LRH - MAD?

[Moonchild]

LRH....MAD?

A difficult question to answer in simple terms since it would depend on one's definition of "madness".

At what point in Hubbard's life did he become a compulsive liar? That might prove the tipping-point between a self-obsessed but still basically sane man and one who became delusional in pursuit of his ambitions.

At what point did he abandon any conscience he may have been born with in his quest for self-aggrandisement?

Moot points really; I don't think there's much doubt that he died a (literally) raving lunatic and it undoubtedly goes back much further, so I would humbly suggest that the pragmatical answer to your original question Markus is "Yes".

As to when he went over the edge....who knows? Does it really matter?

 

[Rmack]

Maybe he just liked the idea of having hot young chicks around him running his messages. He had to do something with the kids aboard.

Paul

But why just females? Why young? And does anyone know if they were all virgins?

It would seem to be risking a bad reputation which he obviously worked hard at presenting in a good light.

 

[byte301]

I think it was one of his sci fi fantasies. Like a bunch of young, nubile slaves.

 

[Hatshepsut]

LRH Madman

But why just females? Why young? And does anyone know if they were all virgins?

It would seem to be risking a bad reputation which he obviously worked hard at presenting in a good light.

I think that the reasons they were females and young was because the old Babylonians had an astute awareness of life forces ebbs and flows. Coming into adolescence probably read as a 10. These pre cabalists knew how to tap into the vortexes and animating principals as they existed back then. They knew their occult. Ron was smart about what they did in Babylon. I think a lot of large theta bodies came down through the portal above the Tigris Euphrates river valley. Pure building material. The fellows that could harness that life force and channel it were probalby the same guys who ended up as high priests of Egypt. But if you could look under their cloaks you might be surprised to find Creatures

 

[Rmack]

I think that the reasons they were females and young was because the old Babylonians had an astute awareness of life forces ebbs and flows. Coming into adolescence probably read as a 10. These pre cabalists knew how to tap into the vortexes and animating principals as they existed back then. They knew their occult. Ron was smart about what they did in Babylon. I think a lot of large theta bodies came down through the portal above the Tigris Euphrates river valley. Pure building material. The fellows that could harness that life force and channel it were probalby the same guys who ended up as high priests of Egypt. But if you could look under their cloaks you might be surprised to find Creatures

Yeah....no dought....

 

[Rmack]

A difficult question to answer in simple terms since it would depend on one's definition of "madness".

At what point in Hubbard's life did he become a compulsive liar? That might prove the tipping-point between a self-obsessed but still basically sane man and one who became delusional in pursuit of his ambitions.

At what point did he abandon any conscience he may have been born with in his quest for self-aggrandisement?

Moot points really; I don't think there's much doubt that he died a (literally) raving lunatic and it undoubtedly goes back much further, so I would humbly suggest that the pragmatical answer to your original question Markus is "Yes".

As to when he went over the edge....who knows? Does it really matter?

I think a distinction should be made between 'mad' out of control, and 'mad' evil.

Hubbard was genius, guys. That is to say he 'had' a genius. It was no doubt a cluster, and it hated mankind. He wasn't a 'psychotic'. They talk to themselves and sleep in gutters. He lived his later life in luxury.

He wasn't out of control crazy at all. He was doing exactly what he thought he should be doing. Another way of saying it is he was very successful at what he endeavored to do.

Unfortunately, that was enslaving his fellow humans.

Hubbard was 'crazy' on a level unknown to most mere mortals. But, yeah, he wasn't really sane.

 

[Moonchild]

I think a distinction should be made between 'mad' out of control, and 'mad' evil.

Hubbard was genius, guys. That is to say he 'had' a genius. It was no doubt a cluster, and it hated mankind. He wasn't a 'psychotic'. They talk to themselves and sleep in gutters. He lived his later life in luxury.

He wasn't out of control crazy at all. He was doing exactly what he thought he should be doing. Another way of saying it is he was very successful at what he endeavored to do.

Unfortunately, that was enslaving his fellow humans.

Hubbard was 'crazy' on a level unknown to most mere mortals. But, yeah, he wasn't really sane.

I think we're largely on the same page here Rmack, we may differ on our respective understandings of "psychotic".

Take Hitler and Stalin as examples, they may well have gibbered to themselves in private moments but neither slept in gutters to my knowledge...well, not physical-world ones anyway

For myself, I tend to consider "psychotic" as being in the condition that the individual acts in prosecution of his own personal goals to the total or near-total exclusion of the consequences to others.

Sadly, LRH seems to have fitted that bill all too often.

 

[at3ist]

I think a distinction should be made between 'mad' out of control, and 'mad' evil.

Hubbard was genius, guys. That is to say he 'had' a genius. It was no doubt a cluster, and it hated mankind. He wasn't a 'psychotic'. They talk to themselves and sleep in gutters. He lived his later life in luxury.

He wasn't out of control crazy at all. He was doing exactly what he thought he should be doing. Another way of saying it is he was very successful at what he endeavored to do.

Unfortunately, that was enslaving his fellow humans.

Hubbard was 'crazy' on a level unknown to most mere mortals. But, yeah, he wasn't really sane.

i have to agree with this, he was successful, but not in what he endeavored to do, he was succesfull in one thing only
manipulation, decieve, control, lies,
and in everything else he was a failure, i mean it that way, in everything else, not a good father, not a good anything, he sucks at everything he does, but what he lacks in any area, he compesates with manipulation, decieve, control, lies in which he is by far the best, and with this he make everything else, that meaning being rich, and powerfull in his own world

he was delusional, in every sense, he see himself as a deity,and no sane people want to do the things he did, even veiwing it with a bad intentions, you dont want to do that, cuz it will turn to you, im not talking karma, im talking the other people hunting you, like he state in the way of happiness, i you do wrong, you expose yourself to be judged and that happened to him, he end up hiding with all the money, but not being abble to go anywhere, locked in a house with people who sucks his ass, no matter what, his family appart, paranoid, i dont think he wanted that, it just go out of his hands,

but you can say one thing about him, the things he did, he do it big, there was not middle point for him, if he wanted power, he wanted full power, like god power, if he want to lie, he lie big, like scientology big, he wanted everything as big as his ego i wonder what he wants to compensate?

 

[airhead]

I think we're largely on the same page here Rmack, we may differ on our respective understandings of "psychotic".

Take Hitler and Stalin as examples, they may well have gibbered to themselves in private moments but neither slept in gutters to my knowledge...well, not physical-world ones anyway

For myself, I tend to consider "psychotic" as being in the condition that the individual acts in prosecution of his own personal goals to the total or near-total exclusion of the consequences to others.

Sadly, LRH seems to have fitted that bill all too often.

One does not have to be insane to be evil. American courts of law have long made this distinction.

 

[Moonchild]

One does not have to be insane to be evil. American courts of law have long made this distinction.

Again, it would seem to boil down to the definition of terms; personally I tend to accept the Hubster's view of insane = maximally-harmful across the dynamics, and by simple extension "evil". You may very well not concur with this in which case we're not likely to agree much methinks.

I accept that I can tend to equate "psychotic" (n) with "psychopath" perhaps too readily...I'm ready to be persuaded otherwise if it be so proven; however, take a look at this if you will:




Read this question, come up with an answer and then scroll down to the bottom for the result. This is not a trick question. It is as it reads.

A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a guy whom she did
not know. She thought this guy was amazing. She believed him to be her
dream guy so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never
asked for his number and could not find him. A few days later she killed
her sister.

Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?

[Give this some thought before you answer]













Answer:

She was hoping the guy would appear at the funeral again. If you
answered this correctly, you think like a psychopath. This was a test
by a famous American Psychologist used to test if one has the same
mentality as a killer.

Many arrested serial killers took part in the test and answered the
question correctly.

Do you see what I'm suggesting?

As regards the deliberations of Courts of Law whether US or UK, I respectfully invite you to google "Gwen Araujo" (US) or "Tony Martin" (UK).

Courts of Law seem to make estimations which are essentially pragmatic vis-a-vis the inclinations of their immediate societal circumstances; personally I tend to regard them as less than definitive in the broader sense.

All the beast, MC. ))

P.S. the issue as regards "Gwen Araujo" is the "panic-defence".

 

[me myself & i]

Virgins annoy me.

Which is perhaps why you were attracted to scientology in the first place? Lol.

Let's face it, the word virgin itself implies innocence and not knowing whereas scientology itself, (i.e. Ron) would have none of that.

Lol.

I trust you were kidding with your statement above U, but it is nonetheless an interesting thing to note that the chances of Rons theory of being (called scientology) attracting anyone with any significant amount of life experience, let alone education, was put near nill. Lol.

Ever heard of a college professor becoming an OT8?

Didn't think so.

Virgins baby. Bring me virgins. I'll f em all. They annoy me.

