Mike Rinder's Blog

Something Can Be Done About It

L. Ron Hubbard and Family

By 117 Comments

Terra Cognita has some new thoughts…

L. Ron Hubbard and Family

I came across this quote in a recent Scientology promo piece:

“A family is simply a group for the purpose of sexual pleasure and the rearing of children and mutual economic advantages amongst ourselves. You know, it’s a small group. Therefore, we have this actual group. The race wouldn’t be anywhere without the family.”

— L. Ron Hubbard, Classic Lecture, On the Second Dynamic—Sex, Children & the Family (6 April 1955).

Mind Stun

It boggles my mind that LRH:

One: Defined the family as “…simply a group for the purpose of sexual pleasure and the rearing of children and mutual economic advantages…”

Two: Scientologists accept these words as truth.

And three: The organization is promoting this quote as an example of LRH’s supreme wisdom.

 Wow. Wow. Wow.

Red Lights

Take away the part about “the rearing of children,” and he might as well have been talking about a brothel. On second thought, knowing what I now know about the man, we should leave that phrase right where it is and get those little bastards working to bring in new clients.

“What’s love got to do, got to do with it…”

I never considered that families were formed “simply” as a means of pleasuring oneself sexually, rearing children, and fostering economic advantage. I always imagined that quaint concepts such as play, creativity, common interests, help, friendship, romance, and love were part of the equation.

I always imagined that with families came feelings and emotional impact. If you don’t think so, talk to someone who’s lost a loved one. Ask them if their deceased parent, spouse, or child was simply a means for sexual pleasure and economic advantage.

Then again…don’t.

Last Words

I love my family.

 

Still not Declared,

Terra Cognita

Comments

  1. The above was supposed to be posted as a reply to FP’s nonsense response to my post 15 October, 5.30 am. Now I shall wait…

    Reply

  3. Wow. Sexual pleasure (which after a while is never the same as in the beginning) and economic convenience ( forget about “for richer or poor”)

    No wonder Scientologists get divorced so frequently. From a woman’s viewpoint, picking a man to sleep with (based solely on sexual attraction experienced NOW) who’ll be the father of her children is a fairly simple matter.
    * Is there sexual attraction at present?
    * How much dough does the guy have at present?
    Tick in the box for both?
    Great!
    That’s the guy you want to marry! Get him to the church and drag him down the isle, pronto!
    Never mind his character, his personality, never mind does he keep his word, never mind what kind of a father he’s going to be…wow.
    VERY easy to find, and even easier to discard and get a replacement!

    Reply

  4. LRH’s description sounds like an insane definition of family, though I’m not sure he was insane. To me, he seems more like just plain ol’ evil. The guy was manipulative to the core.

    Reply

  5. If you want evidence of what it does to children being raised like that definition, ask the kids who were raised in that group, and who especially went to the Ranch. Not receiving love as children creates children who are confused, lonely and uncertain not only when young but also as adults. and upset no matter if it’s the church or a “wog” parent. Children need loving parents no matter what group they are part of. Ask them, they’ll tell you. Read Nathan Rich’s book, he can tell you all about that.

    Reply

    • Correctomunco. Kids raised in Scientology are taught from day one that they are immortal beings, that their bodies and their parents’s bodies are meat sacks incidental to this lifetime and expendable in the cosmic scheme of things. With some of these kids, this indoctrination “takes”, with others, no so much. But make no mistake, with the former category, THIS is what informs their decision to break with parents or siblings or anyone if and/or when they are told by the cult to do so. Without this training from early childhood, with their having been steeped from infancy into the belief hat their parents are expendable, the cult would never be able to “order” these “kids” – many of them well over 21 – to ditch their parents. It IS indeed their very own “prison of belief” – this and only this – which empowers their decisions to disconnect from the parents who love them, and it is this which makes the separation even more painful for these parents, because, after all, who placed them as infants in the cult in the first place? These same parents, with the best of intentions, of course.

      Reply

      • This sounds like imagination and hyperbole. In seven years of scientology I never met another scientologist who said or regarded their body as a “meat sack.” Give me a break.

        Reply

        • Well, Ok, Richard, that’s fine, you’re right. Make it “meat body” if you prefer. I’m sure you’ve heard Scientologists use THAT expression freely, amirite?

          Reply

          • Still overstated. How do you know what all kids in Scientology are taught from day one? You’re generalizing and insulting all parents who raised children when they were active Scientologists.

            Reply

            • Richard, now you’re introducing another argument.

              One point at a time, OK?

              Your first objection was to the term, “meat sack”. I agreed and corrected the term by saying it should instead be “meat body” a term very commonly used by every Scientologist I knew back in the day to distinguish their spirit or thetan from their corporeal selves. What did I overstate as regards this term? Was this not a very familiar term to you when you were in?

              As far as what I know about parents who raised children in Scientology, you’re right, I DID generalize about that, and in so doing, possibly insulted Scientology parents who did NOT believe that we are all immortal beings whose parents or children are incidental to this lifetime and as such kispensible if or when faced decisions regarding Scientology’s Disconnection policy.. Possibly there WERE Scientology parents who actually believed otherwise and taught their children otherwise, despite what the Church of Scientology was teaching their children in the Scientology private schools the parents sent them to, and in their courses and at their orgs. Perhaps there were indeed Scientology parents who did NOT believe or want their children to believe ANY of this. If so, I owe these Scientology parents an apology.

              Reply

              • But Richard, more important than any of the above,more important than scoring any points on this issue, I believe I’ve managed to offend you personally. If your objections to what I wrote went beyond the academic, if this generalization of mine to which you’ve taken exception was unfair to you personally and/or to how you raised your own children while you were in Scientology and then afterwards, then I’m sorry, and I hope you’ll accept my apology. The more I think about it, the way you communicate, you’re probably the least likely person to take a hard line in the shaping of impressionable young minds.. I am sorry.

              • Aqua – I didn’t take it personally. To me your comment seemed to portray all present and past scientology parents as unfit which I don’t think is fair. Attributing disconnection to a belief in reincarnation is a separate discussion in my opinion.

              • Thanks, Richard

                NOW I understand what annoyed you. .

                For the record, to portray all Scientology parents past and present as unfit was NOT AT ALL what I intended to communicate! Nor do I myself believe this – at all!

                OMG, I’m glad to be able to correct THIS misconception which may have registered with others here besides yourself.

                On the contrary, many Scientology parents sacrificed greatly in order to send their kids to expensive Scientology schools, out of LOVE for their kids and with the VERY BEST and purest of intentions for them!

                I personally know FOUR sets of parents who picked up stakes and relocated across the US in order to be near their kids attending Scn schools, making major adjustments in their work and personal lives including losing money on the sales of their homes, just to get it all done quickly. All this on top of paying the exorbitant tuition costs for their children.

                And they did this out of LOVE. Out of wanting what they believed was the 100% BEST for their children

                That the trust, belief, faith and resources of sincere and well meaning people got betrayed, causing them to LOSE these very children via Scn’s Disconnection policy, is the tragedy. And what do I mean, “tragedy”? This is a CALAMITY.

                Alright let me stop ranting.

                Also, agreed that the belief in reincarnation as a justification for Disconnection is a separate argument. It would be an interesting one too.

        • Hubbard used the term ” meat body ” in writing and in his recorded lectures. I heard the phrase and variations of it used frequently by public, staff, and Sea Organization scientologists at all 3 organizations I was involved with over 15 years in the cult.

          Reply

  7. I was expecting “Deep Thoughts from Jack Handy” SNL style from the early 90’s. This entire quote is a bunch of drug induced jibber jabber. Reducing the human experience to the lowest common denominator is not how one goes about making bigger and better beings. Its how a dictator can get his population to perform the greatest atrocities without batting an eyelash — you can see Hubbard’s true intentions from his choice of words. Hitler had meth and Hubbard had his pinks and greys…

    Reply

  8. It seems that his only desire was to destroy. Anything that appears to be good from him is only bait or a lie. Thank you for continuing to expose the truth to protect others from falling prey and to help those still in get out.

    Reply

  9. The more I read and see about Hubbard the more certain I feel that he was a paedophile. The same way I feel that that the Demented one is gay.

    Reply

    • Methinks Kronomex the Time Bandit protesteth too much! Or in other words, the overt doth speak loudest in accusation!

      Reply

  10. Here is Terra Non-Cognition scraping the bottom of the misunderstoods and now rock-slamming barrel yet again and of course quite maliciously and deliberately associating weird sexual ideas into the equation by juxtaposing and trying to imply what Hubbard meant was something to do with pedophilia. This crap from Terra is really quite malicious and evil and I am surprised (or am I) that Mike publishes such obvious nonsense. This story is actually extremely embarrassing for you both.

    As for you morons that are going into agreement with it and of course even increasing the hyperbole in your haste to find something to vent your spleens about, you really should look into your own black hearts and go and stare at a rock for the next 1000 years.

    Reply

    • Apparently you are an expert Scientologist. Someone the whole world can take as an example of the attitude and social skills acquired by following the doctrines of Scientology. You must be very proud of the future you have aligned for yourself. I’d say good luck to you, but you don’t need luck, just L.Ron Hubbard.
      I don’t mean that sarcastically either, I really don’t. I marvel at venomous snakes when I see them too, beautiful things they are, like sharks, sleek & environmentally suited to their task.

      Reply

    • Foolproof,
      Your response is long on both highly generalized objections and make wrong.
      What are your SPECIFIC objections to what Terra C wrote, and, specifically, how would you counter these points and/or opinions of Terra’s so as to prove them as utterly evil and wrong as you contend them to be?
      Respectfully, though, don’t bother to respond unless you are prepared to furnish such specifics.
      If you are inclined to respond within these parameters and do so, your reply will be of considerable interest to me and I’ll appreciate it and possibly learn something from it too.

      Reply

      • Certainly didn’t take FP long to fall back into his old habits of name calling and overbearing oafish behaviour.
        He only ever deals in generalities that’s why you can’t pin him. He ducks and weaves then starts to get nasty when backed into corner.
        FP, you should be thankful that Mike lets you post your malicious troll like comments and nonsense.

        Reply

        • Well, that’s why I’m attempting to pin him down to his specific objections. If he is willing to so engage fine, there can be a discussion, but if he takes refuge in evasion and manipulation and slinging ad homs, well, that will communicate a great deal also to me also.

          You see, I know that Foolproof is quite capable of dealing in specifics if and/or when he chooses to do so.

          FP knows very well what he’s doing when he’s slinging the generalities, the ad homs, the non-answers!

          He knows how to communicate in the definitive mode, knows how to debate point by point, without insults. He could communicate this way if he were so inclined.

          That he refrains from so doing is his choice..

          Reply

      • Ooooooooh! “Respond within these parameters” eh? Getting all Lab Ratty now on basically a sleazy pile of crap. Are you really suggesting that this dopey suggestive nonsense from Terra needs analyzing and explaining? If you can’t see it then you are blind and explaining it for you is pointless..

        Reply

        • How ironic.

          Your last sentence above should be tattoo’d across your forehead. Though can’t would more appropriately be won’t.

          You would be certain the message was there for everyone you come into contact with to read so they knew what was wrong with THEM. Even though you’re the one with the label on your forehead.

          You wear it proudly.

          Reply

          • It’s one thing to let the likes of FP to post here (really annoying) but to provide a forum for these assholes is ludicrous.

            Reply

            • Yes, I have often said to Mike that he should disconnect you all and let me have sway here! Or which “Forum for Assholes” were you talking about?

              Reply

          • Foolproof,

            Thank you for taking your valuable time to respond. Most kind of you indeed. I do understand now.

            That any pedestrian questions of mine would be addressed to, let alone answered by, a person of your knowledge, intellect and understanding was the height of presumption on my part.

            I do beg your pardon.

            Please be assured that in the future, all your opinions, based as they are on an infallible comprehension containing vast analytical ability, laser-like perception and a seemingly instant knowingness – all of your opinions will forevermore be accepted, without question or concern, as total truth by me.

            I promise.

            Reply

        • It’s called logic, FP. If you applied it you’d be far more effective in dismantling Terra’s claims. Instead you simply dismiss everything as “nonsense”, as if engaging in actual debate is beneath you. This, in itself, is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad lapidem). ?

          What of Terra’s reasoning, you may well ask. Well, quite. Claim 1 can be proven by simply reviewing the referenced lecture. Claim 3 is disputable but can easily be proven on receipt of the actual promo. Claim 2, however, is a humdinger. It may or may not be true, but on its own it’s just an assertion; no effort has been made to support it. There’s your entry point. And an easy win, imho.

          Reply

    • Foolproof: follow your own advice. Try doing it without using the easy bake wheatstone bridge, the gobbledygook loaded language, or the hypnotic routines and indoctrination of El Con Flubbard. Bring a plant based lubricant and liberally slather it around the circumference of your neck and skull. Sitting quietly and rocking gently, slowly release your head from your anal cavity.
      You’re welcome.

      Reply

      • Continuing the general theme here of bar room invective and childish retorts but now becoming more overt than Terra at least. I could reply with “stick it up your ass sideways” and in fact – I will.

        Reply

  11. Actually LRH’s definition (he did say rearing of children) was the accepted definition for almost of all of recorded history, from peasantry to royalty, so not sure what all the fuss is about. As far as love, help and loyalty goes, on a scale of 1-10, families have hit every number of that scale and then some.

    Reply

    • You are talking about Hubbard’s 8 dynamics, clearly Hubbard’s tech fails in producing a person who can go up the 8 dynamics. Such sublime Hubbard wrote about that one can achieve or obtain, but a failure.

      Reply

      • Well this is a really cogent reply eh? From trying to understand your gobbledygook I can discern you really know what you are talking about eh? Did you have a lot of trouble reading the Scientology Picture book?

