ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at


Discussion in 'L Ron Hubbard' started by Twin A, Mar 16, 2009.

  1. byte301

    byte301 Crusader

    Fluff, I should have said I was talking about ME and BE. Some of his earlier stuff was okay.

    I read someone's account in here that the messengers wrote a lot of BE or ME, can't remember which one. I believe it too. Purile crap.
  2. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    Yes, those are awful books. BE maybe just a bit better than ME. And have you read Ai Pedrito?? Aiiiiiiiiii!!!!!:omg:
  3. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    All I've heard is that RV Young was involved in (or solely involved in) dividing up the single manuscript and suggesting individual titles. In reading, I find nothing inconsistent with Ron Himself penning every plotless, deus ex machined, broken continuity ridden word.

  4. byte301

    byte301 Crusader

    No, I never had the "pleasure" and I never will.:p

    Zinj, I am trying to remember where I read that messengers worked on his science fiction. I have just read so much stuff and I am so brain dead. Give me a day or two.
  5. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    I am no fan of Hubbard's fiction. His stuff is mediocre at best. However I don't believe he wrote ME or BE either. He likely did some sort of preliminary plot outline and characterization, but the prose reeks of a very amateurish attempt to mimic Hubbard's peculiar style.

    Mark A. Baker
  6. Iknowtoomuch

    Iknowtoomuch Gold Meritorious Patron

    What I find funny about Hubbards bad guys is that they were REALLY REALLY bad. Not just mere criminal but psychopaths and totally uncaring characters.

    Terrel with his "leverage" and wiling to kill his own race to get ahead.
    And the renegade group they found in Africa that was fornicating in public and absolute scoundrels.

    The bad guy from ME...forget his name...but he was a homo, had sex perversions and much much worse.

    He was way over the top with his bad guys. Almost as if to make sure you agreed with his writing that they were indeed bad guys. :melodramatic:

    I found BE to be okay but found only parts of it good writing.
    ME was boring and I dropped out after the first book.

    The other thing I noticed about Hubbards stories is they had the same reccuring ideas at times.
    The good guy seemed to always take a female and have sex with them...almost without the females consent. Once you see this it makes reading his books tiring.
  7. airhead

    airhead Patron with Honors

    OK -- this is some clarification.

    I hear you, Twin A.

    And I also know you (and Sharder and Peter Fehn and and and...). However, you won't know me for a good while longer because I need to remain anonymous at this time. When the time is right, you'll go, "I know Airhead!" (And maybe you'll also go, "Yuck!!!" -- I'd be dim to pretend that everyone liked me.)

    I do, however, want to clarify a few things:

    A) In the early days of Cine, the only materials were the lighting handbook (which was a bit rough to read) and several books, such as the Five C's of Cinematography.

    B) Many people, having no prior background in the subject of photography and film-making, and who were not gifted students, had difficulty reading these original materials.

    C) The Cine EDs were originally just LRH advices and comments during the course of many, many shoots and rush critiques ("rush critiques" are when you look at the prints - the "rushes" - of the scenes that you shot that day or the day before). These advices and comments were later compiled into Cine EDs. And these Cine EDs were later turned into courses to train the many people who never had the opportunity to go to film and other schools, but who had to "right now" be able to assume positions in the Cine organization.

    D) Other than the comments, statements and beliefs presented in the Art Series, LRH never claimed to have been the sole source of the material in the Cine EDs. He was, in fact, extremely frustrated that he had to "teach" this kind of material, and he commented on multiple occasions, "Why can't people look elsewhere to learn something?" He was the victim of his own indoctrination: people looked to him as source of EVERYTHING, and this quite frankly pissesd him off.

    E) LRH's statement, "If it's true for you..." was written in the 1950s. I highly doubt that LRH lifted this from yoga because, to my rather certain knowledge, he never took a yoga class. Personally, I think "True for you" was something that LRH neither believed nor followed.

    So.... I think the Cine EDs are not a true example of plagarism. To me, I think failing to credit Scientology techniques to their actual developers (John Gulashi, David Mayo, etc., etc.) is a far worse example of plagarism.

    Also, let's consider "Be Do Have", which is an important philosophical concept in Scientology. This priniciple is eerily "similar" to text in the 1937 book, Think and Grow Rich by Napolean Hill, so it couldn't possibly have been an LRH-only concept. However, the CofS had the teremity to attack Robert Kiyosaki, author of the Rich Dad, Poor Dad books, for using a somewhat similar concept in one of his books in the 1990s.

  8. airhead

    airhead Patron with Honors


    My comments in no way mitigate your beliefs and opinions at the time. Nor do I mean to mitigate your frustration at finding out that the Cine courses were not sacred.

    I am also quite sure that there were many people around you who said that the Cine courses were the "only" place you can get such information. I'm sure they also said, "UCLA is bad, bad, bad." (UCLA is the location of the best film courses in the country)


    In the end, what did they know?


    I can only say that I'm really and sincerely sorry that you had to persist through that horrible world/climate to obtain a few nuggets of information.
  9. Twin A

    Twin A Patron with Honors

    Wow, so many cool responses to my thread here. I have more to write, but I have to do it later on... got some other things I'm doing this week keeping me busy.

    And welcome Airhead, you must be an older timer. Look forward to when you become unanonymous, and then I'll say YUK, or HI. Ha ha.

    Frank Fehn and Sharder and I were Cine Messengers. We had to take notes for Hubbard by observing the Cine film crew, what they were doing or not doing, and send them to him, then Hubbard would write an * advice that would later become a blue on white LRH ED CINE. That was in '84. Before that, I know that there was an entirely different method, since Hubbard was more present, on the set, etc. with the crew.

    Do you know more about the origins of the "art series?"

    I think, as far as being pissed off at Hubbard, who's name changes to Hubtoad when I'm mad :coolwink: , I'd have to say I have more of a beef with his Art Series course, even still, and I'll write later more about why.
  10. Div6

    Div6 Crusader

    Dear Twin A,

    Once again you have struck a vein of gold, and are mining it in front of all of us here at ESMB. You are in the unique position to document and contrast the plagiarized writings of a criminal sociopath with the ACTUAL sources of his "ideas", as specifically related to the "Gold" tech of art, cinema, music, etc.

    I think this will have long term value, and possibly even get you nominated for a 2nd ESMB Oscar award. (You already have an ESMB Lifetime Achievement Award, and an Oscar for your earlier contributions.)

    While I understand the way your stomach feels about this, I would ask that you turn that motion to your advantage. Don't get mad, get even. And what better way than to document the fact that Hubbard not only stole all of the ideas for his "tech", but also for his later "artistic" endeavours.

    Thanks, Twin A!
  11. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    BTW, there's nothing wrong with mitigation.

    To quote a very wise man: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
  12. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    Fear was pretty good. I liked some of the pulps but then again, I like pulps.

    There are better sci fi authors, though, either way. Don't get me started on that, I looove books.

    Very interesting about ME and BE. Makes sense to me.
  13. PokerPlayer

    PokerPlayer Patron

    well, have you guys seen this:
    The word "Scientology" is a pairing of the Latin word scientia ("knowledge," "skill"), which comes from the verb scīre ("to know"), and the Greek λόγος lógos ("word" or "account [of]").[citation needed]

    In 1901, Allen Upward coined "Scientology" "as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind, unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine" according to the Internet Sacred Text Archive as quoted in the preface to Forgotten Books' recent edition of Upward's book, The New Word: On the meaning of the word Idealist.[31] Continuing to quote, the publisher writes "I'm not aware of any evidence that Hubbard knew of this fairly obscure book."[32]

    In 1934, philosopher A Nordenholz published a book that used the term to mean "science of science". It is also uncertain whether Hubbard was aware of this prior usage of the word.[33]

    Now, take it a little further:
  14. Twin A

    Twin A Patron with Honors

    I wanted to comment on mark's post because I agree on this somewhat, I actually had this very idea after I made my first post out of kind of haste and anger even, now that I'm settled down about it, I have gotten some references together, the ones I could find and give some real specifics. I have some of them, I'm going to post another post on this, on the Art Series, I'm just not ready yet, it takes up time and my dance card is kind of full today and tomorrow.

    but another thing is that, one aspect of this board, is that some people get emotional, like me, and it helps to post something and see what others in like/similar experience have to say, I'm not really writing it to argue about it, or to try and prove my point to someone else, it's more emotional than logical I guess, at first.

    And now, even though I made the title of my first post "Plagiarism", I am finding that it is more than that. It was more like the entire communistic study atmosphere I experienced out at GOLD as a staff member, making me dependent on Hubbard for my every thought and action. I really resent that , I have only just recently started to come to terms with this and what it meant in my life as an artist.

    I am sure that there are many people who studied Hubbard in a different atmosphere, they were in a situation where they could take or leave what Hubbard said, or they had an education of other teachings, or access to other teachings that they could freely compare. But it wasn't that way for me. so that's why "plagiarism" and being angered by LRH's claim to being "source" of everything he wrote, bugs me, because for a while he was my BOSS! Literally. I had to read his shit because I worked for him, at slave labor wages I might add, not because I personally wanted to study this. I didn't get into Scientology to study Hubbard's ideas about ART!!! But it was part of my STAFF HAT to do that course. And it was all mixed in with "Scientology" which is this mongrel mix of religion, business, political movement, psychiatric hate group, real estate investor, celebrity life coaching & control , and art school.... and..... whatever else. God... who woudl want to learn how to make films from LRH? He never made a really good film. Gold had to hire real non-LRH trained Pros to help them make anything close to good.
  15. at3ist

    at3ist Patron with Honors

    hey i have seen that in scientology they teach people everything, is like the only religion that have subject about anything, like the cleaning hat wtf?, like why do i want that a church teach me how to be an artist, so youre rigth about getting mad, cuz you was in this kind of mentality where you think that they can teach you everything, how to study, how to live, what to say, where to live, what to belive, what to do, it make me wonder if this shit wasnt discovered, you will probably have a scientology med school, where people would think that was hubbard who discovered how the body work and that we have organs and there are bacterias
  16. LA SCN

    LA SCN NOT drinking the kool-aid

    Example of LRH plagiarism / paraphrasing...

    I was on staff in LA at the time and remember well the 'stirring' message from Ron to the True Believers towards the end of the Portland Crusade:

    ‘The price of freedom: Constant alertness, constant willingness to fight back. There is no other price’

    It stuck in my craw as phony and I knew I had read this before somewhere but couldn't put my finger on it. Well, I have now and here it is:

    Famous Quote from Thomas Jefferson:
    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

    I'm surprised the Co$ hasn't sued Bill Gates and Microsoft for using Hubbards' Embrace and Extend technique! :duh: :D
  17. HCObringOrder?

    HCObringOrder? Silver Meritorious Patron

    He also made the statement that nothing was ever really invented by man.

    The dichotomy of those statements is/was one of my wake ups.

  18. Peter Soderqvist

    Peter Soderqvist Patron with Honors

    Soderqvist1: L. Ron Hubbard was to me a source of organization of knowledge, whatever its merit!
    I have seen some third parties complaining about “plagiarism”, “The only source” etc!
    So let’s see what L. Ron Hubbard has to say about it, with a foreword by the renowned author on occultism Colin Wilson!

    The Occult Chapter 3 The Poet as Occultist
    Page 129; The founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard teaches that men are gods who invented the world as a game, into which they descended, and then became victims of their own amnesia, so they became trapped in their game. It is unnecessary to point out that all the great religions hold to the view that the essence of man and the essence of God are one and the same.

    The Fundamentals of thought by L. Ron Hubbard
    Page 23: In Scientology we have very little to do with forcing people to make conclusions. An individual can experience these things for himself and unless he can do so no one expects him to accept them. Page 25: In past dissertations on the subject of the mind and philosophies of life there was a great deal of speculation and very little actual proof. Therefore, these philosophies were creations, and one philosopher was at work out creating another philosopher. In Scientology we have this single difference. We are dealing with discoveries. The only things created about Scientology are the actual books and works in which Scientology is presented. The phenomena of Scientology are discovered and are held in common by all men and all life forms. There is no effort in Scientology to out-create each and every thetan that comes along. It is, of course, possible to conceive Scientology as a creation, and to conceive that it is overwhelming. It should be viewed otherwise, for it is intended as an assistance to life at large, to enable life to make a better civilization and a better game.

    Page 26: Scientology as a science is composed of many axioms (self-evident truths, as in geometry). There are some fifty-eight of these axioms in addition to the two hundred more axioms of Dianetics, which preceded the Scientology axioms. It is as though one had entered into a honourable bargain with fellow beings to hold these things in common. Once this is done, or once such a “contract” or agreement exists, one has the fundamentals of a universe. Specialized considerations based on the above make one or another kind of universe. The physical universe, which we see around us and in which we live, was created on these fundamentals without regard to Who created it. Its creation was agreed upon. In order to perceive it, one must agree that it exists.

    Page 27: We must, however, assume, because it is so evident, that an individual only gets into traps and circumstances he intends to get into. Certain it is that, having gotten into such a position, he may be unwilling to remain in it, but a trap is always preceded by one’s own choice of entrance. We must assume a very wide freedom of choice on the part of a thetan, since it is almost impossible to conceive how a thetan could get himself trapped even though he consented to it. By actual demonstration a thetan goes through walls, barriers, vanishes space, appears anywhere at will and does other remarkable things. It must be, then, that an individual can be trapped only when he considers that he is trapped.

    In view of the fact that the totality of existence is based upon his own considerations, we find that the limitations he has must have been invited by himself— otherwise they could not be eradicated by the individual under processing, since the only one who is present with the preclear is the Auditor, and past associates of the preclear, while not present, do desensitize, under auditing, in the preclear’s mind. Therefore it must have been the preclear who kept them there. The preclear by processing can resolve all of his difficulties without going and finding other persons or consulting other universes. Thus the totality of entrapment, aberration, even injury, torture, insanity and other distasteful items are basically considerations a thetan is making and holding right now in present time. This must be the case since time itself is a postulate or consideration on his own part.

    Page 30: Any information is valuable to the degree that you can use it. In other words, any information is valuable to the degree that you can make it yours. Scientology, of all the sciences, does not teach you—it only reminds you, for the information was yours in the first place. It is not only the science of life, but it is an account of what you were doing before you forgot what you were doing.
  19. this is a bullshit apologist answer.

    He plagarized from others and claimed or implied it was his. He is a fraud. It doesn't matter how he babbles on to explain it.

    There is such a thing s professionalism in the fields of science and the humanities. He never did and probably never could meet those standards.

    Part of his con was to make people think he came up with the ideas.

    If a professional today stole 1% of what he stole from others and claimed it as their own they would be ostracized from their profession.

    His babblings do not change the fact that he lied.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
  20. Peter Soderqvist

    Peter Soderqvist Patron with Honors

    Soderqvist1: plagiarised and claimed it was his? :no:

    Primary Axioms
    The principal achievement of Dianetics lies in its organization. Almost any of its parts can be found somewhere in history, even when they were independently evolved by the writer. There are no principal sources, and where a practice or a principle is borrowed from some past school the connection is usually accidental and does not admit any further use or validity of that school.