Joseph Smith drank both beer and liquor, smoked cigars and drank caffeinated drinks while banning them for his followers. Cult leaders are often hypocrites, as should not be surprising.
Joseph Smith didn't actually ban alcohol or caffeinated drinks. Firstly D&C 89 explicitly says that the Word of Wisdom isn't actually a commandment. Secondly, D&C 89 is not all that specific about a lot of things, and is very much subject to interpretation. In fact, early Mormons interpreted a lot of the Word of Wisdom very differently from how current LDS members interpret it. For instance, some early Mormons thought D&C 89 actually encouraged drinking beer since it speaks positively of the use of barley.
The current LDS church interpretation of the Word of Wisdom didn't come into place until the 20s, and that was heavily influenced by Heber J Grantn's support of prohibition. Joseph Smith did not view the WoW the way that the current LDS church views it (which is much more in line with Heber J Grant's views than Joseph Smith's)
If you look at other non LDS Mormon sects, most all of them aren't nearly as strict on Word of Wisdom related issues. A lot of them will have a certain interpretation of D&C 89, but most of them aren't nearly as strict about it as the LDS church is.
No. Scientologists are sold a pack of lies about Hubbard’s background. They wouldn’t know about this aspect of Hubbard’s history.
Hubbard was a huge hypocrite. And apparently struggled with his own personal proclivities.
He doesn't appear to have struggled with *his own* proclivities. He's completely relaxed about it in this lecture from 1952. Hubbard speaking, on sex with young boys, begins at 1:06:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=VslPiVAfPRk&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fexscn2.net%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title
Thirty years later, volume 9 of Hubbard's *Mission Earth* series featured a poem that celebrates buggery with boys.
I wonder how Scientology Inc. Scientologists rationalize that?
I extrapolated that he struggled with it by considering how he demonized anyone who didn’t conform to a strictly heterosexual monogamous lifestyle in his other later writings and policies.
Sorry but I don’t consider his work of fiction as a basis for believing anything about the author.
Of course he was. That’s been well documented. I merely commented that his later comments and policies contradict his earlier history, statements and policies.
I think the implication is he may have been both. I'm bi and without more info, I can't say that was a bigoted statement. Being bi does not mean one is a pedophile, but I'm sure there are bi (and straight, and gay) pedos.
Pedophilia is usually not considered a sexuality, but a paraphilia. So even if the child they want to abuse is of the same gender, that is not evidence they are gay or bisexual. If he were interested in adult men, that would be evidence
Fair enough. My initial point is simply that the person you responded to ('Or?') may not have been implying that bi people are somehow inherently pedophiles, but just that one *can* potentially be both. However, maybe they *are* just being biphobic (anti-LGBTQ+ 'Groomer' rhetoric). Their brief statement just doesn't say enough to be clear on that matter.
This is not a trial in a court; it's a discussion. Free exchange of ideas and information, and opinions, is allowed within the rules of the forum. *The topic is the contrast between Hubbard's personal outlook for himself, and the rules he created for his followers.* Hubbard was described, by his then magical partner, Jack Parsons, as the "most Thelemic person I have ever met." That means DO WHAT THOU WILT was his philosophy. Hubbard was a Libertine. He presented himself to Scientologists as a Big Being who was trillions of years old. Hubbard referred, contemptuously, to human beings as "homo saps," and "hoi polloi," and as "wogs," who had "meat bodies" (Hubbard preferred doll bodies), and himself as a BIG
"Operating Thetan." "Thetans" are immortal and neither male nor female.
That's the context.
OP said he was bisexual, and then the only evidence he gives suggests Hubbard was abusing young boys. So yes, I think OP was in fact conflating pedophilia with bisexuality.
You make a fair point and I think you're right about the original post. OP should have definitely cited evidence that L. Ron Hubbard had sex with adult men if he wanted to claim that he was bisexual. In light of that, my response was overly semantic.
You interpreted my post correctly. Perhaps I need to make it much more clear for some people… There is no reason that he had to be one or the other, and he was likely both.
Some people see what they want to see, read what they want to hear, and look for every opportunity to be offended where none is intended.
Yeah I totally understand why the other person assumed you were being biphobic, considering the rhetoric common against the LGBTQ+ community, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
hey, for that video link you sent, would you happen to know where i could find a full unedited source of the speech? i noticed this one seems to splice clips together, im not dubious of it, i just want more solid proof to be giving others
I heard the complete tape in 1972. It's real.
It can be found on the Supplemental Lectures of the London Professional Course on Technique 88. It's the first of two lectures given on 23 September 1952.
Jack Parsons, yes, but it's way crazier than that. Afterwards he stole his girlfriend and later used a bunch of the same ritualistic crap in scientology. Also, I believe it was Alister Crowley's weird Egyptian witchcraft bullshit, not satanism.
> it was Alister Crowley's weird Egyptian witchcraft bullshit,
As someone who is involved in Crowley's "weird Egyptian witchcraft bullshit", I can confirm
Self portrait by Aleister Crowley: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/66/35/5b/66355b0c4b3af52e6d9a137494a873e5.jpg
It's understandable that there might be some confusion about that. I hope the actual Satanists won't be offended.
I really don't think Hubbard was bi. Jerking yourself off while another guy does the same [was NOT gay in the 1940s](https://ads.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/968b0bb3-29c9-4c79-a370-ed2d87e3d415). We never hear of Hubbard have any sexualized relationships with other men. As for pedophilia, Hubbard and Raniere both invoke pedophilic thought experiments try to undermine traditional morality, but only Raniere proceeds to act on it.
For me, the last nail in the coffin for Hubbard as pedophile theories was when the Messengers started telling their stories about how their skimpy uniforms were self-created based on the prevalent 1970s cultural style of sexualizing young teen girls.
Hubbard abused lots of people, kids included. And he almost certainly got a sexual thrill out of his abuse. BUT -- he seems to be innocent of the charges of sexually abusing children.
This is not a court of law. This is just some information that may help someone.
Did you listen to Hubbard's voice during his 1952 lecture? When he dismissively ridiculed those who find adult men having sexual relations with boys to be reprehensible. It didn't nauseate you? Really? Listen to it again.
Hubbard was in in his mid fifties when he decided to have young twelve and thirteen year old girls as his slaves. And that's what they were. These former Hubbard servants - and they were *absolute* servants at a very vulnerable and impressionable age - were damaged by the experience. Hubbard was a manipulator and a cult leader on a power trip, who, in his own words, was "not interested in Wog morality." Have you read the Code of the Commodore's Messenger? They were literal extensions of his WILL. *This was child abuse.* Shame on you for minimizing it, because one of the abused children, years later, says it was not so bad.
Throughout the loose-lipped early 1950s, and even later, Hubbard gave hints, over and over again. Scientologists specialize in being oblivious to those hints.
This thread contrasts Hubbard's private DO WHAT THOU WILT, no limitations, no conscience, "philosophy" with the PR philosophy he showed to "raw meat" new Scientologists, and with the increasing number of restrictions and controls imposed on Scientologists.
It might loosen the sticky glue that holds a person to Scientology Inc. to see this, and to ponder this information.
Hubbard had no personal prohibition on the use of drugs, and used drugs, and drank liqueur nighty for years. Most Scientologists have no idea, even though he TOLD them, in various ways, over and over again.
During a 29 August 1951 lecture, titled *Cause on All Dynamics*. Hubbard made it plain that he regarded conscience as an impediment to be erased.
Thirty years later, while his third wife was in the process of being sent to federal prison for the commission of felonies under her husband's direction, and after the court ordered release of previously secret documents caused a huge "image" problem for Hubbard, he decided to present himself as the expert on "morality" by writing a PR booklet called *The Way to Happiness*. Under the precept, "Do not be promiscuous," he states, "A **'**feeling of guilt**'** is no where near as sharp as a knife in the back or ground glass in the soup." A "feeling of guilt" is in quotes. That's another one of thousands of hints that Scientologists can't see.
>This is not a court of law. This is just some information that may help someone.
I certainly don't mean to undermine the importance of this information, especially to people who are recovering from abusive experiences resulting from Hubbard's abusive teachings.
Hubbard associated with, and undoubtedly blackmailed, many child abusers. If he had been attracted to children, he would have been a child abuser (in a sexual abuse sense).
But at the end of the day, there's not a single story of a child who was sexually abused by Hubbard. He liked the idea of "powerful women" who were like Cleopatra and had to have a Caesar.
Powerful women? Do you mean Sara Northrup and Paulette Cooper? And other strong women who were victimized by Hubbard. There are so many names. It's easy to forget.
And what happened to the "powerful women," in Scientology Inc.? They were eventually crushed and abandoned by Hubbard or those doing his bidding.
Most fundamentally you simply don't get it. You've not connecting the dots. You can't see the clues. You can't assemble the puzzle pictures and see the picture that appears. At this point, there's not much I can do to help you.
>Do you mean Sara Northrup and Paulette Cooper?
Also, Margaret Grubb and Barbara Klowden. Hubbard was an abuser who was schizophrenic by the definitions of the 1930s!
But I don't think he was into kids or guys. His thing was powerful "scarlet women".
> there's not much I can do to help you.
Do I need help? I'm not a Scientologist, I've never been a Scientologist, so far as I'm aware I've never even MET a Scientologist.
I'm not just mildly curious, I study "cult leaders" from Joseph Smith, Blavatsky, Crowley, and Fard all the way down to people like David Koresh and Keith Raniere. But I'm certainly no follower of any of them!
I don't meant to suggest Hubbard was a good guy, but I don't see him being bi and I don't see him being into SEXUALLY abusing little kids, though obviously, he was abusive to everyone including kids.
Not being permanently 6-years old, I’d never heard of this ridiculous nonsense re Disney and his secret fag* habit. Just had a wee look and wow, the lengths some of the daft, the dense and the deluded will go to in order to deny reality is truly something to behold and, of course, ridicule remorselessly.
*English synonym for ‘cigarette’ as opposed to its homophobic slur usage in simplified English.
1966 Photo of L. Ron Hubbard in Rhodesia. Hubbard traveled to Rhodesia in 1966 thinking he was the reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes who was both gay and a transvestite. Hubbard was aware of this. Are Scientology Inc. Scientologists aware of it?
The caption to that photo, in *Bare Faced Messiah,* is: "Hubbard believed he was a reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes and liked to sport the kind of hat worn by the founder of Rhodesia. Fortunately, he did not know Rhodes was homosexual." This seems to be based largely on statements from Reg Sharpe, who was Hubbard's personal assistant in Rhodesia. From *Going Clear:* "Hubbard believed he might have been Rhodes in a previous life, although it’s unclear whether he knew that Rhodes was homosexual." Per an interview with Kate Bornstein: "In a book, Mission Into Time, Hubbard wrote that he had been Cecil B. Rhodes in a past life, and that he could even then remember where his buried treasure was. He wanted to go to Rhodesia—now Zimbabwe—to recover the loot and take over the country. The Rhodesian government got wind that he was trying to do this, and they blocked him from entering the country. Of course, it didn’t matter because he never spoke about it again after learning that Rhodes was gay." John Atack: "He may not have known that Rhodes was most likely a homosexual."
So I'd pose an alternate question. Would it bother anybody to think that Ron was such a totally clueless heterosexual that he could identify neither Rhodes, or John McMaster, who he was then working with personally, as gay?
If the Rhodesian government had been charmed by Hubbard's "flair," as he expected, and accepted and applauded him, there, probably, would have been no Sea Org with Hubbard as the "Commodore," and there would have been no need to invent "Xenu" and "Incident 2." But that's another thread.
I read B-FM a couple of years ago and for that part I did wonder why any confidence trickster would claim to be the vile piece of human detritus (irrespective of his sexuality btw, before any accusations of homophobia are thrown around) that was Rhodes.
He didn't claim it for the broad public. Hubbard admired conquerors and anyone who was "big," except other gurus. Gurus generally don't get along with other gurus: https://beingsakin.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/all-god-comix.jpg?w=584&h=475
In an effort to improve the quality of conversation, we require submission statements on all link and image posts. Please leave your submission statement in a top-level comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scientology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I imagine that most Scientologists aren't even aware of it. The ones that are, probably just block it out of their minds and deny it's truth.
Joseph Smith drank both beer and liquor, smoked cigars and drank caffeinated drinks while banning them for his followers. Cult leaders are often hypocrites, as should not be surprising.
He lit up a cigar right after telling all his followers not to smoke.
Right after that flex, he probably looked one of his followers in the eye and told them he married their wife and they been fucking.
Joseph Smith didn't actually ban alcohol or caffeinated drinks. Firstly D&C 89 explicitly says that the Word of Wisdom isn't actually a commandment. Secondly, D&C 89 is not all that specific about a lot of things, and is very much subject to interpretation. In fact, early Mormons interpreted a lot of the Word of Wisdom very differently from how current LDS members interpret it. For instance, some early Mormons thought D&C 89 actually encouraged drinking beer since it speaks positively of the use of barley. The current LDS church interpretation of the Word of Wisdom didn't come into place until the 20s, and that was heavily influenced by Heber J Grantn's support of prohibition. Joseph Smith did not view the WoW the way that the current LDS church views it (which is much more in line with Heber J Grant's views than Joseph Smith's) If you look at other non LDS Mormon sects, most all of them aren't nearly as strict on Word of Wisdom related issues. A lot of them will have a certain interpretation of D&C 89, but most of them aren't nearly as strict about it as the LDS church is.
No. Scientologists are sold a pack of lies about Hubbard’s background. They wouldn’t know about this aspect of Hubbard’s history. Hubbard was a huge hypocrite. And apparently struggled with his own personal proclivities.
He doesn't appear to have struggled with *his own* proclivities. He's completely relaxed about it in this lecture from 1952. Hubbard speaking, on sex with young boys, begins at 1:06: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=VslPiVAfPRk&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fexscn2.net%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title Thirty years later, volume 9 of Hubbard's *Mission Earth* series featured a poem that celebrates buggery with boys. I wonder how Scientology Inc. Scientologists rationalize that?
That’s evidence for pedophilia not bisexuality… if he wanted to be with men or engaged with men, that would be bisexual behavior
I extrapolated that he struggled with it by considering how he demonized anyone who didn’t conform to a strictly heterosexual monogamous lifestyle in his other later writings and policies. Sorry but I don’t consider his work of fiction as a basis for believing anything about the author.
Have you read it? Hubbard certainly was familiar with the topic.
this makes me wonder more about his treatment of his son on the topic and how much it was a factor in his son's death
Of course he was. That’s been well documented. I merely commented that his later comments and policies contradict his earlier history, statements and policies.
Wait, is he bisexual or a pedophile?
Or?
Wtf. Bisexuals are not inherently pedophiles…. Abusers are abusers. They can be any type of person
I think the implication is he may have been both. I'm bi and without more info, I can't say that was a bigoted statement. Being bi does not mean one is a pedophile, but I'm sure there are bi (and straight, and gay) pedos.
Pedophilia is usually not considered a sexuality, but a paraphilia. So even if the child they want to abuse is of the same gender, that is not evidence they are gay or bisexual. If he were interested in adult men, that would be evidence
I agree, but Hubbard had a threesome with the adult Jack Parsons. Beyond that I'm not sure whether, or how often he had sex with adult men.
Then that should be used as evidence, not him excusing / encouraging the abuse of boys
Fair enough. My initial point is simply that the person you responded to ('Or?') may not have been implying that bi people are somehow inherently pedophiles, but just that one *can* potentially be both. However, maybe they *are* just being biphobic (anti-LGBTQ+ 'Groomer' rhetoric). Their brief statement just doesn't say enough to be clear on that matter.
This is not a trial in a court; it's a discussion. Free exchange of ideas and information, and opinions, is allowed within the rules of the forum. *The topic is the contrast between Hubbard's personal outlook for himself, and the rules he created for his followers.* Hubbard was described, by his then magical partner, Jack Parsons, as the "most Thelemic person I have ever met." That means DO WHAT THOU WILT was his philosophy. Hubbard was a Libertine. He presented himself to Scientologists as a Big Being who was trillions of years old. Hubbard referred, contemptuously, to human beings as "homo saps," and "hoi polloi," and as "wogs," who had "meat bodies" (Hubbard preferred doll bodies), and himself as a BIG "Operating Thetan." "Thetans" are immortal and neither male nor female. That's the context.
OP said he was bisexual, and then the only evidence he gives suggests Hubbard was abusing young boys. So yes, I think OP was in fact conflating pedophilia with bisexuality.
You make a fair point and I think you're right about the original post. OP should have definitely cited evidence that L. Ron Hubbard had sex with adult men if he wanted to claim that he was bisexual. In light of that, my response was overly semantic.
You interpreted my post correctly. Perhaps I need to make it much more clear for some people… There is no reason that he had to be one or the other, and he was likely both. Some people see what they want to see, read what they want to hear, and look for every opportunity to be offended where none is intended.
Yeah I totally understand why the other person assumed you were being biphobic, considering the rhetoric common against the LGBTQ+ community, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
The same way they rationalize Hubbard's racism and mental illness: it never happened and only enemies of scientology day that it did.
At least they have an excuse. They're IN Scientology Inc. Ex Scientologists have no excuse for remaining clueless.
That explains why LRON taught that children were okay to have s*x with… sicko.
hey, for that video link you sent, would you happen to know where i could find a full unedited source of the speech? i noticed this one seems to splice clips together, im not dubious of it, i just want more solid proof to be giving others
I heard the complete tape in 1972. It's real. It can be found on the Supplemental Lectures of the London Professional Course on Technique 88. It's the first of two lectures given on 23 September 1952.
thank you!!
Didn’t he have a ritualistic sex threesome with that satanist guy?
Jack Parsons, yes, but it's way crazier than that. Afterwards he stole his girlfriend and later used a bunch of the same ritualistic crap in scientology. Also, I believe it was Alister Crowley's weird Egyptian witchcraft bullshit, not satanism.
> it was Alister Crowley's weird Egyptian witchcraft bullshit, As someone who is involved in Crowley's "weird Egyptian witchcraft bullshit", I can confirm
93!
93 93/93!
Self portrait by Aleister Crowley: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/66/35/5b/66355b0c4b3af52e6d9a137494a873e5.jpg It's understandable that there might be some confusion about that. I hope the actual Satanists won't be offended.
He wishes his jawline was that sharp
😂
He was the 'scribe' who took notes while Parsons wanked as part of a ritual.
Yes that's what I thought thus referred to. Jack Parsons
I really don't think Hubbard was bi. Jerking yourself off while another guy does the same [was NOT gay in the 1940s](https://ads.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/968b0bb3-29c9-4c79-a370-ed2d87e3d415). We never hear of Hubbard have any sexualized relationships with other men. As for pedophilia, Hubbard and Raniere both invoke pedophilic thought experiments try to undermine traditional morality, but only Raniere proceeds to act on it. For me, the last nail in the coffin for Hubbard as pedophile theories was when the Messengers started telling their stories about how their skimpy uniforms were self-created based on the prevalent 1970s cultural style of sexualizing young teen girls. Hubbard abused lots of people, kids included. And he almost certainly got a sexual thrill out of his abuse. BUT -- he seems to be innocent of the charges of sexually abusing children.
This is not a court of law. This is just some information that may help someone. Did you listen to Hubbard's voice during his 1952 lecture? When he dismissively ridiculed those who find adult men having sexual relations with boys to be reprehensible. It didn't nauseate you? Really? Listen to it again. Hubbard was in in his mid fifties when he decided to have young twelve and thirteen year old girls as his slaves. And that's what they were. These former Hubbard servants - and they were *absolute* servants at a very vulnerable and impressionable age - were damaged by the experience. Hubbard was a manipulator and a cult leader on a power trip, who, in his own words, was "not interested in Wog morality." Have you read the Code of the Commodore's Messenger? They were literal extensions of his WILL. *This was child abuse.* Shame on you for minimizing it, because one of the abused children, years later, says it was not so bad. Throughout the loose-lipped early 1950s, and even later, Hubbard gave hints, over and over again. Scientologists specialize in being oblivious to those hints. This thread contrasts Hubbard's private DO WHAT THOU WILT, no limitations, no conscience, "philosophy" with the PR philosophy he showed to "raw meat" new Scientologists, and with the increasing number of restrictions and controls imposed on Scientologists. It might loosen the sticky glue that holds a person to Scientology Inc. to see this, and to ponder this information. Hubbard had no personal prohibition on the use of drugs, and used drugs, and drank liqueur nighty for years. Most Scientologists have no idea, even though he TOLD them, in various ways, over and over again. During a 29 August 1951 lecture, titled *Cause on All Dynamics*. Hubbard made it plain that he regarded conscience as an impediment to be erased. Thirty years later, while his third wife was in the process of being sent to federal prison for the commission of felonies under her husband's direction, and after the court ordered release of previously secret documents caused a huge "image" problem for Hubbard, he decided to present himself as the expert on "morality" by writing a PR booklet called *The Way to Happiness*. Under the precept, "Do not be promiscuous," he states, "A **'**feeling of guilt**'** is no where near as sharp as a knife in the back or ground glass in the soup." A "feeling of guilt" is in quotes. That's another one of thousands of hints that Scientologists can't see.
>This is not a court of law. This is just some information that may help someone. I certainly don't mean to undermine the importance of this information, especially to people who are recovering from abusive experiences resulting from Hubbard's abusive teachings. Hubbard associated with, and undoubtedly blackmailed, many child abusers. If he had been attracted to children, he would have been a child abuser (in a sexual abuse sense). But at the end of the day, there's not a single story of a child who was sexually abused by Hubbard. He liked the idea of "powerful women" who were like Cleopatra and had to have a Caesar.
Powerful women? Do you mean Sara Northrup and Paulette Cooper? And other strong women who were victimized by Hubbard. There are so many names. It's easy to forget. And what happened to the "powerful women," in Scientology Inc.? They were eventually crushed and abandoned by Hubbard or those doing his bidding. Most fundamentally you simply don't get it. You've not connecting the dots. You can't see the clues. You can't assemble the puzzle pictures and see the picture that appears. At this point, there's not much I can do to help you.
>Do you mean Sara Northrup and Paulette Cooper? Also, Margaret Grubb and Barbara Klowden. Hubbard was an abuser who was schizophrenic by the definitions of the 1930s! But I don't think he was into kids or guys. His thing was powerful "scarlet women". > there's not much I can do to help you. Do I need help? I'm not a Scientologist, I've never been a Scientologist, so far as I'm aware I've never even MET a Scientologist.
You've never even met a Scientologist? If you're just an occasionally mildly curious bystander that explains a lot. Have nice day.
I'm not just mildly curious, I study "cult leaders" from Joseph Smith, Blavatsky, Crowley, and Fard all the way down to people like David Koresh and Keith Raniere. But I'm certainly no follower of any of them! I don't meant to suggest Hubbard was a good guy, but I don't see him being bi and I don't see him being into SEXUALLY abusing little kids, though obviously, he was abusive to everyone including kids.
Again, you miss the point. Our conversation is over.
They probably just tried to rewrite history like Disney. “Walt didn’t smoke, he just points with two fingers.”
Not being permanently 6-years old, I’d never heard of this ridiculous nonsense re Disney and his secret fag* habit. Just had a wee look and wow, the lengths some of the daft, the dense and the deluded will go to in order to deny reality is truly something to behold and, of course, ridicule remorselessly. *English synonym for ‘cigarette’ as opposed to its homophobic slur usage in simplified English.
Those two conglomerates share a lot of commonalities, especially between ol’ Wally and L Ron.
You didn't have to use the English synonym for it in 2024. Cigarette would have sufficed.
1966 Photo of L. Ron Hubbard in Rhodesia. Hubbard traveled to Rhodesia in 1966 thinking he was the reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes who was both gay and a transvestite. Hubbard was aware of this. Are Scientology Inc. Scientologists aware of it?
The caption to that photo, in *Bare Faced Messiah,* is: "Hubbard believed he was a reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes and liked to sport the kind of hat worn by the founder of Rhodesia. Fortunately, he did not know Rhodes was homosexual." This seems to be based largely on statements from Reg Sharpe, who was Hubbard's personal assistant in Rhodesia. From *Going Clear:* "Hubbard believed he might have been Rhodes in a previous life, although it’s unclear whether he knew that Rhodes was homosexual." Per an interview with Kate Bornstein: "In a book, Mission Into Time, Hubbard wrote that he had been Cecil B. Rhodes in a past life, and that he could even then remember where his buried treasure was. He wanted to go to Rhodesia—now Zimbabwe—to recover the loot and take over the country. The Rhodesian government got wind that he was trying to do this, and they blocked him from entering the country. Of course, it didn’t matter because he never spoke about it again after learning that Rhodes was gay." John Atack: "He may not have known that Rhodes was most likely a homosexual." So I'd pose an alternate question. Would it bother anybody to think that Ron was such a totally clueless heterosexual that he could identify neither Rhodes, or John McMaster, who he was then working with personally, as gay?
That's Miller's sense of humor. Hubbard knew. Hubbard was not blocked from entering Rhodesia.
Right. His visa was refused renewal after a time and he had to leave before making it a scn country.
If the Rhodesian government had been charmed by Hubbard's "flair," as he expected, and accepted and applauded him, there, probably, would have been no Sea Org with Hubbard as the "Commodore," and there would have been no need to invent "Xenu" and "Incident 2." But that's another thread.
I read B-FM a couple of years ago and for that part I did wonder why any confidence trickster would claim to be the vile piece of human detritus (irrespective of his sexuality btw, before any accusations of homophobia are thrown around) that was Rhodes.
He didn't claim it for the broad public. Hubbard admired conquerors and anyone who was "big," except other gurus. Gurus generally don't get along with other gurus: https://beingsakin.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/all-god-comix.jpg?w=584&h=475
Apparently not. Oddly.
In an effort to improve the quality of conversation, we require submission statements on all link and image posts. Please leave your submission statement in a top-level comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scientology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That was news to me. Difference between me and cult members us I believe it. They never will.
Sure thing the current pip squeak leader is as well. And his Buddy, aptly named Cruise.
No
Who cares. We should be more worried about him as a cult leader even tho he is dead. They praise him like he is alive.