Claire's theory on where L Ron Hubbard truly went wrong

[Voltaire's Child]

I'm sure there are a lot of ways in which Hubbard went wrong. But since I'm one of those who think that sometimes he really did give a shit about people and his developing ...ology (I know this opinion isn't shared by everyone), I was having fun speculating on what really went wrong with him vis a vis Scn as well as CofS.

A lot of abuses took place before DM took over. A lot of abusive screwed up policies were written before then, too. Plus, if you read Dianetics in Limbo, written by an ex who actually liked Dianetics, you can see that he was venal quite early on. Very interesting.

I've said before that a major problem is that it became all about the group than about the individuals. That's why everyone gets hosed in CofS. But I think I could take it farther back than that, to Hubbard.

Well, I already knew that it started with him. But I wanted to maybe nutshell it a bit. I think that a major problem, maybe the biggest one, was that he didn't concentrate on or have the purpose of altruism. He always wanted to make money. He did care about people at times, he sometimes did "key out" and do some decent things, but it always came back to him, his power and also not being questioned, and his position and his this that and the other thing.

This is where a lot of pundits, religious leaders, cult leaders and others go wrong. The altruism isn't there. With some of these guys, there was some altruism but they lost it. With some, there was none. With most (IMO) there was altruism mixed with conceit, greed and self interest. Which creates a hideous dichotomy and undoes them and their work every time.

I tend to think Hubbard fell under the last category though not everyone will agree with me.

I think that if you're going to humbly tender a gift to mankind of an ideological or philosophical nature, that you need to make it completely altruistic, no strings attached. I don't think that Hubbard ever understood that. I think he thought he could care about it and others but could still have power base, lots of money, and the ego attached to being the founder. I think that this cannot ever ever work.

So in my opinion and that's ALL this is- that's the problem with the founder of Scientology and creator of Dianetics.

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

I agree, and this happened early on, Hubbard went wrong when he took his brand of regressive therapy based pop psychology and turned it into a religion to maximize profits.

Sure his beauty pageant contestant line of shit about wanting world peace and a world without insanity sounded good, but he never meant it, he wanted to created followers to worship him.

but it all really turned to shit, when he started to slip into insanity and thought he could use it to dominate the world. At that point it was only about one thing, which was turning every person on the planet into one of his obedient unquestioning followers that he could exercise unwavering control over, that what Scientology Ethics and KSW are all about. Seriously Ron, was a private navy to command really necessary to help people, or was it to make up for your failures in the real navy?

[UmbalumTeapot]

Or, to be more succint;

He always wanted to make money.

[themadhair]

I would have went with him dropping out of school, and then being too undereducated to realise what he wrote was a bunch of mind-warping crap.

[idrizomare]

My theory on Ron is that he wanted to be a larger than life figure. He built a mythology about himself of being a genius in many fields, an incredible prodigy, deeply spiritual, an explorer/adventurer, a war hero, and of course, Mankind's Greatest Friend. Lots of ambitious people dream of being adored by the masses. (Google "Kim Jong Phil" for a funny take on this by an artist.)

Look at how needy the terminology of Scientology is, with all the scientific-sounding names drawn from electronics, data processing, physics, and chemistry. Look at the organizational names with their military-style abbreviations that sound so puffed up and pompous. Look at the arbitrary and unneeded complexity of Scientology itself (despite it having a rather simple core idea) made up to look like a deep and profound subject like mathematics. Look at his reaction to rejection by the psychology field. But most of all, listen to recordings of him riffing on crazy subjects in the most matter-of-fact "don't you see?" fashion.

As for the private navy, wasn't Ron on the lam from 1967 to the end of his life? I thought the Sea Org was his way to live in a nation of his own devising.

I think Ron wanted to help people in the sense that it fed the narrative he was building about himself as a great man. I get the sense from what I've read about him that his success didn't satisfy him. Perhaps he never convinced himself.

[The Great Zorg]

I'm sure there are a lot of ways in which Hubbard went wrong. But since I'm one of those who think that sometimes he really did give a shit about people and his developing ...ology (I know this opinion isn't shared by everyone), I was having fun speculating on what really went wrong with him vis a vis Scn as well as CofS.
A lot of abuses took place before DM took over. A lot of abusive screwed up policies were written before then, too. Plus, if you read Dianetics in Limbo, written by an ex who actually liked Dianetics, you can see that he was venal quite early on. Very interesting.
I've said before that a major problem is that it became all about the group than about the individuals. That's why everyone gets hosed in CofS. But I think I could take it farther back than that, to Hubbard.
Well, I already knew that it started with him. But I wanted to maybe nutshell it a bit. I think that a major problem, maybe the biggest one, was that he didn't concentrate on or have the purpose of altruism. He always wanted to make money. He did care about people at times, he sometimes did "key out" and do some decent things, but it always came back to him, his power and also not being questioned, and his position and his this that and the other thing.
This is where a lot of pundits, religious leaders, cult leaders and others go wrong. The altruism isn't there. With some of these guys, there was some altruism but they lost it. With some, there was none. With most (IMO) there was altruism mixed with conceit, greed and self interest. Which creates a hideous dichotomy and undoes them and their work every time.
I tend to think Hubbard fell under the last category though not everyone will agree with me.
I think that if you're going to humbly tender a gift to mankind of an ideological or philosophical nature, that you need to make it completely altruistic, no strings attached. I don't think that Hubbard ever understood that. I think he thought he could care about it and others but could still have power base, lots of money, and the ego attached to being the founder. I think that this cannot ever ever work.
So in my opinion and that's ALL this is- that's the problem with the founder of Scientology and creator of Dianetics.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are all vunerable, I guess. Ask Hitler. Ask Mussolinni. Ask hubbard. Yet not all of us fall into the power and greed for money and materialism trap. Ask Ghandi. Ask Mother Theresa. Ask the Dalai Lama. Ask J.C.

[Helena Handbasket]

The main problem I've seen with Dianetics is that it's not been used enough. It was released in 1950 and by 1951 it had disappeared. It finally came back in the '60's.

In 1978, the grade chart was revised putting Dianetics after the grades. Big mistake.

Forbidding Dianetics on Clears and OT's was an error. I've actually heard that people wanted to "unattest" to Clear so they could get more Dianetics.

But the biggest problem was using Dianetics to address the problems of the body only. The thetan has a time track also, and while a thetan doesn't have physical pain, it certainly does have attitudes and emotions. Any incident containing a "moment of shock" is a candidate for engram running. And no, a physical pain engram does not always have to underly it.

As for LRH himself, he tried to expand the C of S too fast. Anybody who even walked near an org's doors was pressured into buying more and buying it now. Many were ARC-broken by these crush sell techniques, including, I'm sure, many people on this BBS.

He sincerely believed that the world, if allowed to run its course, would just get worse and worse until we would all end up slaves in a fascist society. If we weren't killed first by the atomic war. Unless of course the C of S could stop it in time.

To expand fast, you need lots of money. He was always looking for ways to bring in more. The fastest way to do that is by "rip offs" of one kind or another. And it works. In the short term. Until people wise up.

He let the church be taken over. He had technology for detecting "plants", but it failed because the people who were supposed to be administering the checks were themselves plants.

He ended up in a "bubble", much the same as what America's President Obama talks about. He limited his contacts to a small number of insider staff, who controlled his comm lines and filtered what went in and out.

He failed to create "sub-heroes", people who would be recognized as real important (although, of course, less imortant than himself) and who would provide a clear line of succession.

Those of us who still believe in the basic purpose of Scientology will carry on. Somehow. Those who don't can say nothing or natter or whatever they wish. That's your right.

Helena

[Leon]

What Hubbard intended is really beside the point. Our individual experiences of Scio are determined by what we intend with the subject.

[LA SCN]

I think Hubbard was just a born prick who found how easily he could fool people and was able to write proficiently. He took advantage of current events and peoples foibles. In the end, he deserved what he got, taken advantage of by another born prick.

[Sindy]

What Hubbard intended is really beside the point. Our individual experiences of Scio are determined by what we intend with the subject.

I could give you a map, drawn up by a mad man, that was intended to get you lost or, at very least, had no means of getting you were you intended to go. YOU could look at that map and say, "Fantastic, this map is so beautiful. It's got a great legend and it's totally true to size. The proportions are so accurate, the landscape so detailed, only a genius could have crafted this map. I know I can use this map to get where I want to go because MY intentions are good."

I'm sorry. I've heard that argument so many times. "He left us this body of work and who cares what his intentions were, it's what we do with it that counts."

What if, no matter how good YOUR intentions are, the subject is thoroughly booby trapped? I believe there has been plenty of compelling evidence, on this board, that points to that as a very distinct probability.