(l.r.h.)

mm&i

 

[airhead]

Again, it would seem to boil down to the definition of terms; personally I tend to accept the Hubster's view of insane = maximally-harmful across the dynamics, and by simple extension "evil". You may very well not concur with this in which case we're not likely to agree much methinks.

I accept that I can tend to equate "psychotic" (n) with "psychopath" perhaps too readily...I'm ready to be persuaded otherwise if it be so proven; however, take a look at this if you will:




Read this question, come up with an answer and then scroll down to the bottom for the result. This is not a trick question. It is as it reads.

A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a guy whom she did
not know. She thought this guy was amazing. She believed him to be her
dream guy so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never
asked for his number and could not find him. A few days later she killed
her sister.

Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?

[Give this some thought before you answer]













Answer:

She was hoping the guy would appear at the funeral again. If you
answered this correctly, you think like a psychopath. This was a test
by a famous American Psychologist used to test if one has the same
mentality as a killer.

Many arrested serial killers took part in the test and answered the
question correctly.

Do you see what I'm suggesting?

As regards the deliberations of Courts of Law whether US or UK, I respectfully invite you to google "Gwen Araujo" (US) or "Tony Martin" (UK).

Courts of Law seem to make estimations which are essentially pragmatic vis-a-vis the inclinations of their immediate societal circumstances; personally I tend to regard them as less than definitive in the broader sense.

All the beast, MC. ))

P.S. the issue as regards "Gwen Araujo" is the "panic-defence".

Wow! That's a great question, which I am relieved to say that I answered INCORRECTLY!!

Interesting cases -- I read the wikipedia and other articles on Gwen, and a couple of articles on Tony Martin. What a dilemma: wronged party vs. wronged party. And sadly, Tony Martin would have gotten off the hook had he been a US -- and especially a Texas -- citizen. (I'm a fence-sitter on gun laws.)

I am sure that much debate is possible on psychotic vs. psychopath, , but being an airhead, I am not really qualified to make any broad, sweeping pronouncements on the subject. (I was originally commenting that US courts differentiate evil from crazy, and it takes a lot of fancy footwork to side-step a sentencing with a "crazy person" plea.)

Serial killers are considered a separate "breed" of criminal, and I do tend to agree that they are psycho. However, I wasn't necessarily thinking of them when I was thinking evil. Stealing a person's car, gang murders, rape, child molestation, elder abuse, etc., are all evil acts.

I do agree that criminals think differently, and different "types" of criminals quite possibly have different thought ("justification") systems -- but I don't think they should get off easy and go to psychiatric wards instead of prisons. (Not, of course, that you were suggesting that!)

 

[Carmel]

I don't know that LRH was always 'mad', but it would make sense that carrying on the way he did, that he would have ended up that way. Ya couldn't pull off a con like he did, live it for so many years, and harm as many as he did, without going at least somewhat nuts.

It's hard to understand how anyone could write the likes of all that stuff about the 2D, relationships, kids, and parenthood an' all, but then do/practice the exact opposite. It appears that he was such a hypocrite on so many fronts (not just a few). It's not just that he was unethical at times, he was a downright evil prick at times, when he pretended to be a saint. I still can't figure out how the hell he got away with that - preaching one thing, doing the opposite, and killing people off in the process. No wonder he was paranoid.

To me he clearly had a lot of smarts (although not the ones he claimed he had), but he must have been pretty neurotic at least, to be playing with fire like he did, and not see the inevitable outcome of doing so. He must have been partially insane to be able to give all the lectures he did, to and in front of people who knew he was bullshitting or being hypocritical. It's quite odd. He must have had missed witholds up his ying yang. The amount he would have had, would have been enough to drive anybody bonkers.

Quite a bizzare individual - I'm surprised that he lasted as long as he did.

 

[Thrak]

I don't know that LRH was always 'mad', but it would make sense that carrying on the way he did, that he would have ended up that way. Ya couldn't pull off a con like he did, live it for so many years, and harm as many as he did, without going at least somewhat nuts.

It's hard to understand how anyone could write the likes of all that stuff about the 2D, relationships, kids, and parenthood an' all, but then do/practice the exact opposite. It appears that he was such a hypocrite on so many fronts (not just a few). It's not just that he was unethical at times, he was a downright evil prick at times, when he pretended to be a saint. I still can't figure out how the hell he got away with that - preaching one thing, doing the opposite, and killing people off in the process. No wonder he was paranoid.