        Reply

        • Two questions I suppose.
          Why is it so important for you to try to change our minds about something most of us have have personally experienced, for some most of their lives was spent following Scientology’s doctrines. Many of us are hurt rather badly with family members who have simply have and that means not even a phone call at Christmas or Thanksgiving just to say hi.
          Is it a mission of yours to try to upset people you don’t know? The comments you make seem to be combative and arrogantly based upon your self proclaimed superior understanding of Scientology.
          I’ve met people like you in the military and even called some of them sir. More than a few are regretting the way they treated people now that they are older and realize how miserable they made the lives of other people. Not to mention the payback some got by people who made a game out of them either – Karma has friends in strange places.
          The longer you live the greater the tragedy awaits you. Treat people how you’d like to be treated doesn’t gel with you does it?

          Reply

          • You seem to have missed my particular boat. My objection here with this story is that Terra has added his meaning into Hubbard’s words to imply that the definition of the 2D has some sort of sick pedophilia connected with it when anyone with any sense and lack of bias knows exactly what Hubbard meant and it was not what Terra is implying. By all means criticize those things in the Church that are worth criticizing but there is no need to deliberately twist words to suit some sort of sick agenda or perhaps he can find no other story to write so has to bend Hubbard’s words to suit his nonsense.The fact also that others cannot discern this and compound his felony by adding yet more hyperbole and twisted ideas is not of course new for me to perceive here.

            As to “debating” this crap which others seem to want me to do, if you can’t discern what is going on there is no point in trying to dissuade them otherwise.

            So perhaps, as usual, you might apply your last sentence above to those doing this and to Terra as well. Most people can see the fallacy in Terra’s article straight away but of course I am the only who can be bothered to state such – many others are either just chickenshit or have a similar agenda baed on some sort of vengeance.

            BTW, if you recall the tape the “Overt Motivator Sequence”, Karma as a “law of the Universe” as such does not actually exist. But Terra and a few others here can of course have it applied to them if they so wish – I have no objection. They can have all the Karma they like!

            Reply

        • Here is yet again the old misconception that Scientology was “invented” by Hubbard. As Hubbard points out these things are already there in the universe – all Hubbard does is point them out. And then of course created a pathway out with processes etc.which he did create, but which you choose not to tread. My my, the assumptions of the unknowing eh? Now, what other uninformed nonsense can you post? My fingers are poised!

          Reply

          • You need to restudy Keeping Scientology Working. You clearly have a boatload of misunderstood words just in that policy.

            Reply

  12. the wasband feels no remorse. He left & did what he was told to do by the cult…now I am getting less alimony; due to living this long (70.) The wasband cares nothing for any difficulties he has caused. He followed orders; so that was OT

    Reply

  13. Mike I have always felt bad that you cannot see your older children. But you did not not have a real “family” with your first wife. Think of her real relationship with your children. I know your pain is very real when you look at your real wife and your sons. Family is real and you have done a great job of it in your current situation! Bless you all!

    Reply

  14. I love my family, what’s left of them, now more than ever. While I wasn’t raised by affectionate parents, I wasn’t neglected either. I learned about love from my wonderful grandmother who always hugged me, told me she loved me and gave me spending money saying “don’t tell your mother” as she pressed it into my small palm. I escaped my non-expressive fam to stay with her many times whenever I wished. It was always a joyful time filled with baking goodies and whatever yummy meals I desired.

    I learned what love meant and I grew up wanting to be loved and to be loving to all… just like her.

    My biggest disconnect to scn was always when I encountered mean followers who crapped on me like it meant nothing to them. The inconsistent attitudes always threw me into a mass of confusion – how could people who banded together to make the world better treat their own group members like dirt? Back then, I don’t know the policies that they followed as the truth which made them so brutal to other human beings. This made me take a backseat for like foreva’ until I found a realistic truth – scn was more about elron fixing his f’d up self than the world. Love never entered his logic. It was tossed aside as unnecessary.

    Reply

  15. One biological Hubbard left in $citol. He had how many kids? Not a good retention stat! How many biological Miscaviges remain? Two publics and one True Dear Leader of the shrinking flock. Not good stats.

    In case nobody asked today, “Where’s Shelly?”

    Reply

  16. ” the race wouldn’t be anywhere with out the family” ..what a stupid comment!
    People believing Hubbard to be a smart ..brilliant man ..after reading this…mindboggling

    Reply

  17. I missed out on being raised any other way than this LRH definition.

    Luckily my husband was raised with tons of love, attention, care and time with his parents. Now he shares that knowledge with me. We found each other with two kids each. Now we are Step-Parents.

    At first I was very bothered at his attention to them WHICH HE PUT BEFORE HIS OWN NEEDS. That blew my mind. Finally I told him what I felt. He stared at me like an alien. That’s when it hit me: I never had what he had so how would I know/understand? It makes me feel SO SAD when I realize my own kids didn’t have this until he and I met.

    Now my kids (OUR KIDS…we took full love and responsibility for each other’s children and we are ONE FAMILY together) are probably sick of the attention and figuring out how to process it themselves as grown adults. Hopefully they will carry it forward if they have kids.

    I know I’m going to be one bad ass awesome grandparent: the right way! I still need to pick my grandparent nickname (Bompa, Momma, G-ma, Granny, Gramps, Papa…I’d love ideas).

    Reply

    • TOOT—How wonderful that you were able to meld your two families into one! You will adore having grandchildren, and finding that special name for them to call you. Mine had 3 grandmas, so they called each of us Grandma Ann/Shirley/Jane…but they also came up with some of their own nicknames as toddlers, and those stuck too. Such fun! And now I have a great-grandson and the joy increases again. I’m not much of a gift-giving grandma (just birthdays & Christmas). I’m the grandma who comes to all your Little League games and musical events. And I’m the one who takes you to professional theatrical performances. 🙂

      Congrats on your happy family, TOOT!

      Reply

  18. Yes, from the aspect of studying the subject of life according to Hubbard – it can easily be concluded he is indeed a loveless asshole.
    From practically devoting a full time decade to his group that followed his doctrines closely, yes, he’s a loveless asshole.
    I concluded sometime ago my response to those who harp on & on about how “we” never followed his writings exactly, hence the failure of Scientology. His policy isn’t written for your best interests at all, despite the lies he wrote to the contrary, he’s always been a selfish loveless asshole with a huge chip on his shoulder about the importance of anyone else, everyone else is and always has been completely wrong about life according to Hubbard (KSW1). Upon reading the many first hand accounts of his shipmates and messengers working closely with him, yes indeed, he’s a self absorbed loveless asshole.
    Remember that old TV program, “This is your life?” Terra’s article should be the intro for Hubbard’s…
    MIscavige… well… what a family man he turned out to be?
    That’s Scientology for you!

    Reply

    • Haven’t posted here said before that Miscavige is afraid of children? Children are brutally honest. They hold your life up to a mirror and haven’t learned the “social graces” to not ask you why you are acting like an ass.

      Reply

      • Oh boy, you’ve got that one right! I somehow end up having to teach some child I don’t know some aspect of fishing every now and again. I love it but it comes at a price you might say; your reputation as a person is immediately put under inspection. Kids are as you say so correctly, brutally honest and marvelously observant to the point of being scary when they are interested in something. Miscavige would be lost in a world of frustrated pain trying to come to terms with honesty at such a base level. Especially with his penchant for the use of violence to vent his frustrations. Yes, he’d be scared out of his wits if he was forced to contemplate dealing with children up close and personal. It also takes patience, something Miscavige has proven he does not have use for in dealing with people, especially & including children – they can also really test you by not holding back what they think of you either. Good point Val.

        Reply

  19. But LRH said it. LRH is source.

    Maybe there is a word I don’t understand?

    Nope, LRH, in speaking about families, tipped his cards to reveal what a shit he was.

    And the dwindling pool of scientologists still cling to the conman’s words like shipwreck passengers clinging to a leaking raft.

    Reply

  20. There are things I read here that just turns my stomach. This was sure one of them. I just can’t wrap my mind around just what sort of person LRH was. Was he so able to compartmentalize that he could not conceive of anyone except himself, what he wanted, considered himself as the only thing of importance in the universe? Was he so self-important that the world had to be only as he wanted it to be? And, did he write this garbage so as to justify his actions, writing his own rules and laws? LRH was science fiction personified.

    Reply

    • Yes, he was that bad…No, actually he was MUCH worse. Go to gerryarmstrong.org and read L .Ron Hubbard’s Affirmations. He was knowingly and willfully evil.

      Reply

      • Thank you for the link Mark. I will go there again and do more searches for the affirmations. I wasn’t sure where to look but did read some of the other information.

        Of all the evil that I have read of him his declaration that children were adults in small bodies just erases anything that may have been good about him. That is just so sick, perverted, and there’s just nothing redeemable IMO. He caused so many people so much pain, and a child is completely helpless.

        Reply

        • You can also find the Affirmations, alternately known as the Admissions, at lermanet.com, or you can use the internet search engine of your choice and look for them. They are easy to find. Have a barf bag handy…

          Reply

            • Definitely.
              Here’s an example of one of the many affirmations he used in his auto-hypnosis routine: ” All men and elemental spirits are your slaves. ”
              Really.

              Reply

              • Mark, elemental spirits! Ok, aren’t they thought to be demons? Sorry, I really am going to have to do some reading (probably in small doses). If he believed in calling upon demons – just shaking my head here.

      • I suppose while I’m at it, do the celebs like Travolta put their children though all the testing, classes, purif stuff, and I guess do the celebs go through all that too, or do they get a get out of jail free cards?

        Reply

      • I just don’t know what Hubbard was bixntram. I have been following crime forums for over 20 years, read so many incredible stories of the most hideous crimes, and Hubbard seems to fit into many categories, but maybe in the worst of the worst criminals category fits best. So many victims.

        Reply

        • And the son of a bitch got away with it! That’s what infuriates me. And right now Miscavige is, in effect, murdering Shelly, Heber Jensch and whover else he’s holding in that Godawful prison camp. He’ll keep them there until they die, just so they won’t talk. Their only chance is if they happen to outlive him, and even then, there’s no guarantee.

          Reply

          • He was just serial abuser and user bixntram. His crimes ran A to Z, man, woman or child. It didn’t matter to him as long as it fed his lusts. David Miscavige is cut from the same cloth IMO, and it makes me wonder just what Hubbard did to him to set him so firmly on that same path. Well, Miscavige has added his own brand to it it seems.

            Reply

          • bix, its not that simple. At any time, Shelley, Heber, anyone in the Hole could say, “I am leaving”, and if prevented, respond, “I want to leave. I am leaving. I do not want to be here. If you force me to stay here, you are holding me against my will. THAT is kidnapping. You cannot FORCE me to remain here. I choose to leave. If you do not allow me to leave I shall report you to the authorities.”

            It is their “prison of belief” which holds them. The cult cannot legally hold them if they decide to walk out. Walking out violates their RELIGIOUS vows, certainly. But ANYONE can take a religious vow and then violate it. Its done all the time.

            What keeps Shelley there and Heber and all the rest there is their own mindset, and this is what keeps every single one of those who disconnected by cherch order from their fathers, mothers, siblings, friends, spouses, etc. etc.

            Co$ has NO real power over these people or any still in. They imprison themselves. – understandably, granted, because they’ve been indoctinated, brainswashed, whatever, but still, they do it to themselves.

            CO$ is the wrong target.

            The correct target is their belief that they MUST follow this toxic Disconnection policy.for their own salvation.

            Many young Scientologists have been RAISED on this belief. Their now suffering and disconnected from parents PUT them in this training camp! So its not surprising that, with SOME of them, the training “took”.

            The door is not locked. All they have to do is turn the handle, open the door, and walk out.

            That they don’t is due to their prison of belief.

            Many, many Scientologists have realized this and walked out that door. These guys can have the same realizations and do it too.

            Reply

            • Edit: “Their now suffering and DISCONNECTED-FROM parents…” The hyphen makes it an adjective phrase, sorry.

              Reply

            • Your’e right, Aqua, it’s not that simple, and those people in there have imprisoned themselves. Still, from what I’ve read about the concentration camp in Hemet, isolated and surrounded by barbed wire, do you really think Shelly Miscavige, assuming she wanted to (which, granted, she probably doesn’t), is just going to be able to walk up to the gate, tell the security guard ‘I’m outta here’ and simply be allowed to leave? Hardly.

              She and the others in there are certainly “handled” one way or another, and they may be over the edge by now: just burned out, obedient zombies walking around with no one home in their psyches.

              Of course we don’t really know what’s going on in there, but consider: the damage that could be done to the cherch if any of them started ‘talking’ is a risk Miscavige is not going to take. That’s why they’ll never get out now.

              Reply

            • Also: “report you to the authorities?” With no cell phones, no devices of any kind, and no internet access to do so?

              Reply

              • bix,
                Everything, but EVERYTHING you’ve said above is true! No argument from me whatsoever.
                But you’re argument defines how difficult it WOULD be or COULD BE.
                For someone NOT imprisoned in THEIR prison of belief, ALL that would be necessary and I do mean ALL would be:
                “You are holding me here against my will. THAT IS KIDNAPPING and kidnapping in the United States of America is a FELONY. I wish to leave. In the United States of America there is such a thing as FREEDOM OF RELIGION. I know longer believe what you are telling me. I have the right to leave. You may not LEGALLY keep me here. Should you deny me the right to leave, at some point I shall tell get the opportunity to tell all the world that you have kept me against my will and the Church of Scientology will be prosecuted for keeping me here against my will.”

                Look, I know, I know, dream on, right? 🙂

                But, in its purity, this would be all that would be necessary. Say this, over and over, no matter WHAT the cult said. No matter WHAT.
                Because keeping ANYONE, ANYWHERE (other than in police custody or in jail) where they don’t want to be is KIDNAPPING.

                Again, I GET that they’re brainwashed and weak and intimidated and all that. I get it! You’re totally spot on in every point you made.

