The true "genius" of L. Ron Hubbard?

[Disinfected]

Please forgive me for, in effect, cross-posting. I am putting something here that came from an off-topic exchange I had with Zinj in another thread. I would like to get some feedback on this concept because, for one reason, I am not so sure how any Church of Scientology 3.0 will address it.

*If* Scientology actually could deliver on its promises; if its 'worldview' was actually accurate; if the reality matched the bull, well, then KSW *would* be correct and desirable.

Well, you have put your finger on it there. We might disagree on how much of Scientology does, in fact, deliver but the salient fact for this discussion is that Scientologists are conditioned to believe that it all does.

It starts with the "What is true for you is true for you." Implying that one should suspend judgement on those parts that don't seem true.

It is pushed hard in the Academy with making one jump through incredible mental hoops and expend lots of effort and time to be granted the (never) official permission to disagree with Hubbard. See "How to defeat verbal tech checklist" and "Orders, Query Of".

Not understanding (not agreeing with) some part of Scientology is always the fault of the student and never the fault of the material. This can get pretty brutal, see KSW Series 1.

Communication about just about anything except following "Command Intention" du jour is discouraged as verbal tech, counter-intention, natter, HE&R, case, or any of a number of other no-no's.

The result is that Scientologists self-censor and condition themselves to compartmentalize those parts of Scientology that do not make sense to them and to outwardly, and perhaps to themselves, consider Scientology infallible. They must do this or they will not progress! This was perhaps the "genius" of Hubbard - tricking people into brainwashing themselves.

[GreyWolf]

He was, in fact, a brilliant flim-flam man. A con's Con.

[degraded being]

What is true for you is true for you until you get it word cleared so that what is true for you is what is acceptable to L. Ron. Hubbard.

What is true for you is true for you and let's just look at whether what is true for you is really what is good for all dynamics, which is to say all dynamics of a paranoid schizophrenic, megalomaniac, cult dictator.

What is true for you is true for you and that makes you an SP who can be lied to, tricked, decieved, or totally ruined.

What is true for you is true for you, and that means that now that you are psychologically enslaved and dependent, we will not let you have your next fix until you cease "other practices".

What is true for you is true for you but you'll have very different truths after we get rid of your "engrams".

What is true for you is true for you and we are very tolerant about that because we know you are "raw meat", just a wog, and you don't even have "reality" on past lives yet let alone the whole time track.

What is true for you is true for you but you are not really you yet, you are just a gigantic colony of BT's dictating your truths.

What is true for you is true for you and if you sell your house and your kids we can handle the life ruin that that is causing.

What is true for you is true for you, NOW STOP FUCKING DRAMATIZING< GO TO CRAMMING AND GET YOURSELF ON FUCKING SOURCE!!

[programmer_guy]

IMO, Zinj is 100% correct on this.

However, I suggest that you "read between the lines" on what I think he really means by that statement.

[Disinfected]

IMO, Zinj is 100% correct on this.

However, I suggest that you "read between the lines" on what I think he really means by that statement.

Really? I thought his sentiment was pretty transparent. What did I miss?

[Smilla]

He was, in fact, a brilliant flim-flam man. A con's Con.

You hit the nail on the head there. Smilla.

[SchwimmelPuckel]

<snip> *If* Scientology actually could deliver on its promises; if its 'worldview' was actually accurate; if the reality matched the bull, well, then KSW *would* be correct and desirable. </snip>

.. And I'll say that if scientology could deliver, then KSW would be unneccesary!

[Sharone Stainforth]

Yesterday at the protest in East.Grinstead one of the anons said to me "If you think about it, Hubbard really was a genius to have created all this and for it all to have lasted so long". My reply was that , I suppose you could say that. I have pondered on this before and have agreed to a certain degree that one could arrive at that conclusion.I have been pondering on this very question today.

In Scientology lay terms - I refuse to grant L. Ron Hubbard beingness as a genius, and this is Why:

If you have the charm, wit and aplomb to get peoples adoration, to the point that they are willing to do anything for you, and you use that for your own selfish purposes then you neither have any integrity or conscience.

If that wit and charm are then used as a means to exploit the vulnerable into having a false purpose and false identity then you have neither integrity or consience, If you then use that "granted beingness" by constantly making that being wrong, then beingness was never granted in the first place.

Hubbard did this in many ways, and I believe most of this was done through auditing.Its the one thing in $cientology that I stayed well clear of. I do believe auditing or the electrical impulse does initially make you high, and just like any drug or addiction, you have to keep going back for more.

To me a genius is someone who is gifted in some area of life and uses that gift to help our fellow man, NOT use that gift to destroy people, and like it or not that is exactly what L. Ron Hubbard did to thousands of people.

Hopefully most of those people have gone on now to have good and meaningful lives on their own terms, but I know for a fact this is not the case for all.

I'm hoping you'll read this and you will know who you are from our conversation. Please look at this also, as this was someone I knew and although she may not have realised it at the time, she enabled me to get away from the daily cruelty that was life living aboard the Apollo with the so called "genius" himself.

http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyn...times-1991.htm

[Blue Spirit]

Well, you have put your finger on it there. We might disagree on how much of Scientology does, in fact, deliver but the salient fact for this discussion is that Scientologists are conditioned to believe that it all does.

It starts with the "What is true for you is true for you." Implying that one should suspend judgement on those parts that don't seem true.

It is pushed hard in the Academy with making one jump through incredible mental hoops and expend lots of effort and time to be granted the (never) official permission to disagree with Hubbard. See "How to defeat verbal tech checklist" and "Orders, Query Of".

Not understanding (not agreeing with) some part of Scientology is always the fault of the student and never the fault of the material. This can get pretty brutal, see KSW Series 1.

Communication about just about anything except following "Command Intention" du jour is discouraged as verbal tech, counter-intention, natter, HE&R, case, or any of a number of other no-no's.

The result is that Scientologists self-censor and condition themselves to compartmentalize those parts of Scientology that do not make sense to them and to outwardly, and perhaps to themselves, consider Scientology infallible. They must do this or they will not progress! This was perhaps the "genius" of Hubbard - tricking people into brainwashing themselves.

A very excellent post which has made things that much clearer for me.

THANK YOU.

[Disinfected]

A very excellent post which has made things that much clearer for me.

THANK YOU.

Well, thank you for the acknowledgement.

Here is another:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost....6&postcount=23