To me he clearly had a lot of smarts (although not the ones he claimed he had), but he must have been pretty neurotic at least, to be playing with fire like he did, and not see the inevitable outcome of doing so. He must have been partially insane to be able to give all the lectures he did, to and in front of people who knew he was bullshitting or being hypocritical. It's quite odd. He must have had missed witholds up his ying yang. The amount he would have had, would have been enough to drive anybody bonkers.

Quite a bizzare individual - I'm surprised that he lasted as long as he did.

Yeah what a unbelievable individual. The amount of work generated was amazing and one of the things that convinced me he was a genius. But yes I think if you hurt that many you will go mad as you become more and more apprehensive of retaliation. It is happening to dm as well. I wonder how much longer before he totally disappears?

 

[Tiger Lily]

I don't know that LRH was always 'mad', but it would make sense that carrying on the way he did, that he would have ended up that way. Ya couldn't pull off a con like he did, live it for so many years, and harm as many as he did, without going at least somewhat nuts.

It's hard to understand how anyone could write the likes of all that stuff about the 2D, relationships, kids, and parenthood an' all, but then do/practice the exact opposite. It appears that he was such a hypocrite on so many fronts (not just a few). It's not just that he was unethical at times, he was a downright evil prick at times, when he pretended to be a saint. I still can't figure out how the hell he got away with that - preaching one thing, doing the opposite, and killing people off in the process. No wonder he was paranoid.

To me he clearly had a lot of smarts (although not the ones he claimed he had), but he must have been pretty neurotic at least, to be playing with fire like he did, and not see the inevitable outcome of doing so. He must have been partially insane to be able to give all the lectures he did, to and in front of people who knew he was bullshitting or being hypocritical. It's quite odd. He must have had missed witholds up his ying yang. The amount he would have had, would have been enough to drive anybody bonkers.

Quite a bizzare individual - I'm surprised that he lasted as long as he did.

Great points Carmel

Yeah what a unbelievable individual. The amount of work generated was amazing and one of the things that convinced me he was a genius. But yes I think if you hurt that many you will go mad as you become more and more apprehensive of retaliation. It is happening to dm as well. I wonder how much longer before he totally disappears?

Thrak, I know -- that's the thing -- he had to have been a genius to build what he built.

This makes as much sense to me as anything, because so much of what he said was workable and did make sense; at least at the lower levels, but yet there was so much evil and manipulation too.

Maybe his ego was so huge, he thought that he was completely at cause so was above "the rules", and that ethics tech didn't apply to him. As Scientology grew, his ego may have just got so big it clouded his judgment more and more and eventually consumed him.

I didn't know him personally, so I'll qualify this as what I've read from the stories here, but it certainly seems that he wasn't "able to experience anything." Nor did he "Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily." . . there's so much residual pain.

In answer to the question on the thread. Yes, I think he was mad. I don't know if he always was or if he became so along the way, and I have yet to sort out what, if anything he contributed that was of value, but by the end, I think he was definitely insane.

-TL

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Some thoughts/observations

...snip...

It's hard to understand how anyone could write the likes of all that stuff about the 2D, relationships, kids, and parenthood an' all, but then do/practice the exact opposite. It appears that he was such a hypocrite on so many fronts (not just a few). It's not just that he was unethical at times, he was a downright evil prick at times, when he pretended to be a saint. I still can't figure out how the hell he got away with that - preaching one thing, doing the opposite, and killing people off in the process. No wonder he was paranoid.

To me he clearly had a lot of smarts (although not the ones he claimed he had), but he must have been pretty neurotic at least, to be playing with fire like he did, and not see the inevitable outcome of doing so. He must have been partially insane to be able to give all the lectures he did, to and in front of people who knew he was bullshitting or being hypocritical. It's quite odd. He must have had missed witholds up his ying yang. The amount he would have had, would have been enough to drive anybody bonkers.

Quite a bizzare individual - I'm surprised that he lasted as long as he did.

I respectfully submit that while hard for us to understand - it is far from rare!

How many "preachers/clergymen/priests/bishops/cardinals/popes/gurus/charismatics, etc" do we know about who exhibited much of the same hypocritical nature and behavior overall? :confused2:

"Preacher Stories" abound in the culture, for sure. To wit:

The farmer was out in the fields with the older children when they spy the preacher comin up the road for a visit The farmer says to one of the kids "Quick! Run to the house and put the baby on mama's lap! and don't dare leave the room 'till I get there." ...

The parson prolly delivered a most pious sermon every Sunday and was a great comfort to his flock!

I got a million of 'em...

EP