Making "L. Ron Hubbard well thought of."

[SweetnessandLight]

I wanna t-shirt that says "IAS- Bring Bling"!!!

I'm off to a Kwanzaa celebration...got my swag on, but REALLY wish I had that t-shirt to wear!

(For the Furriners) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa

[Caliwog]

Shit. Trying to keep from posting an opinion until I read this whole post, but I just... can't... do it!

Having been a poster on Marty's blog for a couple of years, I have to say I admire the guy. He's got chutzpah standing up to the billion-dollar criminal conspiracy and beating them back.

Marty is in the same business as David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard: He sells Scientology for a living. His blog is primarily an advertising service for his business.

What Marty is going through is tiddlywinks compared to what OSA did to people when he and his buddy Mike were running things. OSA used to run people's lives. In Marty's case, they're helping to promote his business. If anything, he should be thanking them for the publicity; I'm sure it's made him a lot of money.

It is necessary for the welfare of his business that potential customers think the sins of Scientology are the origination of David Miscavige, not L. Ron Hubbard. This is a lie that Marty works hard to perpetuate. Point out the lie - for example, post the LRH "tech" that justifies DM's actions - and Marty will censor it.

Marty used to insist he was telling "the truth" about Scientology. He seems to have backed off that viewpoint a bit. I'd like to think I had something to do with that.

To me, [Hubbard's] observations are less important than what he observed and noted.

Don't mistake verbosity for intelligence.

Okay, I'll go back to reading. Sorry for the diversion.

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

[Caliwog]

I wonder how he was able to persuade so many into following him so blindly and into committing criminal acts for him.

A very ingenious system, using what LRH called "the gradient."

http://caliwog.wordpress.com/2010/06...hnology-works/

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

[Caliwog]

Personally, I use the smallest dictionary *I can get away with*.

Uh-oh, Paul, LRH might have something to say about that.

"In learning the meaning of words small dictionaries are very often a greater
liability than they are a help. The meanings they give are often circular: Like “CAT: An Animal.” “ANIMAL: A Cat.” They do not give enough meaning to escape the circle...

"Little pocket book dictionaries may have their uses for traveling and reading newspapers, but they do get people in trouble. I have seen people find a word in them and then look around in total confusion. For the dinky dictionary did not give the full meaning or the second meaning they really needed."

LRH, HCOB 19 June 1972, DINKY DICTIONARIES

But LRH did warn against HUGE dictionaries being too confusing, so good on you. He also recommended children's dictionaries, which I think is telling of the mindset he wished is followers to have!

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

[Caliwog]

yawn . . . . . .

...and rub.

Right, Paul?

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

[frhidden]

I had a set of 1974 World Book dictionaries from 1975 until 2006, when I had to leave them in LA. I liked them, as they gave simple definitions. I also used the large OED. Sometimes (rarely) it was the only dictionary I could find to give an accurate definition.

I think big dictionaries are fine as long as you use them very sparingly. Even when I was a CofS sup and had to follow red-on-white I would follow the "smallest dictionary you can get away with" policy with students. Clear the word in the smallest dictionary you can, using a bigger one for the definition in context and then get out of it. Clearing all the definitions in a small dictionary takes much less time. Clear the derivation in a paperback dictionary. If the student is getting into long word chains then the dictionary is too large and whoever is overseeing his word-clearing tech sucks at it.

Paul

I have the luxuary of being a fast student and so can duck and dive through multiple dictionaries, if need be, to clear a word and not lose momentum and speed.

Occasionally I wallow in the shear delight of the completness of the treatment of a word in the OED. When my attention hangs on a word then the OED is the tool for me. I get my free access through membership of a UK library. (Some of the UK libraries have an arrangement with the OED to give their members access to the dictionary and references.)

I find these two online dictionaries quite good:
http://dictionary.reference.com/
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

But to tie this back to the subject of the this thread:

I run hot and cold with regard the subject of Scientology. I still find some of the information in Scientology useful. I dislike the abuse and the betrayals. I no longer trust anyone who is part of the CofS. I may trust some individuals in any genuine attempt to use some of the technology. I am trying to add up all the information I read on ESMB, Marty's blog and elsewhere and come to some conclusions I can live with. Up to a few years ago I thought Hubbard was a mega good guy. Since then I needed to revise this opinion thousands of times. All this is an ongoing process.

FRHIDDEN

[Caliwog]

I run hot and cold with regard the subject of Scientology. I still find some of the information in Scientology useful.

Adolph Hitler was vehemently opposed to smoking, and his government was on the cutting edge of anti-smoking legislation, which today is making life more pleasant and healthier for those who don't smoke.

That doesn't mean Hitler was a good guy or a visionary leader.

Do more research, and you will find that much of Hubbard's truly useful tech has its roots elsewhere. (Go to the source, and you may find even more answers.)