                But the points you made apply only because the person being held AGREES.

                The cult KNOWS VERY WELL how dangerous, how illegal it would be, for them, to hold someone AGAINST his or her will.

                IF that were the case. THAT was my only point, in its purity AND, I might add, in its inapplicability, given the prison of belief mindset of those being held.

                bix, have you ever seen a trained attack dog shrink away upon a single command from its trainer/owner?

                That dog has the power to tear out the throat of anyone it wanted to but its under the total control of its owner/trainer. Its in its own “prison of belief”. It operates within its own AGREEMENT that its owner is its total master. If by some fluke that dog “decided” to NOT obey,to possibly turn on its master, whoa! That power, those sharp teeth – bye bye!

                People are not dogs but you get the concept. These people don’t know that they can leave anytime they want.

              • I’m cringing with all my typos. Anxiety about losing the internet. I’m sure you’re sick of hearing this.

  21. Family is the core of God’s plan. Sexual gratification was not part of the equation though, it is part of the marriage equation. Children are for learning to love something more than yourself. I love my family and I know that I am nothing without them.

    Reply

    • I would think that God would be smart enough to make sexual gratification PART of the marriage equation, Donna.

      I mean, who would bother eating if it were not pleasurable? We’d all starve to death!

      For the same reason, if sex were not pleasurable who would do it?

      And a relationship wherein one has sex with a partner solely because its one’s duty to do so in order to produce children and to ensure economic stability is a relationship ripe for infidelity. For eons this was how and why people DID marry – the only reasons. And they compensated accordingly because this type of relationship would have been unbearable otherwise.

      Reply

  22. Sure LRH did not follow his own wisdom; he had three marriages, started one without ending the first one, kidnaped his daughter and neglected the ones he reared up with Mary Sue.

    Talking about truth…he had no clue what that meant either.

    Reply

    • And how did his marriages end? Through careful consideration of mismatched goals? No, He was off shopping for the next one. Marriage is about Him. Children are about him.

      And when it was said that LRH was man’s best friend? Who wrote that? Some admirer? No, it was him.

      Reply

  23. El Are Eitch should know a lot more about families than most. After all, he discarded three of them without any apparent regret or remorse. Of course, since he failed to live up to even his basic support obligations, there may be some disagreement between him and his former families about the “economic advantage” bit. But even when El Con’s words collide with the viewpoints of others, hard evidence or reality itself, we’ll still remember whose side to take regardless. Right! Right?

    Reply

  26. Well, that leaves the question as to WHO is “rearing the children”….since Staff becoming parents is a big???????? (no no)?

    Reply

    • Herein lies the cognitive dissonance. Elsewhere he tells us that children are just thetans in small bodies. That being said, what rearing is necessary? Wow.

      Reply

  27. One of the breathtaking parts of Janis’ book 2 to me, was where, although LRH basically spent little time with his family, he was offended that Terri wanted her own father to walk her down the aisle at her wedding to Gerry. He considered himself the father to all the messengers and ignored them equally.

    The other cringe worthy part was when he made Janis kiss him on the cheek at the end of watch if he said very well done.

    The more I read about what I was sucked into the more I thank my lucky stars I’m not a part of it any longer.

    I have never considered them any of the things in the above quote. Mutual economic advantages? O.M.F.G. The man had no clue the cost of raising children to be competent productive members of society, and I would never ever consider my children, in-laws, grandchildren and great grandchildren as a source of “economic advantage”, nor take advantage of them.

    I love my family.

    Reply

    • I believe a well known TV “Dr” has stated basically “tis better to be miserable alone than miserable with someone ELSE”……

      Reply

      • I believe that, Balletlady.
        Three very physically unhealthy, overweight and depressed women with whom I have been long acquainted are in long term, unhappy marriage.and relationships. These ladies complain bitterly and continually to anyone who’ll listen about their spouses/partners neither love nor appreciate nor fulfill them yet they do not leave..Two of them have grown children and grandchildren, the third is common-law married for 40 years. All very unhappy in various ways. They don’t leave, though. And each year they get sicker, fatter and more depressed. .

        Reply

  29. Everyone wants their closest family nearby as they are dying. Often family members race to the deathbed to say “good-bye” to their loved one. Who DIDN’T want his wife and children there? LRH, mankind’s dearest and best friend.

    His various wives and children were merely groups for sexual pleasure and economic advantage—until they became a disadvantage to him. Then they were totally and easily expendable. Easy come, easy go.

    So much ARC. Yes, what’s love got to do with it? Ron’s poor kids!!! Rejected quietly and without sorrow. What a narcissistic monster.

    Reply

    • Case in point. My father died fairly young, my mother died at age 49, 16 months before my father died. I told my father before he died that I was getting a divorce but didn’t go into the gory details. He begged me not to, he said “there is nothing worse than being alone.” FWIW he did NOT die alone, but surrounded by those he loved.

      Reply

      • Oh, Valerie—that must have been very painful and scary to lose both parents so young and so close together! I’m glad your dad didn’t die alone. My dad also died young (early 50’s) but my mom lived to 81. Family…what else truly matters in life? My high school senior granddaughter texted homecoming dance pictures yesterday. Today my college sophomore granddaughter FaceTimed me about a first date with a new guy. What joy to be involved in their lives! Disconnection—evil, evil, evil.

        Reply

        • Love love FaceTime, I wish my parents were alive to share it. I remember when my now teenage grandson came in at age 2 and reached for his dads computer and said gamma bow. He face timed me. My grandson said “gamma bow, I muddy” and raced outside again. THAAT is family.

          Reply

      • You’re not the only one, Valerie. When I was in, I was ordered to disconnect from my mom. She packed up her bags, and got on a plane for home. When she arrived, she promptly slit her wrists. You see, I was her only child.

        Gail, our cousin, came home early that day so my mom survived. She had OD’d on pills,

        Reply

        • Oh my God, OSD. Did you and your mother ever reconnect after she recovered? Or maybe I shouldn’t ask that? I’m sorry!

          Reply

        • The pain caused by this insidious group knows no bounds…..my thoughts are with you OSD, you are a wonderfully kind loving man with a wickedly delightful sense of humor that may have helped you get though many obstacles in life.

          You seem to have worked your way into a loving family of your own…many Blessings friend!

          Reply

  33. When I studied Blavatsky and compared Hubbard to the Occult, my mind was blown by Hubbard’s total selfish attitude. First of all, he eliminated Virtue and Love from the basic “White Hat” or right handed Occult
    foundation. Secondly, even Crowley retained love in his basic Thelema religion. Hubbard was consciously turning to the “left” or dark side of the Occult. His attitude about the family was low and base and vulgar.

    Reply

    • George – I know you have a scholarly treatise under review. but I’d sure like to see a general write up of the many observations and conclusions you’ve made from your studies of Blavatsky and the Occult, maybe just as an opinion piece.

      I’ll never read Blavatsky or go into an in depth study of the Occult, but a book titled “Blavatsky, Scientology and the Occult for Beginners” would be “cool”.

      Reply

      • Hi Richard,
        Thanks for the great idea! The scholarly review is going slow. There are a few copyright issues since I started on that route. I never would have gotten to the level that I am at without professional guidance. However, I think I can get something started. Reading Blavatsky is very difficult – not for the average person. I have mentioned a few general points on the blogs. I personally think he stood on her shoulders but never gave her any credit. She wrote in 1875 and he certainly somehow absorbed her but altered her message.

        Reply

        • Hi George – You were already investigating where Hubbard was coming from over two years ago when I posted the video below on Marty’s blog which piqued your interest. Some people might see some comparisons in it to scn.

          Many people, myself previously included, equate Occultism with Satanism, witchcraft and the like. I now know that it also includes investigation of the paranormal and supernatural on the right or light side of the occult as you mention.

          “Ghost” is a music group which has a Satanic or Luciferian act and the fans go along with it in concert, although some people might think they are for real. By looking up the terms in their music along with following up on your previous references, George, I have a general overview of what they and you are talking about. I doubt that mysticism will disappear from earth at any time soon.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A-IoOEPbUs

          Reply

          • Thanks Richard!
            Yes, you started this investigation and it has been fun. I am now at the point of looking at how to express the Occult in modern day terms like Ghost but with other types of media. Hubbard sort of borrowed from Blavatsky and weaved the Occult into Scientology. By the way, Blavatsky was a mega-star celebrity in the 19 century.

            Reply

            • That’s funny about Madame Blavatsky being a rock star back then. I would have looked her up. Otherwise, seances would have been interesting. If that was part of her mix I would have been hooked!

              Reply

            • My grandmother told me angels helped her and they would help me too if I asked them. She also gave astrology readings with the idea that God created the Heavens so we could admire and interpret them. I was genetically predisposed to enter Scientology or some other New Age practice – maybe – laughter.

              Reply

            • I hadn’t thought of it before, but my grandmother was born around 1900 and her interest in astrology might not have been considered so unusual back then as a carry over from the interest in spiritualism in the early 1900’s. By the time she and my grandfather were living with myself and my parents in the 1950’s she was considered a bit of an oddball, but some of the neighbors got readings from her. A resident astrologer living on the street in small town New Jersey – how could they resist?

              Reply

    • Hubbard seemed to be seeking power, not knowledge. Further evidence of his selfish attitude. See: his affirmations and his actions with the “great working”.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Aquamarine Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *