Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Scientology: L. Ron Hubbard

From Medusa (a reader):

Not sure if you have ever covered Scientology, but now's a good time as any.

I found this 1983 Penthouse interview with L. Ron Hubbard's son to be extremely fitting to the blog.

Here's a little taste:


"Hubbard: Well, he didn't really want people killed, because how could you really destroy them if you just killed them? What he wanted to do was to destroy their lives, their families, their reputations, their jobs, their money, everything. My father was the type of person who, when it came to destruction, wanted to keep you alive for as long as possible, to torture you, punish you. If he chose to destroy you, he would love to see you lying in the gutter, strung out on booze and drugs, rolling in your own vomit, with your wife and children gone forever: no job, no money. He'd enjoy walking by and kicking you and saying to other people, "Look what I did to this man!" He's the kind of man who would pull the wings off flies and watch them stumble around. You see, this fits in with his Scientology beliefs, also. He felt that if you just died, your spirit would go out and get another body to live in. By destroying an enemy that way, you'd be doing him a favor. You were letting him out from under the thumb of L. Ron. Hubbard, you see?"

Many other quotes just as good, worth the read.

73 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. SECONDY-McSecondton 2nd

      Delete
  2. THIRDY-McThirdyton 3rd.

    And woweee.... wow. what a sadist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've always found it hilarious how weak and deluded the average person is; they would trust in anyone who creates a fantasty for them. Do they have no individual thought?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you give an example of what you consider "weak and deluded"?

      Delete
    2. An example would be the people who fell for the Scientology belief. This guy promised them godhood and eternal happiness, and because his followers wanted these things so badly, they actually believed in his bullshit.

      The average person wants a shortcut through life so badly, and anyone who promises them that gains so much power over them. It's ridiculously easy to con them; in fact, it's usually so easy that it's not really fun at all. Now conning someone who's naturally suspicious and intelligent is a whole different ball game.

      Delete
    3. Ahh... right. Hug time, Stasis.

      Delete
    4. "Now conning someone who's naturally suspicious and intelligent is a whole different ball game."

      Someone like you stasis?

      "stasis |ˈstāsis|
      noun formal or technical
      a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium."


      Delete
    5. You do not need to be suspicious to avoid a con when you are free from higher level emotional constraints. All cons are based off manipulating emotions on one level or another; it's rather hard to do that when your mark is aware of the tactics that prey on the baser part of humanity, and does not have any high level emotions. In general, the people that I cannot decieve are the only ones I can respect.

      By the way, I prefer the political definition of stasis.

      P.S I'm suprised you're still around Wicked; I expected others to have driven you out.

      Delete
    6. Well, should we get to specific definitions I would think the medical fits you best, stasis (pay attention to the bold):

      "sta·sis noun \ˈstā-səs, ˈstas-əs\
      plural sta·ses

      Definition of STASIS

      : a slowing or stoppage of the normal flow of a bodily fluid or semifluid : as
      a : slowing of the current of circulating blood
      b : reduced motility of the intestines with retention of feces"

      Delete
    7. I'm flattered that you've taken to investigating the definition of a single word so religiously due to me using it. Did I touch a fragile nerve there?

      Delete
    8. Broke me to pieces you did. Do you not like the interest?

      Delete
    9. Stasis, that isn't me. Why did you just assume anyone who replied was me? You can't tell when it's me and some random Anon posting? I thought I was at least a smidge special. Sorry, I'm not "driven out" by the others. I still don't get what offended you about what Anon said for you to give a comeback about touching his nerve. If I'm right that bringing up touching nerves implies that he said something offensive to you, also implying that giving the definition of Stasis would be payback or something?

      Tag Y

      Delete
    10. I knew the hug comment was you obviously, since you did use that a while back. The second comment was obviously not you due to the time difference. I was merely replying to both comments at once; it appears I will need to differentiate in the future.

      As for my comment about you Wicked, I was suprised that you stuck around even with your popularity around here. Rest assured that I feel nothing for you, hostile or otherwise. Your existance does not affect me one way or another.

      To the anon at 5:26PM, I'm going to use a modified quote. "A dragon does not concern itself with the opinion of ants." Props to you if you know where it's from.

      Delete
    11. I never get a hug back, Stasis. Do you ever hug anyone? What do I have to do to get one?

      (kidding on the desperation... but I'm really wondering, do you hug anyone?)

      Tag Y

      Delete
  4. Fascinating topic (hat-tip to Medusa) and excellent article link M.E.

    I am from a different generation to remember when pornographic magazines (such as Penthouse and Playboy) used to have some of the best investigative journalism, articles and interviews available - bookending the tasteful naked photographs of voluptuous women reclining in bohemian opulence.

    However I always remember my father (before he passed away 15 years ago – bless him) saying that he only read the occasional magazine then for the articles. And he was a top criminal lawyer so I had no reason to disbelieve him.

    However, sure enough there are many great authors and counter-culture figures from the 60’s and 70’s that can be found in the internet archives writing and being written about in the aforementioned magazines. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Kurt Vonnegut Jnr, Miles Davis, Malcolm X, Fidel Castro, Joseph Heller – Hell, even President Jimmy Carter.

    There was a Norman Mailer article where Mailer describes how he prefers the photo’s of the reader’s wives section to the centre-folds because he was more interested in Jackie the waitress from Sioux Falls washing dishes naked than in the BWH vital statistics of the professional models.

    And if you wanted to know what that noise was, it was just the sound of another name dropping. I’m not usually as pretentious sounding as this trying to prove my academic credentials to a bunch of anonymous sociopaths on the internet.

    I wonder what is the collective noun for a group of sociopaths? A murder of psychopaths?

    Answers on the back of an envelope please.

    But I digress.

    That was one doozy of an interview with L.Ron Hubbard’s son. I haven’t really got much to add for now except that I highly recommend reading it – and you’ll never be able to watch another Tom Cruise movie again for the rest of your life.

    Interestingly enough, one of Tom Cruise’s best roles was in the Paul Thomas Anderson film, “Magnolia”. PTA has just released a film called “The Master” which is a thinly veiled film à clé based on L.Ron Hubbard.

    From all the reports at the recent Venice International Film Festival – it’s a modern day masterpiece to match his last work of unmitigated genius, “There Will Be Blood”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the same of Magnolia and Tom Cruise's role in it. Love that film.

      Looking forward to The Master as well.

      There Will Be Blood was pretty incredible, if mostly for DDL's performance.

      Delete
    2. "But I digress."

      A LITTLE:

      "I am from a different generation to remember when pornographic magazines (such as Penthouse and Playboy) used to have some of the best investigative journalism, articles and interviews available - bookending the tasteful naked photographs of voluptuous women reclining in bohemian opulence.

      However I always remember my father (before he passed away 15 years ago – bless him) saying that he only read the occasional magazine then for the articles. And he was a top criminal lawyer so I had no reason to disbelieve him.

      However, sure enough there are many great authors and counter-culture figures from the 60’s and 70’s that can be found in the internet archives writing and being written about in the aforementioned magazines. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Kurt Vonnegut Jnr, Miles Davis, Malcolm X, Fidel Castro, Joseph Heller – Hell, even President Jimmy Carter.

      There was a Norman Mailer article where Mailer describes how he prefers the photo’s of the reader’s wives section to the centre-folds because he was more interested in Jackie the waitress from Sioux Falls washing dishes naked than in the BWH vital statistics of the professional models."


      Are you a fan of Freud, my good man? There would seem to be a little sexual something going on here as the topic WAS about L. Ron Hubbard and the sadistic satisfaction some take in watching the demise of others.

      Delete
    3. I’ve read Freud – I wouldn’t say I was a fan of his.

      Although wasn’t it Freud himself who said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.

      But I admire your pluck young man.

      Delete
    4. Although wasn’t it Freud himself who said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.

      His nephew sure didn't see it that way.

      Delete
    5. How does one stop the resonance once the string as been plucked? Avoidance of the question can lead to further speculation. Something sexual this way comes, Mr. Will?

      Delete
    6. Gallantry prevents me from getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

      Delete
    7. Instead you will play the part of Artful Dodger. And there for a minute I had you pegged as a bit more sophisticated an english chap. None the less, you will play eventually or you will cease to frequent.

      Delete
    8. Anon 9:58 or Ukan?

      Read Mindless Pleasures is Monica......

      See 9:36 post

      Delete
    9. Thank you for thinking Mindless Pleasures is I. He is a true intellectual. He is not I, alas.

      Delete
    10. I cop to the Fometiles. That is it, 'cept for Frank in his heyday.

      Delete
  5. Gutter scene, Pan to Tom.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FADE IN:

    EXT - An long-since abandoned movie lot – DAY

    Tom sits forlorn on a worn out couch that has seen better days but is now the province of drunkards and junkies scoring their fix in hot Hollywood nights.

    TOM: (mumbling to himself) Katie...Katie

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hHjctqSBwM

    ReplyDelete
  8. Strange answers to the psychopath test

    http://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_strange_answers_to_the_psychopath_test.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't watch it, but I have indeed noticed that this book has had some very interesting results in it's readers.

      Delete
    2. I’m impressed - great film connoisseurs, Sylvia Plath readers, TED talk viewers. Having only been posting on this site for two days – I’m evidently not dealing with your garden-variety trailer-trash psychopaths ; )

      Medusa - the talk is essentially verbatim from the book – and in the event that you haven’t read that either – here is my brief review of it:

      “The Psychopath Test”

      “The Psychopath Test” is a non-fiction whirligig of a book from the sometime Guardian journalist/documentary filmmaker and author of “The Men Who Stare at Goats”.

      Not unlike the aforementioned book, which was about men who stare at goats, ‘The Psychopath Test’ is about psychopaths and a test that can determine how to identify them. If anything, you couldn’t accuse Ronson of ambiguous or misleading book titles.

      Disturbingly however, Ronson’s book claims that psychopaths – or to use the more subtle yet interchangeable terminology – sociopaths – are more prevalent amongst us than we may think, and invariably most of us would have had some experience with them in our lives whether we realised it or not.

      Certainly, having read the book and cross-referenced the, ‘now-famous twenty-point [Dr. Bob] Hare PCL-R Checklist’ [Psychopathy Checklist – Revised], I can attest that I have experienced knowing one – and I’m not talking facetiously about an ex-girlfriend either.

      But perhaps what is more disconcerting, and possibly the most salient point in the book, is that many of these sociopathic attributes are almost indistinguishable from what characterises a successful business person.

      Or to paraphrase the devilishly eldritch line from Bret Easton Ellis’ fictional protagonist Patrick Bateman in “American Psycho” when asked in a crowded restaurant what he does for a living replies glibly, “murders and assassinations” upon which the person evidently mishearing the response acknowledges, “Oh, mergers and acquisitions”.

      The prerequisite characteristics to ‘excel’ (for want of a better word) in said activities are apparently not dissimilar.

      Of course, the book is not implying that all successful business persons are potential sociopaths. However, the major thesis of “The Psychopath Test” could be distilled down to the premise that the actions and consequences of a minority of these extremely dangerous and formidable individuals affect the lives of the majority. Whether they be calculating serial killers, cold-hearted mercenaries or ruthless captains of industry.

      In fact, I would argue that the book provides a significant psychological piece of the puzzle, if not a corner piece, of what is inherently wrong with so much of modern society today. However, incongruous to its serious subject matter “The Psychopath Test” is written in Jon Ronson’s customary witty, dry as gin, self-deprecating style – perhaps for the one reason that if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry.

      Unless of course you’re a psychopath, in which case you’re probably emotionally incapable of doing either.

      ENDS

      Delete
    3. I did read the book, not to long ago. I discussed it very briefly in the forum here.

      Delete
    4. Ah, the dubious grey area. It's been a constant source of controversy and speculation here, as well as the counter-argument to "The One True Sociopath".

      I tend to agree that there are probably "grey area sociopaths", but when you introduce that idea, it necessitates the basic line between character flaws and actual madness.

      I actually wrote out a somewhat extensive article that I never published right before I got diagnosed. It contained break-downs of types and sub-types of psychopathic tendencies. It was a mix of research and speculation, as well as trends gleaned from one on one conversations.

      I wonder if I would still find it relevant or factual. Hm. Time to go file diving...

      Delete
    5. Diagnosed with cancer*. Didn't mean to allude to being diagnosed as a psychopath, or ASPD, which I have not.

      Delete
    6. @TNP

      I would be interested in reading that article if you can find it and are willing to share it.

      BTW I am sorry to hear about your diagnosis. If you read my post above you’ll probably deduce that I can empathise (and I’m not trying to antagonise sociopath’s by saying that ; ) with your situation.

      I've finished work for the day and am now about to go out carousing and rabble-rousing in Ol’ London Town.

      What’s the protocol here then? Do I just slink off?

      Delete
    7. I'm tempted to send it off to ME instead of publishing at my blog, but (s)he can take up to a couple months to reply to an email; it's a bit disheartening.

      It essentially breaks down all known psychopathic behavior into individual clusters that branch off of a base psychopathic tree. It's an evaluation, which a person can take themselves, to see just where they fall, and what characteristics and predominant in their personality. It takes away the arbitrary binary designation Yes/No to psychopathy, and instead focuses on the type of psychopathic features a person displays.

      My academic sources are rooted in the works of Hare, Millon, and the DSM, though I do avoid complete redundancy, and nixed a few aspects that seemed obsolete, or unrelated to psychopathy.

      I might end up sharing it here in the comment section if there is enough interest.

      Delete
    8. Mindless:

      "here is my brief review"

      You could learn something about being "brief" from Medusa.

      Delete
    9. Mindless is Monica

      Delete
    10. Appropriate post name

      Delete
    11. What kind of cancer? :/

      Tag Y

      Delete
  9. Save me from the nothing I've become

    ReplyDelete
  10. i remember when girles still had bush

    ReplyDelete
  11. And when guys had balls

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. quit being such a pussy

      Delete
    2. Was kinda funny ;)

      Delete
  12. L. Ron, a man after my own heart. tee hee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He would have been more impressive if he didn't believe the fantasy (of being an actual god) himself; by all means, use it to control the common masses, but don't let it control you as well.

      Delete
  13. Thanks, Medusa, for showing the dark side of this disorder as it is now so de rigueur to be psychopathic.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousSeptember 10, 2012 10:05 PM
    .... 
i want people to talk to me but i am thinking they do not like me so i try to be funny (or profound. to no avail). i try too hard to be noticed here. and then i am afraid to be noticed...i do not want sympathy i just want to be understood, that is all. i am lonely at night, that is all...

    AnonymousSeptember 10, 2012 10:09 PM
    
go to sleep, now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Therein lies the problem. People here tend to understand others better than they understand themselves. This can lead to people feeling misunderstood and enabling of self-delusion.

      Delete
    2. Funny Bit,

      Something wrong? Did a nerve get plucked?

      Delete
    3. No, it's just a gutter scene. You wallow in it.

      Delete
    4. RIght along side U, you comrade in gutterness.

      Delete
    5. The majority of your comrades are sock puppets.

      Delete
  15. Replies
    1. lol themes, famous sw couples? how do you come up with these lol!

      Delete
    2. SW has a long( and checkered) history. Stay tuned.

      Delete
    3. Who is the Shaman?

      Tag Y

      Delete
    4. One of Medusa's boyfriends or man friends,as it is called.

      Delete
    5. Themes does have psychic insights, Medusa.

      Delete
  16. Replies
    1. <3 wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen?

      Delete

Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.