(RVY) Hubbard on how to kill him (or Scientology: the autobiog of LRH)
[29 Sep 1997]

Treat Scientology as the autobiography of L. Ron Hubbard, the blueprint/outline of his mind.

Main Index A.R.S. Web Summary Ex-Scientologists Speak

From: writer@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: (RVY) Hubbard on how to kill him (or Scientology: the autobiog of LRH)
Date: 29 Sep 1997 01:00:36 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <60mujk$vsv$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
Keywords: lrh scientology bolivar rvy hubbard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]


(include this in OSA DR re RVY)

Scientology as the autobiography of L. Ron Hubbard or (reposted as)
Hubbard on how to kill him

Occasionally I see people trying desperately to understand Hubbard and
Scientology-thinking, e.g., wondering on what basis he/they could be
saying or doing what is obviously stupid or insane. Some try to lay
LRH/Scn on some preestablished or already-known grid or system to try to
grasp the mentality. I've even done this by using Orwell's "1984" as one
of the best models for understanding or showing a certain world that
occurs in there, at the upper echelons, equivalent to the "Party."

However, the best way to understand Scientology and the mind of L. Ron
Hubbard is to equate the two and to apply his writings back to him. Treat
Scientology as the autobiography of L. Ron Hubbard, the blueprint/outline
of his mind. (Another way to view it is as his PC folders.) It is his
thinking process. Sometimes it is stable and doesn't change and other
times he is very mercurial. At times he pontificates proudly and at other
times he is a trembling paranoid and the policies that are emitted during
these times reflect his state of mind, rather than any fact or truth in
the real world. Thus sometimes he is right and sometimes he is wrong.
Sometimes he might make a brilliant observation and sometimes he might be
a raving psychotic. It's really not more complex than that.

What he was good at doing was applying his definition of reality, that
reality was nothing more than agreement. Thus he demanded agreement in a
frantic hope that if enough people agreed with him, he would be real.

There are any number of places where one can begin but let's begin with
the notion of overts and withholds. These are basically crimes and
secrets. Hubbard said that if a person had enough of them, they would flee
("blow") the area. Thus when a person leaves the organization, they are
automatically criminal. Yet look at Hubbard's life, how he blew one area
after another until he was finally hiding in Creston, California, under
disguise, terrified that a local would recognize him. What explains it?
Overts and withholds.

Now I am not not not saying that his theory of overts and withholds is
valid or correct. I am saying his own writings explain his behavior. They
do not necessarily explain the behavior of others. But they usually
explain his and when you apply the theory of overts and withholds to
Hubbard, he can be better understood. He had massive crimes and massive
withholds and he fled to avoid being discovered. That was how he ended up
hiding in Creston. Meanwhile, he's living a life of pretense (the lie) by
saying he's doing "research." That was a major withhold, a major lie. He
was hiding from the IRS and the feds and the courts and the media and a
host of lawyers who wanted to serve him.

In that vein, one of my favorite Hubbard policies to apply back to him is
the HCOPL "Your Post and Life." In it Hubbard says if you have the tech,
you cannot be hurt. If you have the tech, he said, suppressives/enemies
will shatter. (The cover of the PTS/SP course pack is a snarling face
shattering.)

If you read it, he is like the shaman who gives the poor tribesman a
blessed trinket to wear or perhaps body paint that will protect the
warrior from the guns of the white man. Medicine men did this and the
Indians were cut down in droves.

Well, there is Hubbard, selling his blessed trinkets and meanwhile he is
hiding in Creston, completely deluding himself that he is protected, when
he is nothing more than an ostrich with the head in the ground, feeling
invisible. He was not able to fend off his ghosts but he would write that
others could, and that gives insight into his mind. He was clearly trying
to overcome his own spiritual impotence, trying to convince himself,
perhaps more than he was trying to convince anyone else.

There is also the "Criminal Mind" HCOB where he says a person is guilty of
the crimes he accuses of others. That is straight L. Ron Hubbard talking.
All you have to do is read the crimes he rants about and you can find him
committing them, starting with sex crimes. (Hubbard was completely
psychotic on the subject of sex and finally said it was invented by the
psychs, meaning sex was evil.)

But in my own opinion, the most telling autobiographical essay on and by
Hubbard is what we called the "Bolivar PL," a long essay about Simon
Bolivar. It is basically a book review, of a biography of Bolivar and
Hubbard uses it to talk about "leadership" and the role of "power." What
he doesn't say in the essay was that he believed he was Bolivar and had
remarked upon this to many staff.

Hubbard had the most amazing ability to write about himself as if it were
someone else. I'm sure there is a professional name for it, besides
"disassociated." But that was how he was able to write many directives and
never see that they were actually autobiographical. They were sometimes
confessional and sometimes delusory.

The Bolivar PL was how he saw himself and his "mistakes." It contains a
section that is especially amazing because - unbeknownst to him - it is L.
Ron Hubbard describing himself, nearly perfectly.

Honors meant a great deal to Bolivar. To be liked was his life.
And it probably meant more to him than to see things really
right. He never compromised his principles but he lived on
admiration, a rather sickening diet since it demands in turn
continuous 'theater.' One is what one is, not what one is admired
or hated for. To judge oneself by one's successes is simply to
observe that one's postulates worked and breeds confidence in
one's ability. To have to be _told_ it worked only criticizes
one's own eyesight and hands a spear to the enemy to make his
wound of vanity at his will. Applause is nice. It's great to be
thanked and admired. But to work only for that? And his craving
for that, his addiction to the most unstable drug in history -
fame - killed Bolivar. That self-offered spear. He told the world
continually how to kill him - reduce its esteem. So as money and
land can buy any quantity of cabals, he could be killed by
curdling the esteem, the easiest thing you can get a mob to do.

Ironically, that might have been how L. Ron Hubbard was driven into hiding
and killed.

And he told the world how to do it.

But that is another story, isn't it?

Robert Vaughn Young
writer@eskimo.com

--
Robert Vaughn Young
writer@eskimo.com