Was L. Ron Hubbard Sexually Molested as a Child?

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dorothy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Kansas

Post by Dorothy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:00 pm

SuzyMarie,

I am sure you have done the Student Hat course, right? Remember how, according to your Founder, when confronted with a datum that seems unreal, outrageous, can't get it, etc., you are supposed to ask yourself the following questions, back and forth, until it resolves:

1. How could it be?
2. How could it not be?

Regarding this theory of Swift's, you seem to only want to ask the question, how could it not be. Tsk, tsk. Next time you check in for reprogramming at Cult headquarters, be sure to include a retread of the Student Hat course. You wouldn't want to appear the hypocrite on this board, now would you?

As for the rest of us, I'll assume we are capable of applying our own WOG critical thinking skills to the theory, without the help of your clearly slanted view of things.
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10214
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Post by J. Swift » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:36 pm

Fanboy, your post was brilliant and perceptive. I was writing late at night and was somewhat tired. Thanks for helping me out here. SuzanneMarie and I are grinding each other in what I think is an important debate about a substantial theory that helps to reveal and explain the troubled and complex psychological construction of L. Ron Hubbard. Suzie's grinding technique involves making the reader lose interest, and, it is not working on this particular thread. The audience senses that the critics here at OCMB have drilled down into the substratum of Hubbard's psyche. You are correct sir, I did forget Mrs. Commodore Thompson. You are also correct when you state that many pedophiles are married men who molest within their own extended families. This is what makes their crimes all the more shocking.

In his Admissions, Hubbard acknowledges that he had problems with his self image and sexuality. As Ladybird posted at the beginning of this thread:
From Hubbards "Admissions and Affirmations":
"I have a very bad masturbatory history. I was taught when I was 11 and, despite guilt, fear of insanity, etc. etc. I persisted. At a physical examination at a Y when I was about 13, the examiner and the people with him called me out of the line because my testicles hung low and cautioned me about what would happen if I kept on masturbating. This "discovery" was a bad shock to me.
I had to be so silent about it that now when a bedspring squeaks I lose all libido. I eventually found out I would not be insane, or injure myself but the scars remain. - L. Ron Hubbard
I wonder who "taught" him, maybe that was not all he was taught?

This is from "A Handbook For Preclears" and gives a pretty sad veiw of sex. Apparently Hubbard equates old memories of sex with pain:
"The facsimiles of an individual can become considerably scrambled by masturbation. Practically all the ape family and Man masturbate. Masturbation is a prohibition result. It couldn't drive anyone crazy. But it can make the individual pull old sex facsimiles into present time for self-stimulation and opens the door for him to desire facsimiles to be in present time. After awhile he will be pulling pain facsimiles into present time." - LRH
*****
Fanboy, I have long suspected that LRH was discovered to be homosexual, or at least suspected of being a homosexual, when he was in the USMC. Your assessment therefore seems astute to me:

Fanboy wrote:
5) No disputing that Hubbard was there (the US Naval Hospital in 1932) for some sort of mental treatment? Why, I'm surprised you let that slide. However, if Hubbard found out something in the Marine Corps so horrible that he had to be hospitalized, why would he have claimed proudly to be an ex-Marine in the decades to come, AND why would he have tried so ferociously to join the Navy? The Navy and the Marines are more intertwined than a South Carolinian family tree; why choose to go back into that sort of situation?

Conversely, someone outed as an outright homosexual would have been hospitalized in that era, then gracefully released from his enlistment, rather than humiliated publicly. The theory is tenuous, but it still hangs together.
Very strong points here. I note that Suzie Engram argues that LRH was perhaps confined to the mental ward because he had discovered some deep, dark secret about the USMC in 1932. This is the same tired defense that the Cult of Scientology used when trying to explain Hubbard's presence in Thelema (OTO) in the late 1940's with Jack Parsons. Rather than accepting that LRH was gay or bisexual and engaged in Magickal masturbation rituals with Jack Parsons, Scientology makes the wild claim that Hubbard was with US Naval Intelligence and had infiltrated and neutralized OTO on behalf of the US Gov't.

This is a patent lie on several grounds. First, Hubbard took a three month US Navy course at Yale in 1944 on the basics of Military Intelligence, this after his failed, and short-lived command of two small coastal patrol vessels. After this course, Hubbard is sent to Oak Knoll Naval hospital where he malingers for about one year and complains of conjunctivitis and an ulcer. In 1947, Hubbard wrote to the US Dept of Veterans Affairs asking for psychiatric help. In that letter, Hubbard admits that he is suicidal and is chronically morose. He also notes, strangely, that he is enrolled in acting school. This letter, his failed commands, and his two prior two military hospitalizations in 1932 and 1945 argue that he was wholly unfit for Military Intelligence.

*****
NattyP, great post! I wanted to say that your description of Scientology as "amoral life coaching" was one of the best concise descriptions of Scientology I have ever seen. Your phrase truly captures the essence of Scientology. Sure, Scientology works -- if one is willing to be amoral. And what is the essence of a Thetan as LRH describes one, except an amoral collection of "attention units" that have no mass, wavelength, or location in space? A Thetan is thus free to amorally postulate in terms of the biased self-serving questions of, "what works for me and for Scientology? What is the greatest good for me and for Scientology?" Wog laws mean nothing to Scientologists. This is congruent with what Hubbard learned in Thelema from Crowley: Do as thou will shall be the whole of the Law."

Scientology: Amoral Life Coaching.

/////
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

SuzanneMarie
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 6:24 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Post by SuzanneMarie » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:42 pm

J. Swift wrote:
Pain in sex is aberrative as hell and the most messed up people you will ever find are addicted to pain and make use of it in sex.
Please do tell us about this SuzanneMarie. Who are these "most messed up people" of whom you speak? Go ahead Suzie.
Unbelievable.

Are you going into righteous indignation on behalf of sadists, while on the same thread you decry LRH's parents as idiots for letting him associate with a Freudian analyst? That's what it looks like.

Both you and Fanboy have claimed that I failed to dispute your theory that LRH was a mental patient. That's BS.

I do not believe that LRH was ever a mental patient, at Bethesda or anywhere else. The giving of Beallsville as a mailing address is proof only that he gave Beallsville as his mailing address.
His marriage and the births of his children during the time you claim he was hospitalized, are circumstantial evidence that he was well and free during 1933 and 1934.

But there's more; if you had bothered to look up Bethesda Naval Hospital, you would have found that it was not constructed until after 1938, so LRH could not have resided there in 1933 or 1934.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_N ... cal_Center

What was the 'US Naval Hospital, Washington DC' on the ship's passenger list? In all probability it was the building that served as the Washington DC Naval Hospital from 1866 to 1906. In 1922 this building became the temporary Home for Veterans of All Wars. So any US war vet or military dependent of a US war vet might have lived there while in Washington in the 1930s.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/medtour/oldnavy.html

I have to say it; you are the laziest excuse for a researcher I've seen in a long time.

Bump because Swift never addressed any of the issues I brought up here.
Last edited by SuzanneMarie on Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
NattyP
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:27 pm

Post by NattyP » Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:29 am

SM,...for REALZ?

Kurt and Courtney Cobain were using HEROIN when Frances Bean was conceived. Just cause ElRon sauced his ol' lady don't mean he wasn't locked up before or immediately after, nor that he wasn't as a mad as a hatter, drunk as a lord or high as a kite every time he participated in the act of impregnation.

Come on, now...you gotta thank GAWD for sexy times and drug addlepation...why without it, we'd have no Peaches Geldof or, and more importantly, no LIV TYLER. Jeebus...I just went and SCARED myself on Halloween![/quote]
John Carmichael: Are you a homo? Have you come out of the closet?
ANONYMOUS: You're wearing tweed in the summer and you're asking ME if I'm a faggot? Xenu please ...
John Carmichael: What?

SuzanneMarie
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 6:24 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Post by SuzanneMarie » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:52 am

SuzanneMarie wrote:
J. Swift wrote:
Pain in sex is aberrative as hell and the most messed up people you will ever find are addicted to pain and make use of it in sex.
Please do tell us about this SuzanneMarie. Who are these "most messed up people" of whom you speak? Go ahead Suzie.
Unbelievable.

Are you going into righteous indignation on behalf of sadists, while on the same thread you decry LRH's parents as idiots for letting him associate with a Freudian analyst? That's what it looks like.

Both you and Fanboy have claimed that I failed to dispute your theory that LRH was a mental patient. That's BS.

I do not believe that LRH was ever a mental patient, at Bethesda or anywhere else. The giving of Beallsville as a mailing address is proof only that he gave Beallsville as his mailing address.
His marriage and the births of his children during the time you claim he was hospitalized, are circumstantial evidence that he was well and free during 1933 and 1934.

But there's more; if you had bothered to look up Bethesda Naval Hospital, you would have found that it was not constructed until after 1938, so LRH could not have resided there in 1933 or 1934.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_N ... cal_Center

What was the 'US Naval Hospital, Washington DC' on the ship's passenger list? In all probability it was the building that served as the Washington DC Naval Hospital from 1866 to 1906. In 1922 this building became the temporary Home for Veterans of All Wars. So any US war vet or military dependent of a US war vet might have lived there while in Washington in the 1930s.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/medtour/oldnavy.html

I have to say it; you are the laziest excuse for a researcher I've seen in a long time.
bump for Natty

curiosity
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:56 am

Post by curiosity » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:36 am

There are two theories being debated here:

1. That Hubbard was gay/bisexual.

2. That Hubbard was sexually molested as a child, likely by Commander Thompson.

It is possible that both theories are true. That one is true but not the other. That neither is true. It is important to keep the theories distinct, because obviously a person can be gay without ever having been sexually molested, and vice versa.

I believe that the gay/bisexual theory is strong. As people get older, inhibitions often break down. Hubbard wrote the Mission Earth "deckology" near the end of his life and let his pederastic gay fantasies take full flight. Heterosexuals do not focus on fantasies like that, especially in such detail. Even the "heterosexual" fantasies in Mission Earth tend to focus on the sexual qualities and endowments of the males.

I believe the Affirmations were written by Hubbard because they were accepted as valid by a court of law. I don't think it serves much purpose trying to re-litigate that issue here unless there is some stunning new evidence about them that emerged after that court case, which there has not been.

In the Affirmations, Hubbard talks about his obsessive masturbation habit as a youth. Studies comparing sexual habits of heterosexuals and homosexuals show that male homosexuals tend to masturbate with greater frequency than heterosexuals. This is not intended in any way to disparage gay people since I, unlike Hubbard, do not believe that masturbation is "bad." It is just a reflection of people's sex drives, which different people experience at different intensities.

If Hubbard as a youth was masturbating to fantasies of other male youths his age, then those attractions would likely have carried through into his adulthood and manifested in his pederastic fantasies in which the objects of sexual attraction continued to be teenage males, but the partner having the attraction is now an adult. Sexual orientation is life-long, and so it is my guess that since Hubbard was having and writing gay sex fantasies in his advanced years, then he was likely having similar fantasies as a preteen and teen. He could also have been having heterosexual fantasies--bisexuality cannot be ruled out.

As for theory #2, namely that Hubbard was sexually molested. I will have to agree that it is not proven. However, as a theory, I think it remains viable. Theories are not proof. They are educated guesses. Sometimes theories prove to be true, other times not, and sometimes no definitive answer is ever found either way. I believe that it remains viable for these reasons:

Hubbard had a very strong sex drive by the age of 11. In most people, the sex drive will remain intense until the late teens, after which it slowly declines during the subsequent decades. It is safe to say, on the basis of what Hubbard wrote in the Affirmations, that he was a very sexually-stimulated preteen and teen, and that is not to disparage Hubbard since the same can probably be said about most boys that age. That is how bodies are designed to be. However, it seems that Hubbard’s horniness was higher than the norm according to the Affirmations.

Back in those days, illicit erotic stimulation was often done under the guise of talking “medicine” or “psychology.” If you look at early pornography, it was almost always cloaked as “scientific,” partly to meet the requirement of having “redeeming social value” so as not to be deemed “obscene.” But the people watching it knew why they were really watching it: they wanted to get "turned on." The Kinsey study made it acceptable to talk about the titillating details of sex in polite society.

Thompson must have come to realize that Hubbard was an especially sexually-stimulated kid, and he must have known that talking Freudian sexual theory with such a youth would have an arousing effect. A very common tool of the pedophile/pederast is to begin a sexual assault by getting the victim sexually aroused, and that can easily be done through words by just talking about sex even in a “scientific” context. I cannot prove that this was Thompson's motive for talking Freudian sexual theory with Hubbard, but as a theory it cannot be ruled out since it is so unusual, and against most social convention, for adults to engage in sexual discussions of this kind with other people's 12-year-old children.

Of course we cannot rule out that Thompson and Hubbard’s parents were very liberal-minded and believed that openness about sex with children and teenagers is healthy, but such people were definitely outside the norm in those days.

To me, the sexual molestation theory is just one hypothesis out of several that might explain why Hubbard had such obvious sexual issues. Hubbard equated pain with sex, and that is strange because most people do not experience it that way. For most people sex is enjoyable and creates positive emotional bonds with the partner.

When Hubbard claimed that psychiatrists invented sex, he was in fact saying that sex is something really bad—a trap. Hubbard’s theory about the psychiatric origins of sex makes much less sense than Swift’s theory. Sex is a physical biological function with special organs designed for just that purpose. How did psychiatrists “invent” that? How could they have “invented” sex in animals? Is this some kind of “whole track” theory in which psychiatrists invented all life on Earth? If it is, then why does Hubbard say elsewhere that “high-toned” people experience sex in positive ways?

Hubbard is clearly conflicted about sex, and more importantly, he teaches these conflicted attitudes as part of Scientology. It is therefore not unreasonable to explore where those conflicts may have come from. This does not mean that Swift's theory is necessarily the answer, but it starts the exploration.
Last edited by curiosity on Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

ron's hat
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: Why Offer This Theory?

Post by ron's hat » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:56 am

SuzanneMarie wrote:Why is J. Swift offering the theory here that LRH was molested as a child?

Here are some possibilites:.........
So now we have J Swift proposing a theory (and if I've read everything correctly, he states that it is a theory), but now we have you Suzanne proposing your own theories. So if we acknowledge your right to expound upon theories in a debate setting, then we must also allow the same courtesy to JSwift to expound upon theories of his own.

I do think it is a bit of a stretch to claim that JSwift is proposing a theory of Hubbard's possible rape simply to propose the idea that scientologists are rapists or child molesters. That is quite a stretch and your arguments are becoming specious.

Making some sort of claim that JSwift is simply wishing for attention is somewhat ad hominem and as such it does undercut your believability.

In truth, I am in complete wonderment as to why you are insistent on contributing to this thread. I am beginning to think that although you come across as pro-scientology or pro-Hubbard.....well, in fact (well...not fact...only a 'theory').....it's possible that you are the biggest critic amongst us???????? :lol:

Hubbard's Mushroom
Posts: 8290
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:02 pm

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:53 am

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(c1) That I cannot associate any of my lacking libido with
Sara. The blame lies elsewhere. Sara has enormous powers
to thrill me. Hormones and fears, now gone, were at fault.

(d1) Sexually I am as I was at 16, without any of the fears,
with all of the powers, with all the knowledge I now possess
turned to wonderful things.

- THE ADMISSIONS OF L. RON HUBBARD

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SuzanneMarie
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 6:24 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Post by SuzanneMarie » Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:44 am

curiosity wrote:

He [LRH] could also have been having heterosexual fantasies--bisexuality cannot be ruled out.
You don't say! You mean that a man who was married more than once, had affairs with women and fathered several children may not have been exclusively homosexual?

Are you sure?
curiosity wrote: Thompson must have come to realize that Hubbard was an especially sexually-stimulated kid, and he must have known that talking Freudian sexual theory with such a youth would have an arousing effect. A very common tool of the pedophile/pederast is to begin a sexual assault by getting the victim sexually aroused, and that can easily be done through words by just talking about sex even in a “scientific” context. I cannot prove that this was Thompson's motive for talking Freudian sexual theory with Hubbard, but as a theory it cannot be ruled out since it is so unusual, and against most social convention, for adults to engage in sexual discussions of this kind with other people's 12-year-old children.
Maybe it's just me, but I have always found Freudian theory anti-erotic, improbable and dull as ditchwater. Just as a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, a bored adolescent is sometimes just a bored adolescent writing in his diary the two revealing and unambiguous words, 'was bored.'

If you think that discussing Freudian theory with a twelve year old would be titillating to either the boy or yourself, you have a very active imagination, maybe overactive.

User avatar
'Alert'
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: Bondi Beach
Contact:

Post by 'Alert' » Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:54 am

LRH--Dianetics-The Original Thesis wrote: The auditor should be prepared to have to solve many individual problems since above the basics are almost as many problems as there are cases. For example, in the case of a preclear who has several very nasty prenatals it will be found that the formation of the body in the womb has overlaid or confused the time track so that a later prenatal must be partially lifted before an earlier prenatal can be exhausted. This is often true of a later period of life. In one case an entire series of prenatals was held down by a dental operation under nitrous oxide at the age of twenty-five. Until some portion of this was removed, the bulk of the prenatals were not available.

In short, the circuits of the mind can become entangled to a point where even the motor control time track is confused.

Dispersal of purpose by some engram along some dynamic or purpose line is a common situation and is indeed the basic concept. As a stream of electrons would behave if they were to encounter a solid object in their path, so does a drive or purpose disperse. These many varied and faint tracks after impact with the engram are symptomatic. Along dynamic two, the sexual drive, promiscuity inevitably and invariably indicates a sexual engram of great magnitude. Once that engram is removed promiscuity can be expected to cease.

Anxiety is established in the preclear’s mind by such dispersals and he dramatizes because of the dispersal. This is one of the manifestations of his malady. No pervert ever became a pervert without having been educated or abused by a pervert. And that abuse must have been very thorough. The contagion of engrams is an interesting manifestation which the auditor should and must observe. It can be said that insanity runs in families, not because this is a eugenic truth but because a standard patter during emergencies or stress creates certain types of engrams which in turn create types of insanities. Insanities are so definitely contagious that when a child is raised by aberrated parents, the child becomes aberrated.
"If anyone talks about a "road to Freedom" he is talking about a linear line. This, then, must have boundaries. If there are boundaries there is no freedom." - Dianetics 55

User avatar
'Alert'
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: Bondi Beach
Contact:

Post by 'Alert' » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:10 am

SuzanneMarie wrote:If you think that discussing Freudian theory with a twelve year old would be titillating
Who's to say the Snake Thompson wasn't trying to groom LRH at age twelve?

After all, LRH bragged up being educated in Freudian theory by Thompson.

Wether you can confront it or not, hubbard's writi8ngs and ramblings are littered with vast indications that he was a sick and twisted/perverted human being.

I mean, how can you reconcile exteriorization by distance drilling (R2-24), involving tolerating a thetans genitals to your rectum?

In case you need reminding, toots....
The Creation of Human Abilities(R2.24) wrote:IMPORTANT: THE PRECLEAR MUST NOT BE PERMITTED TO USE MOCK-UPS IN THE MATTER OF WHAT DISTANCE THE PARTS OF THE BODY OR THE ROOM COULD TOLERATE TO A THETAN. THE AUDITOR WANTS THE ACTUAL PARTS OF THE BODY RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE AND THEIR TOLERANCE TO THE THETAN IN EACH CASE. AND HE WANTS THE PARTS OF THE ROOM RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE AND THEIR DISTANCE TO THE THETAN. THIS PROCESS IS NOT TO BE DONE BY MOCK-UPS. BUT IF MOCK-UPS APPEAR IN THE MATTER OF WHAT DISTANCE THE THETAN CAN TOLERATE TO THE PARTS OF THE BODY OR ROOM THEY ARE ALLOWABLE BUT ARE NOT ENCOURAGED. IF MOCK-UPS ARE USED IN THE MATTER OF DISTANCE OF THE OBJECTS TO THE THETAN, THE REALITY OF THE PRECLEAR WILL DECREASE MARKEDLY. THE PRECLEAR IS NOT BEING EXTERIORIZED FROM MOCK-UPS, HE IS BEING EXTERIORIZED FROM ACTUAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE OBJECTS.
Image
"If anyone talks about a "road to Freedom" he is talking about a linear line. This, then, must have boundaries. If there are boundaries there is no freedom." - Dianetics 55

Hubbard's Mushroom
Posts: 8290
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:02 pm

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:06 pm

What distance could your rectum tolerate to a Thetan?

That's just sick.

SuzanneMarie
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 6:24 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Post by SuzanneMarie » Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:54 pm

J. Swift wrote:
SuzanneMarie wrote:Ledora, LRH's mom, has been described as a feminist and a well-educated woman.
She has been described that way by LRH and by Scientology in order to create and perpetuate the myth of L. Ron Hubbard's superhuman childhood by Scientology.
Would having a college-educated feminist mother endow a person with mythic status?

Here's Russell Miller in Barefaced Messiah describing Ledora May Waterbury, LRH's mother:

"Tall, outspoken and independent, she was an unashamed feminist...But by the time she had qualified as a high school and institute teacher, certificate of Nebraska, she was writing letters home about a young sailor she had met called 'Hub.'"

Please present evidence that Ledora was not well-educated or a feminist, or put a sock in it.

User avatar
Os Wilkes
Posts: 2070
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:09 am
Location: cyberspace
Contact:

Post by Os Wilkes » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:00 am

'Alert' wrote:
SuzanneMarie wrote:If you think that discussing Freudian theory with a twelve year old would be titillating
Who's to say the Snake Thompson wasn't trying to groom LRH at age twelve?

After all, LRH bragged up being educated in Freudian theory by Thompson.
Dear Alert,

Paedos frequently employ similar tactics in grooming their targets. What L. Ron Hubbard reports is part and parcel of the grooming my father used on me, and similar in many ways to the grooming employed against many victims of "chicken hawks". I have studied this for decades and the pattern always repeats. I spot so many similarities between what happened with Hubbard and what happened with my father, I contend that the kind of issue Hubbard had was not garden variety paedophilia. Again for the record I state that my Grandpa cashiered out of the Navy as a Rear Admiral, and the identical process happened in my family starting with my father during WW2. Up to and including the "Freudian" training, which encourages the young man with an invasive and controlling mom to bond with older males and nurtures hatred towards women. This anger is used to motivate the targeted individual into antisocial behaviours controlled and directed by the handler.

Hubbard probably was an asset or a resource to the military during his lifetime. The mind control / intelligence gathering front he created (Scientology) has been doing things with citizens that are forbidden under our Constitution.

Oh well, I gotta go crawl back under my rock.


Love,

Os
Latest stuph:

The latest fave video- a blast from the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxOmrS6uqVM

User avatar
'Alert'
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: Bondi Beach
Contact:

Post by 'Alert' » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:47 am

Hubbard's Mushroom wrote:What distance could your rectum tolerate to a Thetan?

That's just sick.
I think it goes beyond being "sick".

The above quote from the Original Thesis, coupled with hubbard's own addmission of being taught to masturbate at a "very young age", is quite eye opening when you factor in the plethora of indications through hubbard's ramblings, that he was a severely damaged person that wanted to 'aberrate' the entire population with his being "sick"
Os Wilkes wrote: Dear Alert,

Paedos frequently employ similar tactics in grooming their targets. What L. Ron Hubbard reports is part and parcel of the grooming my father used on me, and similar in many ways to the grooming employed against many victims of "chicken hawks". I have studied this for decades and the pattern always repeats. I spot so many similarities between what happened with Hubbard and what happened with my father, I contend that the kind of issue Hubbard had was not garden variety paedophilia. Again for the record I state that my Grandpa cashiered out of the Navy as a Rear Admiral, and the identical process happened in my family starting with my father during WW2. Up to and including the "Freudian" training, which encourages the young man with an invasive and controlling mom to bond with older males and nurtures hatred towards women. This anger is used to motivate the targeted individual into antisocial behaviours controlled and directed by the handler.

Hubbard probably was an asset or a resource to the military during his lifetime. The mind control / intelligence gathering front he created (Scientology) has been doing things with citizens that are forbidden under our Constitution.
Os, words fall short to try rconcile what has happened to so many as children. Sick and twisted individuals will use whatever means available to condition(aka groom) a child into practicing and accepting sexual contact with selected adults (the predators involved) is okay behaviour.
Paedophilia is as old as dirt.
No reasoning whatsoever can justify such acts of inhumanity upon the vulnerable.

No matter what happened to us as children, the time comes in our lives where we know right from wrong. What happened to us was wrong, and to repeat the same cycle is a choice made by sick people.

Os Wilkes wrote: Oh well, I gotta go crawl back under my rock.


Love,

Os
No you don't Os Wilkes.

The beauty of life is meant to be about diversity. We argue, we conflict at an intellectual level(we being people in general) like rational beings that are suppose to be evolving away from brutality and irrational behaviours.

Sure my brother, we blued about the Nony's, but it didn't stop me from being your friend. You're not disconnected Os, you're a part of me, as I am a part of you.
We iz all connected!

Besides, if everybody looked/ thought the same, we'd tire of looking/talking at/to each other. :D



Oh. and as for you SM... you'll never win nor defend something so abhorrant as scientology...no matter how hard you try to keep going at J. Swift.
"If anyone talks about a "road to Freedom" he is talking about a linear line. This, then, must have boundaries. If there are boundaries there is no freedom." - Dianetics 55

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests