to you what a Bruce Willis is.
  31. Asheera Member

    This thread has managed to serve up some good content in terms of dox, and for that I am happy.

    It has also served up some comedy, and for that I am also happy.

    And now it is serving up the bizarre. The phrase “to invalidate X” is bit of a rarity, and the construction of “person A is invalidating person B” is even more so. It is a good example of a Scientology shibboleth. What is bizarre is that, immediately after the use of this shibboleth being highlighted, the poster in question immediately starts asking for Scientology jargon to be explained to them.

    Maybe the internets, and the inconvenient fact that past utterances continue to exist and are easily accessible, is not properly understood by some. I’m calling anon troll at this point.
    • Like Like x 3
  32. You are entitled to your opinions and conclusions about other people. I just relate to them as that no more no less, your opinions and your conclusions and given the culture here, no doubt you have found a place where there are others who will agree with and support your opinions and conclusions. This is true of most close knit internet groups with a passion for a specific topic.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  33. Asheera Member

    This thread just keeps on giving (not having reality on it perhaps?).

    Anyways, I’m happy to try and keep it contributing substance to go with the comedy. From the material Caroline sent me is this fascinating comment from Laurel Sullivan’s testimony in Gerry’s case, where she explains the discrepancy between Hubbard’s claims and the biographical material she and Gerry had:

    This exchange is also fascinating:

    • Like Like x 3
  34. So what? Have you got nothing else to talk about but to cast doubt on others and create completely imaginary threats to this group? I asked a reasonable question about a quote inside a story, an apparent regular "Gottabrain" posted in this thread. And this you frame as a threat? Seriously? :rolleyes:
    reversetidez
    This message by reversetidez has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  35. fify
  36. Don't you wish you could leave the cult? Seriously.
  37. Aghet, does part of the culture of this group you are part of here dictate that you take an "if your not with us you are with the terrorists" point of view of anyone who does not wear your group badge? :confused:

    And exactly what "cult" am I not wishing to leave exactly? I have never been involved in the screwball group you are all so up in arms against, so you must mean some other "cult"? Do you mean the human race? Fill me in Aghet.
    reversetidez
    This message by reversetidez has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  38. "Never defend. Always attack."

    Right?
  39. Asheera Member

    I don’t have any issue with this type of commentary, but it would be helpful if you could also accompany it with some more dox/testimony from people who knew Hubbard. Just keeps things flowing while stopping the troll from using faux-indignation to kill the thread.

    Here is some more insight from the Lauren Sullivan dox:
    • Like Like x 2
  40. huh?
    reversetidez
    This message by reversetidez has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 5

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins