Was L. Ron Hubbard Sexually Molested as a Child?

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10214
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Post by J. Swift » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:29 pm

Suzie Engram, I have read Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah, Madman or Messiah, Blue Sky, etc. Due to your dishonesty, however, you created the impression that you were quoting from Hubbard's childhood diary specifically with respect to his time spent with Commander Thompson. What you have done is intellectually dishonest; it was a bait and switch tactic. You used Miller's general impression of Hubbard's childhood diaries to make it appear that LRH specifically said that he found Freud boring. Your intellectual dishonesty is unsurprising, for your "religion" teaches that lying is a virtue -- especially if one can lie convincingly. Unfortunately, Suzie, you are not a gifted liar. Leave the lies to the experts such as David Miscavige or, umm, well, whomever else is left at the top of the Cult these days. It seems that execs in Scientology are disappearing faster these days than semen down the throats of LRH's lascivious SciFi characters!

*****
Suzie Engram, I have read all of the great books on Hubbard. They are all free and available online. These are the the three main books that the Cult, err, gagged on:

Bare-Faced Messiah:
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm

Madman or Messiah?
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/dst/ww ... Madman.txt

A Piece of Blue Sky:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/A%20Pie ... %20Sky.pdf

*****
Suzie Engram, what is very funny about your behavior on this thread -- and people see you doing it, despite the fact that you don't see yourself doing it -- is the fact that that I posited a theory, stated that it was a theory, and was content to leave it as a theory. I have never argued this theory as a fact. However, you have consistently demanded that I prove it as fact. I am content with my view that LRH was sexually molested as a child being a theory that has some strong anecdotal evidence. You can denounce my theory Suzie, but you can never kill it. My theory has gained the public's attention. Your demand for me to prove my theory would be like me demanding that you prove that Body Thetans exist as claimed by Scientology.

In any case, even if I had never posted my theory back in 2006, LRH's reputation was already so shot to hell that Western Culture had totally repudiated him and denounced him as an insane liar who had created an equally insane cult.

Suzie, you are tilting at windmills when you defend Scientology. This pernicious, diseased Cult is indefensible, incoherent, and in collapse.


/////
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 » Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:09 am

J. Swift wrote:Suzie Engram, I have read Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah, Madman or Messiah, Blue Sky, etc. Due to your dishonesty, however, you created the impression that you were quoting from Hubbard's childhood diary specifically with respect to his time spent with Commander Thompson.
No, I did not.

And if you've read the books you cite, why didn't you recall that Miller mentioned LRH's mother as a college educated feminist? You accused CoS of making it up. You also did not recall Miller's cite of LRH's frequent diary entry, 'was bored.' I'm sure you must be disappointed that I do not have actual access to LRH biographical materials, as you've tried before to groom me as an informant and source for your drivel.
J. Swift wrote: Suzie Engram, what is very funny about your behavior on this thread -- and people see you doing it, despite the fact that you don't see yourself doing it -- is the fact that that I posited a theory, stated that it was a theory, and was content to leave it as a theory. I have never argued this theory as a fact. However, you have consistently demanded that I prove it as fact. I am content with my view that LRH was sexually molested as a child being a theory that has some strong anecdotal evidence. You can denounce my theory Suzie, but you can never kill it. My theory has gained the public's attention.
I'm not the only person who has pointed out weaknesses in your various theories throughout this thread. Not only is there no 'anecdotal' evidence for your theory that Snake Thompson molested young Hubbard, you and others have brought up such things as scarves and Freudianism and the lack of evidence in LRH's diary, as evidence that Thompson was a child molester!

My opinion of your theories are that most of them are stillborn, anyway.
If you want 'em to fly, you need to do more reading and actual research to make sure you aren't presenting something that actual researchers and writers will laughingly shred.

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

Post by J. Swift » Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:36 am

Suzie Engram, when I read Miller's description of LRH's mother as a college educated feminist, I dismissed it altogether. What Miller did was to take the Postmodern movement of Feminism and superimpose it on a woman who lived when Feminism did not exist. There is no way for anyone to determine if Hubbard's mother espoused the core ideological values of Feminism. Assuming she had for the sake of argument, Old Mother Hubbard failed to pass her Feminist values onto her son: LRH treated the key women in his life like shit, and, Scientology's Sea Org treats SO women the same way. For example, Sea Org does not even provide feminine hygiene products for its female members. Sea Org women have to pay for these products from their $36.00, or less, weekly "stipend" as you like to call it. Sea Org women are also subject to forced abortions if they get pregnant and want to stay in the Sea Org. The ways in which Scientology degrades women is lengthy. How many times has David Miscavige called women by the hateful "C" word?

*****
Suzie, your lame attempt to praise Hubbard's mother is a giant FAIL. In his Admissions, Hubbard rejected his mother and her values:
Your mother's theories on psychology were wrong. They do not now affect you.
Hubbard was a wife-beater, a bigamist, and a sexual pig who had zero respect for women. We further read in Hubbard's Admissions of his attitudes towards women and sex. I have bolded in red the truly fucked up things that Hubbard wrote for the benefit of our readers:

Testosterone blends easily with your own hormones. Your glands already
make plenty of needed testosterone and by adding to that store you
make yourself very thrilling and sexy. Testosterone increases your
sexual interest and activity. It makes erections easier and harder and
makes your own joy more intense. Stilbesterol in 5 mg doses makes you
thrill more to music and color and makes you kinder.

You have no fear of what any woman may think of your bed conduct. You know you are a master. You know they will be thrilled. You can come many times without weariness. The act does not reduce your vitality or brain power at all. You can come several times and still write. Intercourse does not hurt your chest or make you sore. Your arms are strong and do not ache in the act.

Your own pleasure is not dependent on the woman's. You are interested only in your own sexual pleasure. If she gets any that is all right but not vital. Many women are not capable of pleasure in sex and anything adverse they say or do has no effect whatever upon your pleasure. Their bodies thrill you. If they repel you, it merely means they themselves are too frigid or prudish to be bothered with. They are unimportant in bed except as they thrill you. Your sexual power is magnificent and they know it. If they are afraid of it, that is their loss. You are not affected by it.

You have no fear if they conceive. What if they do? You do not care.
Pour it into them and let fate decide.

The slipperier they are the more you enjoy it because it means their
mucous is running madly with pleasure.

There is nothing wrong in the sex act. Nothing any woman may say can
change your opinion. You are a master. You are as sensitive and sexy
as Pan. Lord help women when you begin to fondle them. You are master
of their bodies, master of their souls as you may consciously wish.
You have no karma to pay for these acts. You cannot now accumulate
karma for you are a master adept. Your voice is low and compelling to
them. Singing to them, for you sing like a master, destroys their will
to resist. You obey the conventions, you commit no crimes because you
need not. You can be intelligently aware of their morals and the laws
of the land and fit your campaign expertly within them.

The love of women is not necessary to your ego. You are above them.
You know well that many women are mad about you, that you satisfy them perfectly. You will satisfy them easily. You do not care...


You do not masturbate. Masturbation cannot harm you in any way but you would rather have women. Your penis and erotic centers are very
sensitive to women. You are not afraid that someone will catch you
masturbating. No one knows or ever will know. Such discovery would be
harmless. You do not masturbate. Only women thrill you and very
deeply.

Snakes are not dangerous to you. There are no snakes in the bottom of your bed. Snakes are wise beings. They are your friends.

You can be merciless when your will is crossed and you have the right
to be merciless.
ref: http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.ph ... Itemid=174

SuzanneMarie, if I had to invent a sockpuppet who fed me lame arguments that I could easily knock down, I would have invented you. I am amazed by your naivete. Sometimes I wonder if this is all a secret joke for you. If it is all a joke for you, then you are a marvelous comedian who has fooled everyone. If this is all real for you, then you are extraordinarily disturbed and should seek psychiatric treatment immediately.

I have no idea why you are keeping this thread going.


/////
Last edited by J. Swift on Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image

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

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

Post by ron's hat » Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:50 am

J. Swift wrote: For example, Sea Org does not even provide feminine hygiene products for its female members.
I have it on good authority that Davey MisCavaige rents out his tongue at 4 cents per hour for use as a 'feminine hygiene product'.

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

Post by curiosity » Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:26 am

SuzanneMarie wrote:
What book did you read? It doesn't sound familiar...one of the Mission Earth gay characters (Utanc) was sent to France to convince the French that he was Joan of Arc reborn, and his underage gay lovers accompanied him.
In the scene you describe, it is left ambiguous if Utanc/Colonel Gaylov is still gay or merely transvestite (and there is a difference) because he is described in that passage as “ex-Utanc” who says, “France is about to become the holiest and most drugless place on Earth.” (vol. 9, p. 303). Jettero’s girlfriend also assures Jettero that Utanc and the two boys with him no longer pose a threat of corrupting all of France. The whole scene is a bit of satire, and Utanc is standing there in “a silver travelling gown,” so I’m not going to read too much into it and give you that point.

Suzanne Marie wrote:
Another gay character (TooToo) went to the alien Capitol with Queen Teenie. What gay characters took a dirt nap? Are you talking about all the (mostly not gay) people who died when Teenie's island erupted and sank?
Which volume and page contains the episode of the erupting island?

Suzanne Marie wrote (emphasis is mine):
In Mission Earth, the hero and heroine, and their families, friends and allies are heterosexual.
Almost. There is a single teasing reference that main hero Jettero Heller might have a sexual interest in boys during an early scene in Babe Corleone’s house of prostitution, suggesting bisexuality. (Volume 2 as quoted earlier in Swift's post.) Otherwise, Heller is portrayed as entirely heterosexual.

SuzanneMarie wrote:
It's the villains and their stooges and victims who are involved in rape, prostitution, pederasty and gay sex.
Not quite. One of Heller’s main supporters was a female crime boss named Babe Corleone who operated the elegant Gracious Palms whorehouse in New York City “where Jettero Heller resided when first in New York City.” (Key to Villainy Victorious). Babe is one of the most favorable characters in the story because of her loyalty to Heller. She is described as “The six-foot-six widowed leader of the Corleone mob who ‘adopted’ Jettero Heller into her Mafia ‘family.’” (Key to THE DOOMED PLANET). There are tears in Hellers’s and Babe’s eyes when they say goodbye near the end of the story. (vol. 9, p. 304).

During my skim-through of Mission Earth to create this reply, I came across another gay song not cited earlier, the first part is:

And here’s a cheer
To the boys in blue
And here’s to the cons
They love to screw.
So let’s screw the blueboys
Screw, screw, screw.

(vol. 9, p. 162).

I thought that I had also included this earlier, but I don't see it on Swift's post, so here it is again ("..." denotes nonsensical refrains):

Oh, a soldier's life is the life for me,
...
In camp and plain, I'm always free
...
No women ever spoil my view
...
They're always wanting something new,
....
For it is the men that I enjoy
...
The best there is, I find, is boy!
...
The enemy I do not mind
...
Can go on in my behind
...
And if my bunkmates all are kind
...
Surrounded by ten thousand (bleeps)
...
All passionate and hard as rocks
...
Eager to slide in my buttocks
...
So (bleep), (bleep), (bleep) and (bleep) in me!
...
And let me (bleep) and (bleep) in thee
...
Oh, what a love-ul-lee Arm-ee!

(vol. 9, p. 84)

Aye, I think I’m getting tired of exploring the sexual psyche of Mr. Hubbard. I realize that Mission Earth is meant to be funny and satirical (and I seem to be one of the few people who actually thought it was a fun read), but these passages say something about Hubbard because so much in this story is thinly-veiled truth, at least truth to Hubbard, such as the references to "Rockecenter," "I.G. Barben," etc. Many of Hubbard's true attitudes are also expressed in Mission Earth because we read similar attitudes in some of his Dianetics/Scientology works. Some of the true Hubbard was coming out in Mission Earth, which often happens with authors when they write works of fiction.

Let me end by pointing this out. This may not directly relate to the “Hubbard was gay/bi” or molestation theories, but it is another thing that has always suggested to me that Hubbard was conflicted about sex in general:

Reading Dianetics and Science of Survival makes it clear that Hubbard places gay people at 1.1 on the tone scale as “perverts” (people who engage in irregular sexual practices).

In 1956 Hubbard first published Fundamentals of Thought in which he said that the second dynamic is “the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity.” (p. 37, emphasis added). In other words, some homosexuality is a natural part of the second dynamic as long as there is also heterosexuality. Later editions of Fundamentals of Thought (including the current “Basics” edition) removed the “bisexual” reference. (I guess the reference to “bisexual” activity must have been the insertion of those sneaky wacky transcribers from long ago recently discovered by Mr. Miscavige.) But at least for a while, when Hubbard was still alive, Scientology was teaching the idea that some homosexual activity was a normal part of the second dynamic as long as there was also heterosexual activity in a person’s life. My guess is that some of Hubbard's own bisexuality was temporarily reflected in Scientology teachings when he wrote Fundamentals of Thought.

If we look at Science of Survival today and its discussion of the Tone Scale, we read, “At the band of 2.0 we begin to get a disgust for sex, a revulsion toward sex, mostly when irregularly practised.” (all editions, chapter 18, emphasis added).

Hubbard says that people at 2.0 are neurotic. This means that people who express “revulsion toward sex, mostly when irregularly practised (sic)” are probably neurotic. He claims that the second dynamic is the surest way to peg someone on the Tone Scale. That means that Hubbard himself was neurotic because of his expressions of revulsion toward homosexuality whether directly in his Dianetics/Scientology books or through some of his hero characters in Mission Earth. In fact, Hubbard eventually expresses revulsion for ALL sex when he claims in his Scientology writings that sex was the invention of psychiatrists, and this is another sign of Hubbard being no higher than 2.0 on his Tone Scale.

But then we look further at his Tone Scale, he says that 3.0 is “Very high normal” (i.e., quite sane), and 3.5 is “Dianetic Release” (i.e., really really sane.) He writes, “At 3.5, we have the liberal. The liberal reasons well, accepts wide responsibilities, and is guided by high ethical principles…He has a high regard for individual freedom…” (p. 124, emphasis added). But then Hubbard says how 1.1s will use the idea of “individual freedom” to defend and promote social ills like sexual perversion (which to Hubbard includes homosexuality.) So which is it? If a person defends human individual sexual freedom between consenting adults and feels no revulsion about homosexuality, does that make the person a high-toned 3.5 liberal, or a low-toned 1.1 sleazebag (or dupe of a 1.1)? Conflicting ideas like this are common in Scientology, and no amount of "word clearing" can adequately fix them.
Last edited by curiosity on Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:08 pm

Heterosexual men do not write this type of stuff...


Quote:
She told Gris about a school psychologist who had a lot of
very mentally sick boys in the school. They were classified
as oversexed. And he used to line them up in his office and
go down on them [i.e., perform oral intercourse] to cool
them off. And every day or two he’d get an overload of cases
and he’d send and get me excused from class so I could come
in and help. He’d stand and watch. There were so many of
those boys sometimes that I could hardly get my breath from
one before another had to be done. It was a fast clinical line,
let me tell you. And some of those boys were fifteen and
sixteen and pretty foamy. You just couldn’t help swallowing!
(v. 6, p. 321)

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

Post by ron's hat » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:53 am

Hubbard's Mushroom wrote:(And some of those boys were fifteen and
sixteen and pretty foamy. You just couldn’t help swallowing!
(v. 6, p. 321)
Now THAT is a description that even I couldn't come up with. :lol:

Note: the quote above, of course, is not HM's...it is a quote from Ron's 'Mission Earth' series.

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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:12 am

Can you swallow that Suzzannemarie?

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

Post by Os Wilkes » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:38 am

Hubbard's Mushroom wrote:Can you swallow that Suzzannemarie?
My guess is that SM does not swallow...


Love,

Cheeky Os
Latest stuph:

The latest fave video- a blast from the past:

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

User avatar
Fanboy The Great And...
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:19 am
Location: your pocketses *gollum*

Post by Fanboy The Great And... » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:57 am

Os Wilkes wrote:
Hubbard's Mushroom wrote:Can you swallow that Suzzannemarie?
My guess is that SM does not swallow...


Love,

Cheeky Os
But spitting can be sexier, if done properly - Japanese-style. Bukkake!

Quite honestly, though, I can see why she fled this thread. Her position seemed rather, ah, indefensible, and her attacks were meaningless.

About four years ago, I saw two guys in the park kissing each other and rubbing their crotches; until I read that quote from the gay porn novel Mission Earth, those guys in the park were the gayest thing I'd ever seen.
"Of course he went by Ron; who would have
taken a guy named Lafayette seriously?"

"Scientology is only about convincing the able they're crippled,
and lying to the crippled with the promise of making them able."

User avatar
newclear
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: USA

Post by newclear » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:11 pm

The sexual quotes from Mission Earth that I have seen in this thread are less than 10% of what actually is in there. It is so interspersed throughout that you would have to read all 10 ME volumes to get it all. Back when I read it, I have to admit that I had an MU -- I didn't quite know what "going down on" meant.

Per Robert Vaughn Young, LRH had drawn many pictures of penises and vulvas in the margin of the original manuscript.
You're so screwed, so screwed, the Way to Slappiness is the way to flappiness.

User avatar
Dorothy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Kansas

Post by Dorothy » Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:03 pm

I'll admit that in the beginning I viewed this theory as over-extrapolation. But with all the provocative info and quotes, I'm warming up to it now.

Psychologically, Hubbard's extreme obsession with sex, which is more on a hidden, sub-conscious level in that he hid it inside of his affirmations and fictional writing, could explain why he made sexuality so psychotically suppressed in his scientology.

His extreme position on homosexuality, the idea that all homos are evil, passive aggressive, perverted, paedophilic, potential traitors to the country who should be suddenly disappeared from the social order, the way he speaks of them with such contempt, and the way he treated the women in his personal life, might only be explained by the following:

1. Extreme and pathological HATRED towards homosexuals, female sexual partners (and possibly women in general).

and/or

2. Having been molested by an older male whom he trusted as a child.

or both.

In scientology, homos, sps, "psyches" and low-toned people are the new Jews, if you are able to confront what Hubbard actually says about them. Psychologically, Hilter's hatred of the Jews came from a sincere belief that they were the cause of untold suppression of his German people, amongst other things. In other words, Jews had done things to him that were so heinous, they deserved to be disappeared forever. Hatred is often born out of a vengeful mind.

In the Sea Org they have managed to carry out this "disappearing" and locking away, by way of the RPF. If little Davey offhandedly labels you 1.1, your fate is RPF or SP Hall. And look at how the crowd cheers at the IAS events at "numbers of psyches jailed that year".

I remember when I was a scientologist, I bought into the idea that homosexuals were absolutely not to be trusted. And I was taught to fear psyches. I was taught that sex was a degraded thing, born out of implants on the whole track. The only homos allowed on services were those wanting to be cured of their homo disease. The rest were eventually declared. One was left to die alone (of aids) without so much as a phone call, assist or single word from a scientology "minister". This, a person who donated much money to the Org for help.

I also remember, when in scientology, I viewed Ron's contempt for these people as born out of a kind of fatherly love for the Human Race and he was protecting us all from these terrible SP's. Wow. I've come a long way.

So, my conclusion is that Hubbard's extreme contempt towards homosexuals comes from either hatred born out of a white male supremacist mindset (which coincides with his Master Race theme that permeates his "ideology"), or having been severely abused by a paedophilic figure in his early life, and is therefore acting out a kind of revenge, much in the same way Hitler did towards the Jews. Or both.

I wonder if SuzanneMarie has any other explanation or theory about why Ron:

1. Wants all homos disappeared from society, government, the military or essential industry.
2. Why abortions are so heavily ordered amongst young females in the Sea Org.
3. Why the Sea Org has its own private prison that disappears members that are sexually active out of wedlock, or that are considered low-toned.
Last edited by Dorothy on Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Os Wilkes
Posts: 2070
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:09 am
Location: cyberspace
Contact:

Post by Os Wilkes » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:26 pm

deleted as redundant
Last edited by Os Wilkes on Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Latest stuph:

The latest fave video- a blast from the past:

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

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

Post by Os Wilkes » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:44 pm

Dorothy wrote:II wonder if SuzanneMarie has any other explanation or theory about why Ron:

1. Wants all homos disappeared from society, government, the military or essential industry.
2. Why abortions are so heavily ordered amongst young females in the Sea Org.
3. Why the Sea Org has its own private prison that disappears members that are sexually active out of wedlock, or that are considered low-toned.
Dear DG,

SM would have to read all about Hubbard and Parsons. She would also have to examine the testimonials of Hubbard's own son. She would have to read the accurate histories of L. Ron's life in regards to his primary caregivers. In addition she would have to read the accurate histories of his Naval service. She would have to read what Hubbard wrote about Thompson, and read the journal articles, books and papers written by Thompson to understand who he actually was. ALL of this is ENTHETA.

Then, she would have to have a talent for seeing "The Big Picture". This requires creative thought and powers of reasoning and analysis, in addition to a desire to acquire a deeper understanding of the issue. SM has the intellectual acuity, but not the desire. That has been whooped out of her systematically by Scientology. So, she should not be ridiculed. She should be respected for surviving something that killed people who were better human beings than some of us who live happily without such burdens including many who post here regularly.

THE BIG PICTURE. SM cannot see it because it's a generality. She has been taught to count trees rather than notice she is in a forest. This is not something to be ashamed of, or ridiculed for. This is a symptom of the kind of psychic rape we recognize as "applied Scientology".

Those of us who see "The Big Picture" care about the fate of average Scientologists like SM who have been suckered into reliving Hubbard's "case" by a predatory mobboss and his goons into dumping all their money and free labour into a sophisticated money laundering machine. People who have been harmed by Scientology spend a lot of energy doing damage control on their wounded psyches, and a lot less energy trying to figure out the license plate of the truck that ran them over. Those of us whose psyches are wounded are seeing the world through the blood dripping into their eyes. This is not a clear picture, let alone a "Big Picture" because only a tiny portion of reality can be perceived by a person struggling to survive. By all accounts, Scientologists who are NOT celebrities are struggling to survive their trip through the looking glass where everything is the opposite of what they have been told.

Hubbard was a sick, sad little boy who was CLEARLY AND BEYOND A DOUBT the victim of emotional if not physical incest- based on his SYMPTOMS. He is clearly pathologically and viscerally afraid of women, and ran his case on the weakest of the weak- unborn infants. This indicates that he was severely abused when he was so small that he could not fight back or survive on his own. His absentee father was responsible for his attraction to the authoritarian Naval environment as well as his dependence and idealization of a transitory relationship with Naval psychiatrist Thompson who was probably seeing him at the behest of his father because he was mentally ill- perhaps exhibiting psychosomatic illnesses, acting out against women or expressing homosexuality. Certainly Thompson discussed the Oedipus complex with Hubbard because he was an INCEST VICTIM with an absentee father and an invasive, malicious and controlling mother. This would be appropriate under those conditions, and inappropriate under any other conditions. Hubbard's idealization of imaginary women in regards to the Babalon workings juxtaposes against his loathing and abuse of real women as a clear symptom and indicator of the truth of this.

ALL of this is expressed in some manner in the practice of Scientology. I am a big believer in the concept of "Where there's smoke, there's FIRE". Scientology is the smoke of the raging inferno of Hubbard's psychological injuries.

I love SM, I really do. I think SM is a great asset on this board except for some of the rude things she says and some of the deflective trolling behaviours which all of us could do without, but then I can be an incredible @sshole myself and for that I apologize.

SM probably does not have the tools to discern this truth:

Hubbard was a wounded and tragic soul. He should be the object of empathy, compassion and understanding. He should not be ridiculed as we have done. I feel so damned sorry for him, his family, and his victims (those he has "acted out on" or "ran his case on") that I cannot hold back my tears.

But then, I am not looking through a veil of blood from the wounds HUBBARD CAUSED like SM and other ex's are. I am looking at what he said, what he did, and what others said about him and did in his name. This is my only resource, and my only advantage over SM and other ex Scientologists in the pursuit of truth.

That being said, I have done wrong on this thread, and I wish to correct it.

In the light of day, with a clearer head- I have looked back on my comment about SM. I thought I was being funny but the fact is I sniped at a person who has been seriously wounded by an enemy of mine. This is thoughtless and unmanly.

SM, I apologize for making a cheeky, rude, obnoxious comment. I displayed the behaviour of a cad, because I thought it was funny. That is my explanation, as lame as it is. I was being a bully and I regret it. I will never ever again make such an abusive sexist comment to or about you.


Love,

Os
Latest stuph:

The latest fave video- a blast from the past:

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

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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:48 am

Quote:
She told Gris about a school psychologist who had a lot of
very mentally sick boys in the school. They were classified
as oversexed. And he used to line them up in his office and
go down on them [i.e., perform oral intercourse] to cool
them off. And every day or two he’d get an overload of cases
and he’d send and get me excused from class so I could come
in and help. He’d stand and watch. There were so many of
those boys sometimes that I could hardly get my breath from
one before another had to be done. It was a fast clinical line,
let me tell you. And some of those boys were fifteen and
sixteen and pretty foamy. You just couldn’t help swallowing!
(v. 6, p. 321) - L. Ron Hubbard, Misson Earth

What I find interesting about this quote is the reference to
MENTALLY SICK BOYS (Hubbard as a boy?) being sucked
off by a PSYCHOLOGIST (Snake Thompson?)

The psychologist labels these boys as OVERSEXED.

Sounds like the standard rationalization utilized by a
sex predator,

"They asked for it because they were oversexed"....

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests