Was L. Ron Hubbard Sexually Molested as a Child?

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
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... » Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:53 am

All that SuzanneMarie (or whoever is posting behind that handle today) needs to understand, Os Wilkes, is that we are not hostile to her, but hostile to the programming that has been laid down over SM's real self, and to the person responsible for the programming.

When I get called in to fix someone's computer, do I hate the computer because of the viruses infecting it? No. I hate the virus, and the person who wrote that virus, and I'll admit to feeling some resentment towards the computer's owner for allowing their computer to be infected. But when I return that computer to them cleansed of the virus, I know that they'll be a bit wiser next time they get offered a penis enlarging pill, a free Playstation 3, or a video of Obama and Palin having sex.

This is how I feel about Scientology. It is a virus of the mind's computer, and I am one of the people working to remove it.

Part of that is understanding the mind of the person who created the virus, and knowing that Hubbard was in all likelyhood one of the very people he railed against AND the person that he used as an example over and over again in Dianetics is part of that.
"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."

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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:47 pm

Did Hubbard blame psychs for inventing pain/sex
because he himself was sexually abused by a psych?

Did he assign sex/pain invented by psychs to everyone
on the whole track as the only way he knew how to
deal with and speak of his own abuse?

+++++++++++++++Sacred Cult Scripture+++++++++

There are two items in this universe that cause more trouble
than many others combined. One is PAIN. The other is SEX.

One should know more about these things.
Despite the false data of Freud, psychologists, psychiatrists
and other criminals, they are not native to a being. They
are only artificial wave lengths. They have exact frequencies
that can be manufactured. A being or a machine can
synthesize either one.
Destructive creatures who do not want people big or reaching
-- since they are terrified of punishment due to their crimes
-- invented pain and sex to shrink people and cut their
alertness, knowingness, power and reach.
Under the false data of the psychs (who have been on the
track a long time and are the sole cause of decline in this
universe) both pain and sex are gaining ground in this society.

- L. Ron Hubbard - HCOB 26 August 1982 PAIN AND SEX


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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:49 pm

Snake Thompson in the bottom?

By hypnosis I must be convinced as follows:

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

— L. Ron Hubbard's Admissions ca. 1946


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

Post by J. Swift » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:52 am

December 2009 Update: Since February 2006 when I originally posted this thread, the Church of Scientology has appeared to back off its claims that Commander Snake Thompson imparted to twelve year old L. Ron Hubbard a mastery of Freudian Psychoanalysis. This is part of the continuing whitewash of what Hubbard said and wrote about himself when he lived. The new CoS claim is merely that Thompson took a twelve year old boy to the library to teach him about the human mind. This is still creepy:
L. Ron Hubbard moves north to Puget Sound in Washington State. He joins the Boy Scouts of America in April 1923. As a member of Tacoma Troop 31, he becomes a Second Class Scout on 8 May and two months later, on 5 July, advances to First Class Scout.

In October, Harry Ross Hubbard receives orders to report to the nation’s capital. L. Ron Hubbard and his parents board the USS Ulysses S. Grant on 1 November 1923 and sail to New York from San Francisco through the recently opened Panama Canal. They then journey to Washington, DC. During this voyage, he meets Commander Joseph “Snake” Thompson, who has recently returned from Vienna and studies with Sigmund Freud. Through the course of their friendship, the commander spends many an afternoon in the Library of Congress teaching L. Ron Hubbard what he knows of the human mind.
ref: http://mediaresources.lronhubbard.org/c ... page01.htm

All of the data about LRH must be considered in a search for clues as to the often brutal nature of Scientology. If LRH were abused as a child, that would help to explain his schizophrenic personality and hence the schizophrenic nature of Scientology itself.



contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

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

Post by newclear » Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:02 am

Thank you for bumping the thread, Swift. Contrary to Hubbard's well known phrase "A Scientologist is not a victim", it is probable that young Ron was very much a victim. I would not agree that schizophrenia is caused by sexual abuse, but Thompson's manipulation and sexual abuse of the young LRH would have caused a tremendous amount of inner turmoil.

You may have noticed that I have lately been in a more forgiving or apologetic frame of mind towards LRH. However, this thread is one of my favorites and I couldn't help but respond. In my mind, this subject boils down to two things:

1. Hubbard had sexual issues, like the rest of us. And by the way, gay sex is OK between consenting adults.

2. I'm not the d**k police, and this kind of speculation is not helpful in understanding the larger picture of Scientology.
You're so screwed, so screwed, the Way to Slappiness is the way to flappiness.

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

Post by J. Swift » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:06 am

newclear wrote:...

1. Hubbard had sexual issues, like the rest of us. And by the way, gay sex is OK between consenting adults.

2. I'm not the d**k police, and this kind of speculation is not helpful in understanding the larger picture of Scientology.
Newclear, I used LRH's own biographical material as posted on CoS websites to form my hypothesis. If you are part of the CoS, FZ, or Indie effort to cover up or destroy the actual facts about LRH, then I quite agree that a post like mine is not helpful. Ignoring the reality, however, will not make it go away: The consistent refusal of Scientologists to address and confront the inconvenient truths about L. Ron Hubbard is a tacit admission that the Tech does not work. LRH himself argued that a Scientologist is one who can skillfully communicate about anything to anyone. LRH of course lied about this because he made it a high crime for Scientologists to discuss the truth about L. Ron Hubbard. LRH's hypocrisy on this matter was monumental.

Where is the Scientologist who can honestly discuss L. Ron Hubbard? Would not a truthful discussion of L. Ron Hubbard be a part of informing any larger picture of Scientology? Or is the "larger picture" better served by politely pretending that LRH is all in the past and the Tech is all that matters? Scilons want it both ways: They want to assert LRH's Tech going into the future while ignoring and downplaying LRH the deeply flawed and violent Man. That is called denial and pretend. If the Tech requires denial and pretend, then it must not be very workable. To this point, CoS itself has never formally issued a biography of L. Ron Hubbard. Why? Is Cos waiting to whistle Dixie?

Newclear: In terms of your magnanimous approval of gay sex: L. Ron Hubbard called gay people deviants. Do you disagree with the virulent, anti-gay stance of LRH and CoS? Is that what you are indicating?


http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/dem ... ntigay.txt

The purpose of this leaflet is to warn gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, and other "perverts," as well as all people who care about gay rights, of the danger posed by the Church of Scientology. As demonstrated below, the Church of Scientology has determined that gays pose a grave danger to society. The Church has a solution. Gays can either be quarantined and institutionalized, or undergo Church

The Church of Scientology has officially determined that gays are perverts. In _Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health_, L. Ron Hubbard, the Founder of the Church of Scientology, wrote:

"The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in dynamic two such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc., and all down the catalog of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically."

L. Ron Hubbard, _Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health_,
Book Two, Chapt. 5, at p. 120 ((c) 1989 L. Ron Hubbard Library)
(footnotes omitted).

For future reference, in the world of L. Ron Hubbard and the
Church of Scientology: "Dynamic two is the urge of the
individual toward ultimate survival via the sex act, the creation
of and the rearing of children." See _Dianetics_, Book 1, Chapt.
4, at p. 43. "This dynamic would normally be called sex." See
L. Ron Hubbard, _Science of Survival, Prediction of Human
Behavior_, Book One, Chapt. 18, at p. 114 ((c) 1951
L. Ron Hubbard).

L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology have also
determined all of the behavioral characteristics (beyond mere
sexual preference) of "perverts" such as homosexuals. In Science
of Survival, Hubbard established a "tone scale" for classifying
individuals and evaluating human behavior. See generally
_Science of Survival_, Book One, Chapt. 1. The tone scale ranges
from -3 at the bottom (death), to +4 at the top. See id.
"Perverts," such as homosexuals, fall at 1.1 on the tone scale:

"At 1.1 on the tone scale we enter the
area of the most vicious reversal of the
second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity,
perversion, sadism, and irregular

_Science of Survival_, Book One, Chapt. 18, at 116.

According to the Church of Scientology, gays and other
"perverts" are dangerous in the extreme:

"People on this level on the second
dynamic are intensely dangerous in the
society, since aberration is contagious. A
society which reaches this level is on its
way out of history, as went the Greeks, as
went the Romans, as goes modern European and
American culture. Here is a flaming danger
signal which must be heeded if a race is to
go forward."

_Science of Survival_

Scientology, and its Founder, L. Ron Hubbard, teach that one
should not, and indeed cannot, trust a 1.1" gay "pervert." This
is because: "Around 1.1, we reach the level of covert
hostility." See _Science of Survival_, Book One, Chapt. 8, at
56. To be more precise:

"The person may claim to love others and to
have the good of others as his foremost
interest; yet, at the same moment, he works,
unconsciously or otherwise, to injure or
destroy the lives and reputations of people
and also to destroy property."

_Science of Survival_ Hubbard further explains:

"At 1.1, we have lying, to avoid real
communication. * * * Here is the level of
covert hostility, the most dangerous and
wicked level on the tone scale. Here is the
person who smiles while he inserts a knife
blade between your vertebrae. * * * Here
is the insincere flatterer who yet awaits
only a moment of unguardedness to destroy.
* * * This is the level of the pervert
. . . ."

_Science of Survival_, Book 1, Chapt. 13, at 88-89. Such a
person "has only two purposes: to wreak the most harm upon
others, and secure the greatest safety for self." See _Science
of Survival_, Book 1, Chapt. 22, at 136.

It appears that for Hubbard, the danger posed by "1.1" gay
"perverts" cannot be underestimated. Indeed:

"From 1.3 down to 0.6 we have the
general area of the subversive, who promises
a people freedom and equality and gives them
a slaughter of their best minds and cultural
institutions, to the end of a totalitarian

_Science of Survival_, Book 1, Chapt. 27, at 163.

According to Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, given
this danger posed by homosexual "1.1" "perverts," society is
faced with only one choice:

"No social order which desires to
survive dates overlook its stratum 1.1's.
No social order will survive which does not
remove these people from its midst."

_Science of Survival_, Book 1, Chapt. 13, at 90. To Hubbard and
the Church of Scientology, the obvious solution is a simple one:

"Such people should be taken from the
society as rapidly as possible and uniformly
institutionalized; for here is the level of
the contagion of immorality, and the
destruction of ethics;"

_Science of Survival_, Book 1, Chapt. 13, at 89.

On the other hand, the Church of Scientology offers an

"The only answers would seem to be the
permanent quarantine of such persons from
society to avoid the contagion of their
insanities and the general turbulence which
they bring to any order, thus forcing it
lower on the scale, or processing such
persons until they have attained a level on
the tone scale which gives them value."

_Science of Survival_, Book 1, Chapt. 21, at 131. Thus, the
Church offers gays a choice. Gays can avoid being quarantined
or institutionalized by simply undergoing Church "processing" to
raise their tone level so that they are no longer gay "perverts,"
but instead have "value."

Finally, while the Hubbard and the Church of Scientology
have determined that gays are dangerous in the extreme, they have
also concluded that gay problem is easily dealt with. This is
because with gays:

"At 1.1, we have reached fear, on the
tone scale, and when the individual rises
above fear we have underhanded displays of
action. If the individual is suddenly
addressed by danger, however, we have

_Science of Survival_, Book 1, Chapt. 23, at 141.
ref: http://www.xenu.net/archive/projects/qd ... s/h2-1.txt


contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

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

Post by curiosity » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:48 am

Hubbard wrote:

"Despite the false data of Freud, psychologists, psychiatrists and other criminals..." (emphasis added).

I am bothered by how Hubbard stabbed Freud in the back intellectually with this statement. Here he called Freud a criminal, but in the acknowledgment section of early editions of Science of Survival, he listed Sigmund Freud as one of the "thinking men [of history] without whose speculations and observations the creation and construction of Dianetics would not have been possible. Credit in particular is due to:...[then Freud appears on the list]."

It seems clear that the basic technique of memory regression as championed by Freud was the basis of Dianetic auditing.

If Hubbard thought that he had improved on Freud, then he should have just said so. He didn't need to call Freud a criminal after acknowledging Freud's important contribution to the development of Dianetics. That just means that Hubbard relied on the "speculations and observations" of at least one criminal to construct Dianetics.

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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:18 pm

Wonder why L. Ronnie hated sex...

+++++++++++Sacred Cult Scripture++++++++++++++++

Sex is VERY MESTy. A thetan knows it is and he feels
degraded after he's gone around and fooled with it for a while.
It's terrible.

- L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course

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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:32 pm

Why is going exterior such a sought after goal in scientology?

It's a well known fact that sexual abuse victims "leave their
bodies" as a way to handle the abuse and to keep from
"going insane".

So a "ridge" is going into action and frightening Hubbard?
Hubbard activates a ridge with his own energy and has
no choice but to hold on the the ridge?

Whose ridge is Hubbard holding on to?

+++++++++++Sacred Cult Scripture++++++++++++++

L. Ron Hubbard on How To Measure Sanity

And you say, "All right. Step one foot back of your head, now."
Mmm, he's very happy, for the first second he really starts to
move back and out, and he hits one of these ridges, he activates
one of them with the energy which he himself is putting out, that
ridge goes into action and makes him frightened, and so he has
no choice but to hold on. The... The... actually, the sanity of
an individual is very closely gauged by this mechanism.

- L. Ron Hubbard Philadelphia Doctorate Course


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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:43 pm

Wondering what happened to Hubbard that he would link
pain with sex...

++++++++++Sacred Cult Scripture++++++++++++++

"There are two items in this universe that cause more
trouble than many others combined.

One is PAIN.

The other is SEX.

One should know more about these things."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOB, 26 August 1982


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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:57 pm

Hubbard put Homosexuals on the lower band of the tone scale.

A homosexual did damage to Hubbard's sanity?

++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++

Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower
bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness
nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious
damage such people do to sane men and women.

-- L. Ron Hubbard, Science of Survival

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

Post by newclear » Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:05 pm

Ah yes -- the old Pain and Sex HCOB. Some people claim that this wasn't really Hubbard, or that Hubbard had gone crazy at that point but his early stuff was great. But that quote from the PDCs doesn't support that. In Tubbard's mind, sex was always a degraded act - it felt bad.

Never mind that many old and respected religions consider sex to be a spiritual experience within the right context. I don't think Blubbard was always right, and here you go quoting Science of Survival again about Gays and Lesbians being at 1.1 on the tone scale. However, it really is a lot of work trying to square up all of these contradictions. I have better things to do with my time.

I admit that I have trouble pulling my head out of Flubbard's ass. My goal for this year is to achieve freedom from "total freedom".
You're so screwed, so screwed, the Way to Slappiness is the way to flappiness.

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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:46 pm

++++++++++Sacred Cult Scripture++++++++++++++++

" No pervert ever became a pervert without having been
educated or abused by a pervert. And that abuse must
have been very thorough."

L Ron Hubbard
Dianetics--The Original Thesis


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

Post by J. Swift » Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:49 pm

Newclear, don't be so hard on yourself. You're just experiencing what so many other Scientologists do: How does the Scientologist reconcile the perceived value of the Tech with LRH the vainglorious, psychotic, pathological liar? There is a huge delta between the Tech and its Creator. As with other demagogues, LRH had a "do as I say and not as I do" approach. LRH lied, used recreational drugs, and was never himself ethical, law abiding, or sane. Nevertheless, some people find parts of his work to be useful. In a Q&A at allexperts.com, OT Laurie Hamilton approached the problem in her now infamous "psychotic Martians with AIDS" defense of the Tech:
... The value of Scientology is not in Ron, but in the teachings. No one should ever be a Scientologist because of the force or weight of another's personality, but only because of his own personal certainty on his own experience. I'm continually amazed at the stuff he wrote and spoke, but never placed him on a pedestal. No one should have ever done that, but some did. People adhere to Scientology because they find the precepts, principles and teachings invaluable and indispensible in their lives for purely practical purposes. That the teachings do not result in Goghood, superhero status or magic is neither surprising nor important. The Founder was mortal. Well, he always said he was a man as others are men.

I don't know if Ron reached the top levels of OT. No one does. Therefore, I don't know if it is appropriate to place any store in his physical course as being at all indicative of what being OT means to longevity, physical health or the ability to magically accomplish feats inconsistent with the fact of operating with a physical body.

All that said, NONE OF IT is relevant to whether Scientology works for you, or for me, or that guy over there, or not. If it works, it is worth attention. If it works better than anything else one has tried, it's worth a LOT of attention. If it doesn't work, it deserves to be ignored. If it clarifies the entire field of comparative religion and philosophy one has studied, and is helpful in handling life's upsets, raising kids, succeeding in a career, resolving conflicts and solving problems, and gives one a peace, insight and clarity of vision that one's peers envy, then it is valuable indeed. That is how I find it. I wouldn't care if I were to learn tomorrow it was developed by psychotic Martians with AIDS. I have proved its principles in my life.
What is the data?

1. LRH created a model of Consciousness. LRH created both a problem and a solution. His model, his problem and solution, is not Reality and does not conform to Reality. The model LRH created can easily be deconstructed into its precursors and cognates.

2. There is absolutely no Science that supports Scientology. Scientology is self-referential, a tautology, and refers only to itself for proof of its claims.

3. Over the sixty years of Dianetics and Scientology, the Tech has failed to produce any remarkable results other than first dynamic wins for pcs. These wins are subjective.

4. Over the sixty years of Dianetics and Scientology, a consistent torrent of people have left Scientology with similar complaints of spiritual, financial, and even physical abuse. Scientology is inescapably abusive.

5. Scientology is a Dictatorship inside of which there is no actual justice. Justice in Scientology is defined as that which best serves the PR and Financial interests of the Church.

6. Scientology is incredibly expensive and does not deliver the results it promises. There are no Clears or OT's. Those are mocked up levels. Indeed, one could argue that the States of Clear and OT are actually massive considerations that spiritually cripple people who attest to having attained these states. Speaking from my experience, the Clears and OT's I know, or have known, have always had massive considerations about doing things. They are in "analysis paralysis" and fear of ethics.

LRH articulated a system of psycho-mechanics that can be used to analyze Consciousness from Hubbard's point of view. Remember: Scientology is Hubbard's POV. That is all it is and has ever been.

Scientology can be effective, for some people anyway, at identifying hidden traumas and the unconscious, harmful patterns these traumas can induce. Not everyone is traumatized as LRH claimed. People are resilient for the most part by reason of Evolution. Hubbard's basic technique is based upon Freudian free association and Abreaction therapy to which Hubbard added an E-Meter. Hubbard added a "wholetrack" because some people vividly experience past life memories. People tend to naturally get over negative childhood events as they mature. Where people need help, there are far more effective spiritual techniques, psychological therapies, and clinical methodologies than Scientology. IMO, Scientology is harmful because it is conducted by extremely unqualified people who are using a problematic, authoritarian, metaphysical theory in an attempt to effect changes in the human psyche. This theory contemplates extraterrestrials, implants, Marcabs, Xenu, and a host of other metaphysical entities that Hubbard tried to pass off as Science. Add in crush regging, stats, LRH's Master Race doctrine, the lies, greed, and abuse of its serial Dictators, and Scientology is terrifyingly nightmarish.

Scientology auditing is in no way a good approach to mental health. Longitudinally, Scientology has produced tragedy, grief, suicide, human rights abuses, slave labor, bankruptcy, heavy debt, forced abortions, lawsuits, demands for refunds, and an army of critics. Long term, Scientology's results are a moral abomination riddled with failure.

Again, my experience is that the long term practice of Scientology causes long term psychological damage in some people. The survivors are those who get help outside of Scientology. Essentially, Scientology cannot cure the damage it does to people. Scientology cannot undo Scientology.

Newclear, if LRH could not reconcile his own contradictions, how can you expect to do so? The central problem with Scientology is L. Ron Hubbard. Try as they might, Scientologists cannot decouple LRH from the Tech. The Tech is the authority in Scientology. A true Scientologist has to accept the Tech 100% or reject it completely. The definition of a squirrel is a person who picks and chooses from the Tech as it suits them. This violates KSW and results in a product that is called Scientology but is not Scientology.

Legally and scripturally, David Miscavige is the only person in the world who can define who is and is not a Scientologist. As far as I can determine, a Scientologist these days is defined as a member in good standing of IAS and CoS. A Scientologist in good standing accepts 100% of what LRH wrote as being scriptural and is not allowed to invalidate LRH in any way. Thus, Science of Survival stands as scriptural for any Scientologist along with everything else in LRH's body of CoS work.
Everything that LRH wrote for CoS is scripture and Scientologists are saddled with it forever.

IMO, one of the worst spiritual states in the world is to be a Scientologist in the Church of Scientology in 2010. That is as far from an Ideal Scene as East is from West!

Last edited by J. Swift on Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:35 pm, edited 5 times in total.

contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:16 pm

Did someone treat Hubbard as full grown when he was a child?

+++++++Sacred Cult Scripture++++++++++++++++++

"A child is a man or a woman who has not yet attained
full growth."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Child Dianetics, Copenhagen 1983


Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 13 guests