This done, examine Hubbard's work more closely, and you will probably find a clear delineation where the useful data ends and the bullshit begins.

I don't mean by that, that Hubbard was a bad man and everything he did was bad. (Although that's the way my beliefs happen to run.) It's just that Hubbard wasn't nearly as bright as the philosophers, psychologists, etc. from whom he cribbed. And his motivation, unlike theirs, wasn't to better mankind - it was to build an empire, create a culture of adoration, and make money.

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

[Claire Swazey]

Actually, Hitler was quite a visionary leader. But interjecting the hatred and scapegoating, genocide and racial murders undid every single accomplishment he ever made and caused pain, heartbreak, political events and other tragedies which still reverberate today. But not visionary? I hardly agree with that premise.

[Free to shine]

Some comments from Marty's blog:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/201...year/#comments

Billy Moretti |

I guess nobody here reads WWP. If you did, then you’d know that they view LRH as the source of the problem and that DM is just late on the chain. In other words, the abuses, corruption and fair game started occurring when LRH was calling the shots; Miscavige just took them to a whole different level. However, I don’t think Anonymous has much of a problem with the Free Zone or Independents as long as no one gets hurt. I’m not a spokesman for Anonymous; I’m just summarizing what I’ve read at WWP. They don’t hold Scientology or LRH in very high regard.

Dolphin Play | December 28, 2011 at 11:58 pm |

Well, “They” is kind of a big category. I’m sure Anonymous is a mixed bag. Sure, some people think LRH started it all and David Miscavige is following suit. The main problem with that thinking is some *differentiation* needs to occur — and the differences can be seen on examination.

Anonymous and people with confusion on the issue (including some who call themselves Independents) who blame L. Ron Hubbard need to clear up the confusion and distinguish the difference by making a distinction between Hubbard written policy, how it can be taken out of context, how it can be misapplied, and also leave Hubbard the man out of Scientology the applied technology. On the latter point, come on…do we want to know and dish and gossip and bash every bit of human frailty about Alexander Flemming when using antibiotics?

As for the difference between Hubbard’s Sceintology and what is being pawned off as Sceintology by the Corporate trademark holders (calling themselves a “church”):

The degradation of Scientology is occurring through the actions of Scientology, Inc (“church). The distinctions and differences between the Corporate run entity and L Ron Hubbard is clear when one knows what to look for. Some deeper familiarity with the subject is required. There are tools that can be implemented to help sort the differences out when comparing Miscavige to Hubbard. Some such tools are an understanding of: omitted circumstances, twisted definitions, out gradients (such as attacking a parishioner or pc before running a correction list), wrong target (attacking the wrong why or who), out ARC, policy violation (which policies), alter-is, out sequence. That’s a good start.
Undercutting all of the above, I would say there is one screaming crimson flag — L. Ron Hubbard was sincere about helping others. The Auditor’s Code was #1 sacrosanct. For real.

Joe Pendleton | December 28, 2011 at 10:31 am |

I just want to add that I think the actual impulse that started much of the eventual trouble in Scientology was the one to control virtually EVERY aspect of its parishioners’ lives. This evolved VERY slowly and gradually over time, like water dripping to form a puddle and then a lake. At first just advice generally….and then one subject at a time, from diet to sex to children to work to odors to art to how one should make one’s basic decisions in the world (PTS to the middle class). And eventually this went from “advice” from Ron to actual enforcement. Over time, this went on and on and on and after a number of years in Scientology, one had agreed that “the group” knew best about everything and one had in essence agreed to be the effect of “orders” and “command intention” on all parts of life. Though it all started out with “what Ron said”, it eventually transformed into simply commands that developed from SO officers of what was ethical and what wasn’t (“what? you want to be a doctor? That is “other fish to fry.” You’re wanted on post as an auditor.” “You want to go to college? WHY?????? Talk about PTS to the middle class and its values!!!!!!!!) Scientologists have essentially agreed to live the “CSW life.” One had to “convince” church terminals that what wanted to do was “OK”. One’s life did not REALLY belong to one anymore. Not really. And thus the trap. This is what I am pretty sure will NOT be a part of Independent Scientology.

[Caliwog]

The main problem with that thinking is some *differentiation* needs to occur — and the differences can be seen on examination.

Anonymous and people with confusion on the issue (including some who call themselves Independents) who blame L. Ron Hubbard need to clear up the confusion and distinguish the difference by making a distinction between Hubbard written policy, how it can be taken out of context, how it can be misapplied, and also leave Hubbard the man out of Scientology the applied technology.

I love this. If you read the policy, you can see clearly that DM is doing exactly what Hubbard said. Clear all the words, and the meaning is plain. No distinction can be made because there is no distinction. That's the whole subject of my blog, and I always invite readers to read the whole policy so they can see the context.

And yet, according to this person, I am the one who has a confusion.

I used to think Scientologists were blind... but I gradually realized that they just don't want to see.