How could Hubbard have missed the Internet?

The Internet Configuration Control Board was established in 1979. In the early 80s, the Internet was well on its way. Academia was already using the network, and the writing was clearly on the wall with the World Wide Web going public in 1991.

Mark Twain predicted an Internet as early as 1898, Jules Verne in 1864. H.G. Wells described the concept of a World Brain in 1936-38.


As a science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard was well accustomed to painting predictive futures through his books. He presumably had access to countless earlier space civilizations to draw predictions from through his auditing of previous lives. He describes several earlier civilizations in detail. But no Internet.

Hubbard did not devise any policies or plan describing how his Church of Scientology should handle the imminent World Wide Web before he died in 1986. No PR plan, no clear path showing his followers how to deal with the upcoming fall-out.

The Internet spelled the downfall of Scientology. Hubbard missed the one thing that would eventually destroy his legacy. How come he left his church clueless in this area?

179 thoughts on “How could Hubbard have missed the Internet?

  1. Funny you should bring this up, Geir! I remember, not very long ago, one fundamentalist (“KSW”) Scientologist arguing against my giving counseling sessions over the internet with the argument that “Hubbard certainly was OT enough to know all about the coming internet, and if it was ok to do sessions over Skype, he would have talked about it”. And yet, when I asked why, if Hubbard was so all-seeing and all-knowing, how would he have let his organization fall into the hands of a successor who took things in such a self-destructive direction, there was no further response. πŸ™‚

  2. Perhaps he did know and there was nothing to warn against, or to warn would go against the true outcome he perceived. It is all going according to plan.

          1. Using reverse vectors or something. That which you desire will expire sort of thing. I am currently even entertaining myself with… Some of the processes were backwards, though I could be wrong, easily, like the one of taking the asthetics off. When I take the asthetics off… I may be able to ‘see’ how appalling (including me) we humans are, but with asthetics on I have more understanding of another’s view. ( I only started playing with this). Also Ron did say someday there would be no need for the church. It is my belief the church will move to the field, but not as the church as we know it. I am pretty sure religion fades in and out throughout history. I hope I explained marginally well at least my thoughts on this.

  3. How come he missed it Geir? According to Janet Reitman’s book, “inside Scientology”, he WAS apparently clueless — by design! His ‘removal’ from all major commlines, including ‘entheta’ and the imminent possibility of a leak of his actual place/s of hiding from the IRS and various US intelligence agencies, meant that even his telephone conversations were subject to wire tapping. As we found out later, this was all part of the master plan of his ‘successor’, to isolate him from his ‘suspect family’, and virtually ANYONE, who would stand in the way of ‘the Grand takeover’

    Therefore, with uncompromising control of ALL communications TO and FROM LRH, his access to internet developments would not have been difficult to obstruct!

    My 2c.

    1. But several of his peers had predicted an Internet decades before. But my main point – even if he had lived in the 1500s with a whole track access, he would have predicted the Internet.

      1. True enough. Although living in relative solitary confinement, without the stimulation of family, real friends, and the benefits of ACTUAL developments going on in the world of ‘his’ creation,and the world at large, I suspect really did lead him to a dependency on drugs, for his ailing physical health and who knows, possibly a general malaise (depression) of his actual mental condition, as opposed to his much vaunted “OT” abilities.

        As a personal trainer/ diet counselor for the past 35 years, it is clear to me that LRH was in terrible shape, physically and health wise, for the simple reason, that he ignored taking good care of his body.

        Not surprisingly, I have found that many Scientologists who were dyed in the wool Scn ‘purists’, were also clueless, when it came to taking good natural, care of their bodies, in terms of healthy exercise, and nutrition.

        Many of ‘those’ have since died from ‘cancer’, as a result of smoking, poor nutrition, and other stupid / toxic lifestyles.

        1. This is really sad isn’t it Racingintheblood. I just found out that science just found out that Vitamin D and K2(found in hamburger meat) does more for the body than previously thought. Vitamin D deficiency causes cancer! 70 percent of breast cancer can be avoided. O.o. One in two males will die from some type of cancer and one in three females. I think science has to take the fall on this one. 😦

          1. Yes kuryzma. We have ready internet access to all the dope on what works and what is BS, Getting and staying ‘in shape’, has never been easier or more predictable, than in is today. The proliferation of gyms and sports stadia throughout the world, are evidence enough that people recognize the value of a healthy lifestyle to promote longevity. Even your local supermarkets stock a range of ‘cutting edge’ supplements, that can help you actually muscle up, or trim down in just a few weeks. all due to quantum leaps in scientific breakthroughs that have made this possible

            Cancers, as you report, have become the biggest threat to our planetary balance, and thus the health of most of us.

            I feel the unrestrained use of micro-wave technology, in nearly all mobile communication devices and their repeater towers, is playing a devastating part in this rise of cancers.

            Why? Well, your body is actually a communicating organism as well. Micro-waves are simply an unrelenting ‘ray-gun’, that bombard us all with waves that
            are definitely linked to cancer. You immune system, among others, is a primordial creation, that depends upon minute electronic impulses to make its own directions take effect. A ‘hostile’ disruptive and destructive wave-length bombarding the cells involved, causes havoc in the internal communications.

            There, is one of possibly many ’causes’, that affect one’s immune system, and this, unfortunately inhibits the immune system from fighting off cancer.

            Keeping a ‘healthy’ distance from prolonged close contact with these devices, seems to offer some protection, according to the industry warning labels.

            Makes sense too!

            1. The over abundance of supplements are linked to health problems also. Did you know that tumeric is great to block the growth of cancer… For a male. Not a female. Tumeric helps the cancer grow.

              In other words, I don’t think cancer cares how health conscious a person believes they are.

              Scientologists were very big on health where I have known them. It was part of the lifestyle. You can’t get into session without it, and doctors approval.

  4. Hubris.

    Hubbard probably saw the computer network as just another form of media – like newspapers, magazines and TV, just with a different transport to the end consumer.

    I think he completely missed the peer-to-peer aspect of what the internet would become. And he would never had understood how the internet really works – censorship is considered a technical problem and the network routes around it.

    I think it’s a safe assumption that he would miss it, seeing as Scientology after 1965 was all about centralized control.


      1. Why do you say he did in fact have access to all those civilizations?

        There is zero evidence for the existence of a Clear as defined and similarly zero evidence for any form of past life recall.

        Occam’s Razor tells me that Hubbard made all that shiit up.

        1. I have my own opinions regarding how truthful/untruthful Hubbard was about many things; but “Occam’s Razor” is merely a superficial idea of “go with the simplest explanation”. It is neither scientific nor reliable. I’ve noticed that it’s become very trendy lately to use “Occam’s Razor” as some sort of irrefutable argument; it is anything but. (Again, I say this not so much to agree with your opinion about whether or not “Hubbard made all that shit up”, but to hold up “Occam’s Razor” as your “logic”, it doesn’t cut the mustard.

          1. I’m well aware of what Occam’s Razor is about, and it’s never a case of “go with the simplest explanation”. If that definition were true, then the answer to everything is “god did it” or some variant.

            Occams’ Razor is a guide to deciding what path to investigate, best defined something like this: “When faced with two competing theories that attempt to explain the same phenomena, tend towards the one that demands fewer new assumptions be made”.

            The two theories are:
            – Hubbard was always truthful and the majority of what he claimed (if not all) is true and provable. However, almost none of what he said stands up to proper scrutiny, and I have yet to find any real evidence that supports his past-life theories.
            – Hubbard’s theories are figments of his imagination

            I know where I stand on this.

            It is incumbent on those who take Hubbard seriously to prove his theories correct, it is not for me to falsify them.


            1. Yeah. Still adds up to “go with the simplest explanation”. Again, I don’t say this to argue with your (or anyone’s) conclusions, but any way you slice it, “Occam’s Razor” may be your basis for forming an opinion, but it does not provide a reliable or factual resolution.

            2. Well that’s true enough. I was expressing my opinion after all.

              As to truth, I think the complete total dearth of any evidence for Hubbard’s theories whatsoever, 64 years after publishing DMSMH, speaks for itself.

            3. Here I believe you are merely substituting your attitude for any semblance of fact. (Oops, let me go back and preface that statement with “with all due respect” πŸ™‚ ). I do my own self-styled variants of auditing with others daily, 5 days a week; nothing like “KSW”, but still, making use techniques and principles, not limited, but including those which can be found in “Scientology” (how much of these were actually originated by Hubbard is questionable, but he does get at least some partial credit), and I take great satisfaction in the success I’m routinely having in facilitating my clients’ accomplishments of their goals and purposes in participating in our sessions. To paint it all as “without a shred of evidence of truth, fact or success” is a completely biased and unfair statement; to say that “That’s how I feel about it”, or “That’s how I see it”, in other words, conceding that it is your opinion, rather than “inarguable fact”, is of course, reasonable.

            4. @splog – but Dex’s point remain – one would Tend to go with… But that is far from a solid logical argument.

            5. . . . as it is with all religion. Good post Alan. This comment as many comments like it knock at the door of the “freewill vs determinism” debate. Because factually, there is no way to develop the exterior viewpoint necessary to see a resulting physical difference between these two arguments, Occam’s Razor tends to make me think I should be on the lookout for yet another, possibly radically different hypothesis than either freewill or determinism.

      2. How about the comment he made somewhere about the telephone and what are you, as a thetan doing using the telephone. Perhaps the Internet is only a telephone and there is another Internet that he did plan for, and is implemented, only not as WE would expect. πŸ˜›

        1. Seems my comments are jumping out of place. My phone is not the communication device I should be using here. Thanks everyone and my apologies.

  5. Maybe Hubbard didnt know about the internet. I’ve gone through many past life incidents and have never come accross anything where the internet existed. Maybe it just wasnt relevant to the incidents that he ran.

    1. But he presumably had pretty much full whole track recall – and that is where the inconcistency creeps in.

      BTW; Welcome πŸ™‚

      1. Thanks for having me. πŸ™‚

        I cant imagine what it would be like to have full whole track recall. Why would anyone want that? In other words. I’m not buying that he had full whole track recall. It just doesnt seem practical to me.

        1. I agree. It might just be that Hubbard was blowing his own abilities out of proportions to not have anyone in his vicinity seem to have more abilities than himself. That would fit the accounts from Alan Walter and others that knew him early on. ANd it would stack another lie to an already hefty pile.

          1. Straw man, Geir. Where did Hubbard ever say that he had recall of the whole track? Or even “much full”?

            1. Perhaps not full or total – BUT he does go into great detail in many lectures about past civilizations much more advanced than ours and where an Internet would surely have been a main factor (especially as he says in plain text that ours is a pure copy of earlier civilizations). So to miss this Huge social factor is a rather big elephant in the room IMO.

            2. He did better than to simply PREDICT the Internet – he invented the precursor to it. I’m sure you know about INCOMM, an acronym that stood for International Network of Computer Organized Management. It was developed as Scientology’s internal computer network. That network was ahead of its time with a worldwide email system in the early 80’s, But a that point Hubbard had a lot of other stuff on his plate and soon Miscavige was (mis)managing things.

            3. Say What, Marildi? Businesses commonly had such systems in place before the C of S caught up with it, and “Incomm” could not have even existed if the technology to support such a system wasn’t already in place! I know you are very defensive of Hubbard and Scn, but that’s really a self-serving stretch to credit Hubbard with any degree of clairvoyance based on “Incomm”.

            4. I stand corrected. But didja have to get personal, Dex? πŸ˜› πŸ˜‰

            5. There’s an RJ where he clearly says his entire whole track is unoccluded, for example.

              Sorry Marildi, you don’t get a free pass on this one. Hubbard’s entire mystique factor to Scientologists is that he did have whole track recall. He built an entire religion around it.

            6. Sorry sploggy, but you don’t get a free pass either. What you claim LRH said is mere assertion on your part unless you can give a quote and reference.

              As the Anons would say, dox plox. πŸ™„

            7. Hubbard’s “full whole track recall” is either a true claim of Hubbard’s or else a Hubbardism (a carefully engineered statement designed to get us to infer a lie that he doesn’t specifically state) as a part of the overall bait-and-switch.

            8. Mon Dieu, lemondieu! πŸ™‚ It just occurred to me that there may have been different understandings on this thread of what was meant by “whole track”. When Geir said that Hubbard “presumably had pretty much full whole track recall”, I got that he meant Hubbard claimed to not only have recall of his own whole track as an individual being, but that he recalled everything that ever occurred everywhere since the beginning of time – i.e. THE whole track, not just his own. Otherwise, how could he know if and when the internet had previously been discovered unless he happened to have been at that particular place (or places) at the time.

              The ability to recall everything that ever occurred anywhere and everywhere – i.e. THE whole track, not just Hubbard’s whole track – would be an ability to read the Akashic record! And I don’t know of Hubbard ever claiming he had that ability. Hence, “Straw Man”.

              Hubbard did claim to know the general “history of Man” as regards major incidents on THE whole track, as these were the incidents that he said showed up on many pcs in his research, using the e-meter to detect charge. To my conceptual understanding, specific data would not have been detected – unless it had been connected with charge.

              Now, what was your question? πŸ™‚

            9. I never claimed – nor did I infer – that Hubbard knew ALL of the history of everything. But – in a billion years from now – if you claim to have full recall of Your Own Past, then surely you would also remember the greatest communications turning point of the human race. And if you missed that, I would be within my right to call you a charlatan.

            10. Hi Geir. Okay, got it. But still, you are assuming that (1) the internet was for sure part of some past civilization and (2) that Hubbard’s track included that civilization – AND (3) you assert that he claimed to have recalled all or “pretty much full whole track recall” (to quote you) and thus would remember and be able to predict its re-invention. The first couple of assumptions aren’t unreasonable, but I’d be interested in a reference for the third assertion – his supposed claim to have all (or nearly all) whole track recall. Just curious about that. He may have indicated that he remembered a lot – or else acquired a lot of data from pc folders – but “a lot” is still a far cry from the whole time track of trillions (or was it quadrillions?) of years.

            11. The third assumption is even more probable than the first two – any civilization more advanced than ours would have developed a global communications system. Face it – it was bound to happen even here on Earth.

            12. Hubbard did have a sense of someething internet-like and put it in Mission Earth – a planetary computer network and Soltan Gris used social engineering on a support desk girl to get the dope on the doctor he set up.

              A more fundamental question, assuming it was Hubbard who wroite the books, is if he knew enough to put it in ME, then why didn’t he put it in Church Policy? And I’m not talking about the Computer Series of PLs, those were so lame it just isn’t funny. The systems described in those PLs resemble a big automated CF on a disk, that stuff IBM had already been doing for 20 years when the PLs were written.

            13. By the time Hubbard wrote ME, the Internet was already operating across academia. Your question remains – how come he didn’t put anything in the PLs to handle the inevitable disaster that this communication medium would unleash on his church?

            14. “…how come he didn’t put anything in the PLs to handle the inevitable disaster that this communication medium would unleash on his church?”

              He probably didn’t think there would BE an “inevitable disaster”. From his viewpoint – why would there be?

            15. With the massive amount of “entheta” mounting to the point where he had to go in hiding… Or – the Internet as his massive world wide dissemination wehicle. Either way,

            16. Geir, your OP question, “How could Hubbard have missed the Internet?”, implies – in a mocking way, of course – that he was all-knowing. So I think the best answer to the question would be that he couldn’t and didn’t think of everything.

              Btw, have you been able to see the documentary “Going Clear” over there in Norway? If so, what did you think of it, and what’s your prediction of the effect it will have?

            17. There are so many things Hubbard could have done, that a sane leader would have done, and didn’t.

              If his PTS tech was so awesome, why did he go PTS to Miscavige?

              Why were OT9-15 never fully written up? It seems (according to cowboy and ECMB) there are only vague notes about the marketing name for those levels and scribbles about what might go in there.

              Why did the greatest OT that ever lived not foresee that GO issues would destroy his church. How could it be otherwise? This planet had never seen an Internet, but almost ever major powerful group in history has been torn apart by their own internal secret police.

              Why after 1965 do the vast majority of his writings cantain so many absolutist statements in total violation of his own axiom that absolutes are unobtainable?

              Why is their no clear PL telling management how to go about revoking policy that is past it’s shelf life and no longer required? There are mentions that this will happen, but no policy on how to do it. OTOH, there ARE policies that describe in detail how to wax a car πŸ™‚

              It is completely predictable that sooner or later the details of the OT levels would leak. With all the secrecy he built around them and 7 billion souls who need to get through the wall of fire, someone somewhere will leak it. Why is their no advice to the church on how to deal this this predicatable scenario? Apart from the existing scorched earth approach that is.

              I could think up more but you get the idea.

              I also think that you are asking the wrong question, or concentrating on a needless detail at the expense of the bigger picture. Hubbard’s failure to predict the internet is not a problem by itself, it is symptomatic of a much bigger problem:

              He was wrong about most things.

              The available evidence inexorably leads me to two conclusions:

              1. Scientology is Hubbard’s effort to fix Hubbard
              2. Hubbard was really just full of shit and hot air. Any compassionate person who cares for another can achieve all the results of Scientology by simply sitting dowwn and communicating with another. Friends, lovers, mothers, fathers, therapists, teachers and priests manage this all the time every day. I honestly don’t see Hubbard’s results as standing out from the crowd in any special way. Actually, and this will be really hard to measure, I strongly suspect his methods achieve less than what the placebo effect predicts.

              #2 deserves better treatment than I gave it, but honestly I can’t be arsed. Over history there have been many fools, charlatans and crackpots who truly believed their own pseudo-science.

              [Hmmm, I seem to have typed far more than I intended. Oh well.]

            18. Hubbard was only interested in his own future. He had no thought of anything else beyond his own future. He lived out his future. What happened after his death didn’t matter to him.

            19. From the data out there no plan for succession existed. Hubbard was suicidal batting body thetans. He was interested only in his own case. The whole of Scientology came about as an effort to resolve his own case.

            20. Splog: “Any compassionate person who cares for another can achieve all the results of Scientology by simply sitting down and communicating with another. Friends, lovers, mothers, fathers, therapists, teachers and priests manage this all the time every day.”

              From my experience, I would say there is nothing like a good session with a good auditor.
              The majority of the time, given a competent and well-intentioned auditor, a comparatively fast and quite satisfying result can be achieved with auditing.

              When it comes to friends, lovers, etc., a good result is also possible – but is MUCH more hit-and-miss.

              This is leaving aside all the debate and just going by subjective experience – which is the point, after all, And in this respect, “Hubbard’s results” DO stand out from the crowd. I bet you felt that way about it at one time too, but maybe you let the internet group-think convince you otherwise?

            21. @marildi: “maybe you let the internet group-think convince you otherwise?”

              So how’s that “total certainty” thing working out for you?

            22. “Group think” is good to bring up. I no longer see it as the damnable reactive bank phenomena that I learned in Scientology. Now I see group think as the inevitable logic which will arise within an ideology.

              Vinaire has been doing some nice work with this by trying to zero into what I will call the “centrism of context.” (I mean this in the “weighted social sense” not the “political” sense.)

            23. There is nothing wrong with group-think, it’s the glue that binds societies together and the basis of agreement, regardless of what Hubbard had to say on the matter.

              After-the-fact evidence indicates that Hubbard vilified group-think not because it is inherently bad, but so that he could replace the existing group-think people had WITH HIS OWN, all under the guise of “think for yourself”.

              Scientologists are in my experience the most group-think group I have ever come across. I’d go so far as to say there is really only one personality type in scientology and it is Hubbard’s personality (this more than anything makes scn a cult).

            24. For me, “total certainty” can only achieve consistency within a context (set).

              For me, this is the social relevance of “Heisenberg’s (mathematical) Uncertainty.” (This is my reach, not something you can look up, I don’t know if given the chance Heisenberg would agree with my extrapolation or if he would ridicule my understanding, this is just how I apply whats I think I understand about his great theorem.)

              I cannot see whether man continues to evolve, but his knowledge is evolving rapidly and that knowledge is creating new knowledge. Possibly Man is the link which will give rise to a new and better species. Possibly that species will not be homo sapiens at all.

              Man as he is will not wrap his mind around a universe in which he is a quantum. I once attested to Homo Novus and for me, in that context and at that time, that was true for me. Since that time, that feeling of who I was is still fresh. What has changed for me is my personal sense of context. My context is larger than it was and this changes the relevance of the statuses and states of being which I once felt I had achieved. Maybe now I shall attest to a state or status of “fractal.”

            25. Chris,

              I used “total certainty” in the only context it has ever been used – Scientology. There is nothing “certain” about “total certainty”, it is a buzz word and a construct Scientologists use because the group they are part of uses it. It has no real meaning, but it does have an effect – where the scientologist is sure he already has the answer and knows exactly what to do next. Sadly, this makes them very predictable. Equally sadly, it removes independant thought – the idea they are certain about is definitely not their own, it came to them from Hubbard, or RTC, or the MAA, or anyone else but themselves.

              Think about this for a second – while in, did you ever come across something in your life, unrelated to scientology, that you considered you had total certainty about?

              I don’t like using Heisenberg (or Godel) on a social level, I don’t believe either apply and I see no vaid reason to assume they can jump scale to that degree. But analogies do exist – we have a concept of engineering tolerance for example, and chaotic systems that defy prediction. All of which leads me to believe that total certainty exists only in the person’s mind. For them it’s real enough, but overall it’s about as valid as what an Electric Monk does.

              Correction, it is exactly the same as what an Electric Monk does, and equally invalid in the real world.

            26. Okay, splog, I should have refrained from adding that last part. The main thing I wanted to communicate was my personal experience as distinct from “think” of any kind, as I just described in my comment to Chris. And I also wondered what your own experience had been as regards auditing in comparison with other “modalities”. I would still be interested..

            27. Marildi, I would agree that within the context of Scientology that there is nothing like a good session with a good auditor. Just thinking of it conjures good memories for me.

              Ideologies need their context and ideologies become ideologies as opposed to ideas by creating their own context in which to exist.

              Unraveling my own goals and purposes in life since an early age, I discovered that “to be free” is an adequate wording for me. The most important crossroads in my decision making process toward this goal was when, encouraged by Elizabeth Hamre, I took the matter into my own hands and stopped waiting for permission from the Church of Scientology to be “spiritually free.” You see, even though expelled in absentia by the Church after routing out (I expelled them first! haha) I was still a Scientologist. You can remember this. When I began blogging with you, we were ideologically in lockstep. Remember?

              Ideologies make their own context in which to exist.

            28. Chris: “I would agree that within the context of Scientology that there is nothing like a good session with a good auditor. Just thinking of it conjures good memories for me. Ideologies need their context and ideologies become ideologies as opposed to ideas by creating their own context in which to exist.”

              Actually, here’s the upshot of my comment: “This is leaving aside all the debate and just going by subjective experience – which is the point, after all.”

              In other words, my own direct experience was what I was looking at. A good example of this would be life-repair auditing – which I got early on at a Mission when I still had no idea about the ideology.

              Objectives would be another example of sheer EXPERIENCE rather than having a pre-set ideology or expectation. With objectives, most of us still don’t understand how and why they work like a bomb – but they do.

              And I know of nothing else I’ve heard about or read about that can consistently accomplish this kind of powerful result, other than the offshoots of scientology. In any case, whether other methods that are just as effective or more so do or do not exist – the fact remains that scientology tech as well as principles applicable to life ARE effective. So I don’t think we can chalk it all up to having been instilled with a particular ideology.

              In fact, no matter how compelling the theories are about Hubbard’s flaws or how capable scientology is of insidious mind control when used for that purpose, and how swayed and UNcertain I have been at times, this is what I always come back to – my experience. I can’t see anything more valid than that to operate on. Can you, Chris?

            29. … as several others predicted without any claims of past life recall (as in the OP). So either Hubbard lied or he was dim in his recall (as you seem to suppose – contrary to what he himself talks about on many tapes like the Org Board tape) – and he was not so bright as many of his fellows in predicting the future.

      2. Jeez, Geir, Is this Hubbard / Internet thing ever going to As-is for you??
        Try recall those posts you did a while back, ie “fuck it”, “let it go”, etc” πŸ™‚
        — Who really cares, anyway, Geiru??

        1. Oh, don’t be so sensitive about Hubbard’s inconcistencies being pointed out. The more sensitive you are about this, the more I feel compelled to pound it to iron out your sensitivity πŸ™‚ The point about free speech and all.

          1. Ah….. A slugfest! why the fugg diddint yo say so in de foist place??

            Let’s get it started, Rambozo! πŸ™‚

            1. Just ignore that Hubbard, a sci-fi writer with OT powers and whole track recall didn’t predict what many of his peers predicted with no OT powers at all – and start some sort of a slugfest? No thanks.

            2. Cluck! cluck! bagaaak! Where did you even get that I had ever bought that claptrap on W/T recall , Ot powers etc, etc? I’m a friggn’ Comm course grad, and journeyman in some auditing, with extensive use of the scales, axioms, and other tools that work to fix ailing people. I don’t give a hoot ’bout the rest, So come on now and fess up about how your own progress has been, post your sessions with a delectable personal trainer? Now THAT’s something I can relate to. ( ps. remember I promised to follow up on the new improved SuperGeir?)

            3. I think, dear Geir, that this is one of your ‘meatier ‘ bones, that you have thrown into the fray, in quite a while. Several arfs, woofs, sniff-sniff and dig-digs, seem to suggest that you are setting the hounds to remodel the friggn’
              landscape around here.!!!
              Could this be yet another of your forays into establishing clear evidence, that OT and W/T recall including earlier description of advanced civilizations, were nothing but sci-fi wrtitten by LRH. and that any actual previous existence of such, would surely have given him adequate knowledge of internet comm.?
              Lobbing bones into the fray, to get ‘people to wake up’ that there really isn’t any substantial sustenance at the end of their labored digging, after all! Is all this chicanery necessary.? — BTW, He didn’t know! (my definitive answer) πŸ™‚

          1. Geir, There are many “biggest” outpoints regarding Hubbard.

            Another tangent: Did you read the 10 volume MISSION EARTH series? The chatter about Hubbard’s sci-fi usually hovers about BATTLEFIELD EARTH but of the two, I feel that MISSION EARTH is the better or possibly just different type of book revealing Hubbard’s self image like no other. Both are revealing of his self images, but of the two MISSION EARTH seems a warmer and more personal glimpse into the soul and geo-political opinions of the man.

            Weird little factoid, the single vol. BATTLEFIELD EARTH compared to the 10 vol. MISSION EARTH series have similar word count overall.

  6. The whole notion of how and what an SF author conceives about the future is fascinating, because the “inventions” reflect his or her own current worldview. A lot of events and technologies are the result of a thought about “If this goes on–” (which in fact is the name of an excellent Heinlein novella I recommend to all Ex-CofS people, as it’s about the result of a religion taking over). So in a Connie Willis future history about Hollywood, Remake, she tried to imagine what would change… and the only thing she decided would NOT change was “Lawyers control too much.” My favorite example of this, however, is in one of the Heinlein Young Adult novels about settling a moon of Jupiter… in which our hero uses a slide rule, 100+ years in the future.

    No, Hubbard didn’t predict the Internet. But neither did Heinlein, or Poul Anderson, or John Campbell, or Doc Smith, or any number of other SF writers of the era. (Arguably Asimov wrote about online streaming video and Skype in the I, Robot series, but he didn’t suggest using it for auditing either. πŸ™‚ ) Among those who _did_ “invent” the Internet was John Brunner, whose 1975 novel predicted universal connectivity, crowdsourcing, and software viruses and worms. When the first worm _did_ occur in the late 1980s, in fact, it was named a “worm” because of Brunner.

    I don’t blame any of these authors for the omission, any more than I blame SF authors for not “inventing” GPS technology (as we use it today). It’s all a matter of which topics grab them, and in the pulp era most of the stories that sold were about space travel and aliens and the results thereof. You write what sells, especially at a penny a word. Besides, for fiction authors it’s not just a question of a future that you can invent but a story you can tell based on it.

    Um can you tell I read a lot of SF? And know a lot of SF authors?

    I would not venture to guess whether Hubbard had whole track recall or if it included anything Internet-like. (Does that mean we’ve invented noncompliant HTML standards over and over, too? Damn.) But even if he did… so what? Because whatever else he was doing, with whatever motivation, he was kept rather busy with his here-and-now. There were tech issues to oversee, policies to write, SO orders to give. How much attention was there to write, “In 20 years here’s what I think we ought to do with a technology that might evolve in such-and-so a manner”?

    Even for those who did posit an Internet before it existed — such as, say, the people who built it — there were a huge number of decision points. Nothing says that the decision to open it up to commercial interests in 1991 was inevitable, for example. Nothing says the Web would be guaranteed to be adopted by the masses. (Quite to the contrary. In 1992 I gave a presentation to 25 large companies arguing that the Web was over-hyped, and that online communities would stay with existing online services such as CompuServe and America Online. When I want to remind myself how stupid I can be, I remind myself of that incident.)

    Even without regard to using the Internet, Hubbard didn’t do a lot to ensure a transition plan was in place (which was pretty stupid no matter who you are, even if having a “what to do if I get run over by a beer truck” document might sound like a downtone postulate). OTOH for all we know he had one that the members of the coup burnt. We’ll never know.

    In short: I’ve plenty of criticism to lob his way. This isn’t part of it.

    1. Well, not having a plan to counter the very thing that slayed his religion is indeed on my list of big outpoints. Especially when he supposedly had recall of societies where an Internet was surely a main factor (given that the biggest differene between the western life in the mid 80s and now is the Internet).

      In any case; Welcome.

      1. I think, dear Geir, that this is one of your ‘meatier ‘ bones, that you have thrown into the fray, in quite a while. Several arfs, woofs, sniff-sniff and dig-digs, seem to suggest that you are setting the hounds to remodel the friggn’
        landscape around here.
        Could this be yet another of your forays into establishing clear evidence, that OT and W/T recall including earlier description of advanced civilizations, were nothing but sci-fi wrtitten by LRH. and that any actual previous existence of such, would surely have given him adequate knowledge of internet comm.?
        Lobbing bones into the fray, to get ‘people to wake up’ that there really isn’t any substantial sustenance at the end of their labored digging, after all! Is all this chicanery necessary.? — BTW, He didn’t know! (my definitive answer)

        1. My personal take on this existence is pretty elm coveted in my article “On Will”, and no – it’s not that black or white 😊

      2. I’d argue that what slayed his religion was his own inadequacies and the actions taken to hide (rather than fix) them. Done by both himself and those who acted in his name, internally and externally. For example, he wrote the insightful Simon Bolivar policy, and then fell prey to every single last point listed in the “Don’t do this” summation.

        I would not credit the communication medium used for discussing those weaknesses as the outpoint, any more than I’d have said the newspaper was at fault for telling people about [pick any historical abuse you like].

        I think Hubbard did discount the value of _community_, which in our case happened online. That’s not all that surprising since people who themselves are strongly charismatic leaders often have others flocking around them; they’re the center of attention rather than part of a group. They don’t engage in conversation; they speak and other listen. (That’s meant as neither a plus or a minus. I’ve simply observed how various famous people — including some of those Internet Inventors — participate in online communities. Some people get it; others don’t. Personality-wise I don’t think Hubbard would have “gotten” an online chat room or a Facebook group, but that’s my own judgement.)

        But don’t assume that community (and actions taken thereby) is tied to the Internet. Good reference: Tom Standage’s recent book, Writing on the Wall: Social Media – The First 2,000 Years. In particular and with relevance: Luther’s movement against the Catholic church was successful because it used that newfangled “printing press.” When the Catholic Church tried to copy that communication medium, they did it poorly and ineffectively. Gosh, sound familiar?

    2. Welcome to Geir’s blog. Arguments like this one favor a deterministic future with faux-randomness, or apparent randomness. With determinism, the future is unpredictable because of enormous complexity, the fact that it hasn’t happened yet, and also the supposition that every future occurs. Or I could write that every future “comes up” in the massive iteration which is the future.

      Given the concept of increasing entropy, we might say the future is not infinite.

  7. Sheesh! only now you tell me! –oh well, at least that’s comforting! I suppose I’ll have to stick around for your follow up to all this conjecture, hey? πŸ™‚

    1. One thought that struck me: how come scientologists so often react to any slightest criticism of Hubbard add though it is a whole scale attack on EVERYTHING he wrote and every idea behind it?

    1. Okay, buster…I mean Dexter. πŸ˜€ How about Hubbard’s prophesy quoted below, from an interview of him in 1983. Just before it, he had been talking about changes happening in the field of music, specifically computer music, and then he said this:

      β€œBooks too, will change. You will be able to carry your own pocket computer library. Later, the computer will be able to β€˜talk’ to you and β€˜read’ to you.”

      1. He was late with that prediction. E-books had been posited decades earlier, and were well discussed by 1983.

        He was right about lots of things, but that wasn’t an especially Oh Wow item.

          1. Yup.

            Which doesn’t mean we have to credit him with the things he _wasn’t_ right about (or in this case, he was not first to predict).

            A few examples:

            Stansilaw Lem predicted eBooks, and perhaps even Amazon, in Return from the Stars (1961)
            “I spent the afternoon in a bookstore. There were no books in it. None had been printed for nearly half a century… The bookstore resembled, instead, an electronic laboratory… all my purchases fitted into one pocket, though there must have been almost three hundred titles.”

            Sci-Fi master Isaac Asimov predicted eBooks in The Fun They Had (1951)
            “‘Gee,’ said Tommy. ‘What a waste. When you’re through with the book, you just throw it away… Our television screen must have had a million books on it and it’s good for plenty more. I wouldn’t throw it away.'”

            And in more practical terms, in 1968 Alan Kay described the “dynabook” which we now would recognize as a laptop.

      2. Well, to be fair, by that time, it was more or less common knowledge that technology was heading there, if not already there- government agencies like the CIA, the Mossad and the Soviets were already making use of comparable, or close to comparable devices, and it was more a matter of developing the technology to make such things affordable to consumers. Marildi- the question is becoming, “Why must you grasp at straws to make such assertions for Hubbard, rather than simply experience the observable information?” It is like you are trying to convince yourself of what you want to believe. There is nothing wrong with your recognizing that you have experienced substantial gains through your Scientology experience, many have, regardless of any other facts, or what any thinks or says. You needn’t take other observations as a threat or attack on what you know for yourself. And it’s also ok, at the same time, to allow yourself to recognize the cracks in what was represented as “a seamless wall of truth and logic” at the same time πŸ™‚

        1. “It is like you are trying to convince yourself of what you want to believe.”

          That’s really not the case, and never was. In earlier years on the blogs I was pretty much a “true believer” – having been well indoctrinated, as almost all of us were (likely you too). Nowadays, it’s a matter of me seeing the exaggerations and biases and just plain false data that abound – or sometimes seeing a focus on what is relatively unimportant in the overall picture of what Hubbard did contribute. This topic is one of those. Generally, however, my responses in protest are similar in sentiment to your reply to splog. However, even there I do have a little bone to pick with you. You wrote (emphasis in caps is mine):

          “…but still, making use techniques and principles, not limited, but including those which can be found in β€œScientology” (HOW MUCH OF THESE WERE ACTUALLY ORIGINATED BY HUBBARD IS QUESTIONABLE, but he does get at least SOME PARTIAL credit), and I take great satisfaction in the success I’m routinely having in facilitating my clients’ accomplishments of their goals and purposes in participating in our sessions.”

          I could be wrong, but I would imagine that most of the tech you use is actually Hubbard’s, from flying ruds on, and that most of what you use which isn’t his tech is based on the same principles he uncovered. And let me ask you a question, why do so many of you independent auditors usually have to throw in the minimizers like “how much of these were actually originated by Hubbard is questionable”? It seems defensive at best.

          With all due respect. πŸ˜‰

          1. Because it is known fact. Flying ruds, and the original repair lists, such as what became the L1C and L4BRB were in fact written by Alan Walter- based on Gordon Bell’s developing of the idea of “bypassed charge”. Jack Hoerner developed “repetitive processing”. What you know as “TR’s” were imported into Scientology around 1956 by “Nibs”, L. Ron Hubbard Jr, from an eastern meditation technique. I’ve had these things corroborated by several individuals who were part of the Scientology R&D scene in the 1950’s- 1960’s. Without the aforementioned developments, what you know as “Scientology” would be mostly unrecognizable as such. I could state more, but this should do. On the day when a very pissed off L Ron Hubbard wrote “Keeping Scientology Working”, i.e., his “Ten Commandments” (which, for my money, is 10 different ways of saying, “Thou shalt take no other God than me”), he threw a lot of major contributors and supporters who gave him so much of what he’d issued under his own name, under the bus, and at Saint Hill, they were quite shocked by it. I’ve done my own due diligence in researching and verifying. Find one other person who was there, who will back up Hubbard’s assertion that he did it all himself, good luck with that πŸ™‚

            1. Yes, I’ve seen most of the data you listed out. However, it seems to me that Hubbard was the one who had the initial knowledge and force of personality to attract such people and inspire them, and to maintain a platform for them and hold the thing together for as long as he did to achieve what was achieved. And he also had the insight to know what was valuable elsewhere too, and to adopt what he chose to adopt.

              So I still say that what you and others are using is very much under the umbrella of scientology and that this should be acknowledged. Hubbard’s false assertions and other flaws are an incorrect evaluation of information, IMHO. I go along with the illustrious Robert Ducharme’s views about bashing Hubbard:

              “My main concern is people making Scientology about Hubbard and forgetting that it was never about him but about the knowledge he imparted. As I see it, there are so many “nattering nabobs of negativity” expounding on the subject of Scientology that they don’t need my assistance. I don’t think it’s good policy to assist them in their efforts, no matter how “honest”, if in a biased way, one is being…”

              Not that you aren’t illustrious too. You are. πŸ™‚

            2. But, Marildi, your indiscriminate defence, as seen well in plain view on this thred, is IMO doing the subject great disservice. I think you are largely counter-productive toward your own aims.

            3. Granted, to a point; there are a great many obvious misdeeds and self-serving behaviors on Hubbard’s part, enough books have been written from first-hand experience that we won’t digress to rehash it all again here, but the Sea Org/RPF/Disconnection/staff members working for well below minimum wage and being told they have “overts” if they want to leave, declaring his best contributors “SP’s”, and the fact that it never was “a workable system that will be successful for all cases”, despite the sincere ambition .. ’nuff said. So then you now concede that Hubbard lied in KSW, this is an important point- trust- and speaks to his overall credibility and honor. Again, the pluses remain the pluses, but don’t expect these to be accepted unquestionably, and in a vacuum.

            4. Geir dear, you see, tp still have an old picture of me in front of your face. I conceded this point about Hubbard and the Internet. That is what’s “in plain view on this thread”.

            5. But your initial jump-to-his-defence is what I mean by counter-productive. Hubbard – the inventor of the Internet. Hubbard, the first to predict the e-book. Knee-jerk counter-productiveness. Nothing about any old pictures – just what is in plain view on this very thread.

            6. Geir, I wasn’t jumping to his defense any more than you were looking for a way to criticize him (although the latter may be TRUE πŸ˜€ ).

              I wrote what I thought to be the case, just as you did.

            7. “Your claim was the wildest and easiest to debunk yet.”

              It’s your lucky day. πŸ™‚

            8. Marildi, I wasn’t looking for any concessions from you. My question is not asked rethorically. So, why do you think he missed predicting the Internet – worth all that whole track recall to back it up?

            9. Geir, I guess the question seems kind of pointless to me, as there could be many possible answers that none of us would know about because we have little to no related data. Also, it’s kind of on a par with being asked to prove a negative.

              Anyway, if what you really want to say is that Hubbard was lying about his whole track recall, maybe he was – in part or even in whole. Nevertheless, I’ve read a lot of posts of people who confirm having contacted some of the same whole track incidents Hubbard described.

              One post I read that was especially notable was by a girl who said that on one of the L’s she ran some track about Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy – she actually recalled his name and told her auditor it was “Xenu”. She hadn’t done OT III yet and had never heard the name before. Later on when she did OT III, she was surprised to have her recall confirmed.

              Whole track, and what is and isn’t on it, are things that there is only subjective evidence for. However, the day may come when there is a lot of corroboration of many subjective experiences. Meanwhile, neither believing these things – nor disbelieving them – is even very scientific. We should all be skeptical but open-minded at the same time.

            10. “…we won’t digress to rehash it all again here…”

              But then you continued to do so. πŸ˜›

              Seriously though, I don’t expect the pluses to be “accepted unquestionably”. I don’t do so myself. But I would expect that they be given their full due, as much as the minuses. And I don’t see that this is the case with so many of you guys. There is far more emphasis than necessary being put on Hubbard’s personality. The vacuum was filled long ago!

            11. Marildi, if you’re not gonna say anything I can disagree with you’re you’re gonna take all the fun out of this πŸ™‚

            12. I know! I’ll try harder. πŸ™„ It’s been fun sparring with you two. ❀

            13. Marildi, a quick question – What made you believe that Hubbard invented the precursor to the Internet in the first place?

            14. I sincerely thought INCOMM was a precursor. I didn’t know that others already had this world-wide email type system. But by the early 80’s, I was already one of those “sheltered” staff members and probably was given that impression by other members, even if not “officially” in writing. And in general, I’m still a computer illiterate. So you see, I’m operating on MU’s in this area. πŸ™‚

            15. I meant “evaluation of importances”. Wrong circuit. πŸ˜€

  8. Hubbard missed the Internet because he was a super OT 77 and was even beyond telepathy. The web is too much of a mesty thing. With OT super powers you don’t even need electricity. You generate energy and have control over matter energy space and time. Too bad he went nuts at the end and kicked the bucket while Dr Denk and the others were playing in the casino. 😜

  9. I’m not complaining to be confused with Geir, and I’m flattered to be “your dear”, but I’m not Geir, Marildi, my dear; you can tell us apart because he’s taller πŸ™‚

    1. Dexter dear, that reply of mine was in answer to this comment of Geir’s:

      “But, Marildi, your indiscriminate defence, as seen well in plain view on this thred, is IMO doing the subject great disservice. I think you are largely counter-productive toward your own aims.”

      1. It appeared in my email as a response to my quoted comment. Or perhaps my inherent narcissism is showing again. It’s one of those anyway. πŸ™‚

  10. Maybe it was something to do with LRH’s short time horizon in the 50s and 60s. Once computers and a worldwide telephone network were in existence, an internet was just a matter of time. And like (some of) the rest of us, LRH could recall past civilizations where electronics had enabled the authorities to know everything that occurred. His contemporary SF writer Cordwainer Smith wrote some classic stories that turn on just this point: “poor communications deter theft, good communications promote theft, perfect communications stop theft.”

    But LRH thought he was the central figure in a frantic turning-point of history, with just a few years to decide whether Homo sapiens blew ourselves up or morphed into Homo novus. The internet took another three decades to get going, and in his Saint Hill days LRH didn’t think he had to plan that far ahead. Later on, he had other worries.

    1. David, I think what you wrote is accurate and probably the best possible answer to the blog post question. Well done!

  11. Hello everyone. What follows is not
    no confirmation. Are whispers of
    Since the early 50s saw Ron attacks.
    E ‘known the government’s attempt to
    recall to active duty. And he says that
    the government wanted us what was
    discovering. CBR in the early 80s
    provides future world stage.
    In ’72 he was tried an experiment, to
    some PC fΓΉ given OT 8: A disaster.
    Only a PC nor came out unscathed, but
    put a bad case.
    At that time, Ron says that the church
    would be taken, SP, and other Beings
    planets. This is a very small account.
    Geir says: Why has not spoken of the www?
    The right question would be: Why the left
    out? It was part of the strategy? It is so.
    He knew that the church would fall in
    enemy hands. To avoid it had to do
    a whole program of HCOBs and PL and a
    Seck chek anyone would buy a book!
    For what? Leave a functional Tech
    to the enemy? Leaving out www, knew
    that Cl VIII and XII, whom he trained, would
    thrown out of the church. And with their www
    they could organize themselves and interact.
    That is what happened. Interested?
    The problem was not only with governments
    local, but also with governments of other planets,
    and with the staff, in part infiltrates, but with
    staff apparently friends, but in reality they were
    and are enemies. A esmpio for all, DM.
    One scn inpeccabile result? Understand?
    This responds in part to the question:
    Why Ron did not speak of www?

  12. This responds in part to the question:
    Why Ron did not speak of www?
    This I repeat, are whispers from compiuter.
    It is not a defense of Ron or accusation.
    One look at just what it look. It takes
    only things, data and more, for use with its
    point of view or calculation, trascundo other
    data. Particularly the facts. OK still something.
    In about 1983, the church sent a letter
    DM, in which he said: The church is ours, we
    outlet etc. And ‘our? In addition to not speak,
    ie not warn the churches of the future
    threat of www, did other things with the rights
    copyright, and other things with some staff, as
    CBR. I take the part of the staff ” friends ” … DM …
    What was the problem? Allow a small
    experiment for who knows how to use a meter.
    I have not personally experienced at the time.
    Someone gave me a purpose to use, but that
    I never have to see or remember?
    This purpose is against ______________?
    In the line as a terminal, survival, life,
    Spirit, etc. Yeah I know, it is in many other materials,
    you can do a D / L, what is it and handle it, asking
    as it has been justified, remember something … OK.
    Note: It is not standard tech, before being accused,
    has to say and to understand what the problem was
    Ron had with the staff. Think of a staff with
    good statistics, which applies the standard very tech
    well, minimal errors occasionally, but with one of these
    purposes-overt hidden … that should NEVER look
    or remember, and which must use!
    It was not just the problem of not speaking of www …

  13. It was not just the problem of not speaking of www …
    To understand here are a couple of facts. Ron gave
    the course of Cl VIII. Each day passed a boat
    at the same time. Visible to the class of the window.
    One day Ron said, I want to give you a demonstration
    the exterior with full perception. At the same time in
    which passed the boat, said what it was, the color
    etc. The class could look out the window ….
    Only it was not the boat, but a barge of waste.
    The class all excellent scn, whitened, fell silent
    and no one said anything. Including MSH.
    These were the top of the scn, 10% -more intelligent
    the planet. Scn true? Too intimidated by Ron?
    At the time Ron was sending out its lines, very
    easily, true. But not a word even
    between them and for many years to come?
    We understand the problem – staff? They were all
    them with the W / H. And some of them one day …..
    could be the friend who betrayed him. Talk about www?
    Ron died. Years later some of these people
    spoke of this fact, accusing Ron, with:
    The emperor has no clothes!
    So AWC had the same problem with his son.
    Asked to do some things, and the son said it
    obedient. Alan ‘saw’ son in a purpose
    exactly opposite.
    If you know that in a few years, your home, and all that
    you fattto for your family, your group and humanity
    will fall into enemy hands … what would you do?
    Would you give him all the cards to play for possession
    or you had plans to avoid it?
    Some clues from compiuter, in about 1983, the CBR said
    that the bridge was a trap, a bait. From the results of the
    current bridge, it seems that he was right.
    Ron said that in scn are 10% more intelligent
    planet. But also that the SP is 10%. It ‘a
    parallel. In the new lev. OT said: These liv OT
    shit, make me crazy. He said not to look

  14. He said not to look at the kind of life he did.
    My opinion is that he lived that way, full
    errors, drugs, women, etc., etc., deliberately.
    In the future, who was a true friend … but who
    has w / h, overt, and evil purposes that even he
    know you have … the criticisms and attacks
    are wasted. That’s why a dissolute life.
    The other reason is the help, is the most
    dangerous. Species without a fair exchange.
    Often when you want to help someone and you
    asks these answers: No thanks. Why?
    He understands that it is a inval – eval. E ‘if in
    an overt of some kind. See how much you do a
    gift, the person ‘feels’ to have to return.
    So help is a double-edged sword.
    Now take a guy like Ron, come and verification
    tests and publishes the tech, which helps us all! ….
    Poor thing … what will be the return flow?
    For example TU as you helped Ron personally?
    See, you have not been able to do. Apart from the
    church. But to him as a person, as you helped?
    So he knows that you inval eval, and know that you …
    Seems like a good reason to live as wild
    and to release the flow of criticism and dramatizations.
    KSW is ’65. Applies from ’65 to ’50! (Year old).
    From ’65 to ’80, ’81 or so, is to be evaluated.
    KSW is like building a wall around the city.
    To keep out enemies. But it was also used for
    do not let friends. And also not to release the
    friends. The point is how it is used. The principle is
    to legitimize a defense. Then the defense is
    used as an insult.
    Now www, had to speak? Few true friends.
    Infiltrated government, enemies-staff not aware,
    external enemies to the planet … had to say: Here www
    need to do so and so … and so you can suppress
    everything etc. He had to do it or leave it free to
    we will?
    Very above are whispers of compiuter, some
    What are my opioni or considerations, such as the
    part on the aid. You are bored? It is true, is
    a beard …
    Geir you made a tech-splitting on functional?
    Something has been done by the pilot on one book.
    It would be useful ripecorrendo ognni piece of tech,
    ask around the results etc.
    If you have not already, I will find it.
    Thanks for the great patience and endurance …
    Do not think I do a lot of other posts after this binge!
    Another good discussion would be on the current bridge
    and the previous one. In ’68 completed Cl VIII.
    In ’69 completed Dianetics. In the 70 completed
    Liv. OT.

    1. 1sripaultheta, it’s difficult to understand your English, which may be a Google translation and their translations aren’t very good. Maybe you should have someone you know who speaks both Italian and English do translations for you.

      In any case, thanks for posting all this Since truth can be stranger than fiction, I keep an open mind to what you wrote. Others on the internet have written the same idea in answer to the paradox of LRH’s words and behavior. “kuryzma” alluded to it on this same thread, and on previous threads another poster here named Valkov (IamValkov) has also suggested the same kind of thing you wrote about.

      One question for you. Can you please tell me what you mean by “whispers of computer”?

  15. Hello Marildi, is what it says
    beginning of the post. Can not be
    confirmed, is taken from the web.
    Just like you said.
    It is the translation of google
    one that is. It is understandable enough.
    Thanks for advice.
    Ugh … but when the aliens arrive
    to save us? (Irony …)

  16. yes that’s one big ass outpoint, an enormous elephant… to miss the internet after claiming to recall all the way back to what 10^76 trillion years ago?

    another elephant to completely forget to write policy on how to handle leaks!

    and the most enormous elephant that he didn’t simply come back in another body and finish clearing the planet if he was so damn effective and it all worked so consistently, if he had such awesome power over running bodies, etc. like he claimed then why not simply back even if just for one more lifetime and finished his work?

    dalai lama has come back how many times now? and lafayette claims to be mateya, he can’t come back just once more?

    I hope for the best for the breakthroughs he made but all failure to prove any claims of an OT it makes it all look like a gigantic joke, I enjoy dreaming but there’s just no other way to look at it

    1. “I hope for the best for the breakthroughs he made . . . “

      I wouldn’t call them breakthroughs so much as constructs. I’ve begun thinking of each of our own mental constructs as similar to “mathematical sets.” I would also call them a “bubble” or “envelope” and another popular word is also “box.” We each have our own, possibly we each “are” one.

      How I view Hubbard’s storytelling is that he created one of these bubbles, a fantasy role-playing game set in an imaginary world based loosely on more imaginary as he called it, “space-opera.” He described it all in great detail, set it all up as a game that could be played for an entry fee and then increasing subscription fees, and also detailed how to win. He postulated and made up infinite levels so that he could “hold out the carrot” always one more step ahead which was clever so he could keep the game going. He failed by turning the entire game into a “deadly serious activity” where the “future of mankind” turned on how well they played the game. None of that was true. This was in Scientology jargon a “games condition” rather than a game and the difference is that a games condition looks like a game but is in fact stacked in such a way that one side always “wins.”

      Hubbard bought into his own construct to such a degree that it destroyed him just as it tends to destroy those who play. It didn’t have to play out that way, but it did, and it did because he was crazy and then he went crazier. Only a few ex-Scientologists think of Scientology as important. Others, meaning almost every man, woman, and child on Earth, rarely think of Scientology at all or even know what it is, or that it came and went. It did not make a very big splash in the ocean of religions.

        1. Thanks Geir. You know, I used to believe Hubbard when he wrote that Scientology was our best chance and that all other attempts had failed. Today I value how many truly great people have contributed to the first world life that some of us are privileged to live. Those great ones didn’t fail, they succeeded and we all benefit. Today I say, “Great! Keep going!”

  17. Hello Racing … 39. To your question I did
    a long post .
    racingintheblood39 commented
    How about Hubbard could have missed the
    The Internet ?. in response to Geir Isene:
    That One thought struck me: how as
    scientologists know Often react to any slightest
    criticism of Hubbard add though it is a whole stairs
    attack on EVERYTHING he wrote and every idea
    behind it? Pigeon-holing? We both know that’s
    futile, though fruitful to fuel fools πŸ™‚

    An answer yet. Know. The private life of L.R.H.
    is his. One reason that I have given, is in the long
    post I made. Look at the point of help.
    In a conference Ron says he does not look like
    lives. I cast out in a lot of trouble. But he says
    knowledge and tech, is another thing.
    E ‘checked before being published.
    This is the point. Example: Not interested
    if the historical Buddha, often visited the
    nuns-women! Interested in his philosophy
    and practice. This is common sense.
    Another example of reality. Scientologists
    church, celebrating the birth year of Ron!
    Celebrate the dead and the living …
    They are idiots! Even in an ED Ron says
    future birthdays to celebrate will be the
    ours, not his. Understand the point?
    Ok, and it is not true that we are touchy if
    Ron criticize, provided they are the facts!
    The critical thing is we know and that tone has.
    The criticism on the life of L.R.H. is stupid.
    It is thought the dead and maybe not to own
    life. This serves only to newspapers, TV etc.
    And for sure we have the facts on which
    asking questions. How: In the year 1978
    Ron is sick. Its auditor is Otto Ross,
    if I remember correctly. And: …… Otto found
    hundreds of R / S in Ron – case.
    This is useful to investigate.
    Not with what woman Ron went to bed!
    Understand the point? We differentiate between
    man and tech, which was also made by
    other people. Different is to have a low tone …
    and then you just try that kind of news!
    Our interest should be, on the tech.
    What works one of the book?
    And today what we will have to throw away?
    And what should we keep and use? the Pilot
    did something. A discussion to
    the improvement of the tech and / or philosophy.
    And for what? For us to make it known,
    to use it. The above is an example and is
    my opinion.

    1. Hi Paul.. Thanks for the comment. I agree with you, in the main. And my opinion (stated here many times over), is that what is deemed to be useful, (when it is), IS “the tech” ! Although I still prefer to call it “a toolbox”, since I am a practical man, who has made my living through trying to become “an expert” in the use of tools. This is the hallmark of anyone who masters a craft, or skill.

      Use of the “tech” is no different, of course. And uniform results, when practiced by an expert, certainly demonstrate the tech/ tools, are an integral component, in achieving those results.

      As for tech/tools becoming obsolete, or redundant, that’s the price of progress, I suppose. Except for the ‘fundamentals’. ie; paint brush, hammer, screwdriver, drill, knife, scalpel, plaster, chair, bed, door, etc, etc.

      By that, I mean, there will always be a need for something as fundamental as auditing, based on the solid foundation of “the comm formula” (AXIOM 28).

      It just plain works! The way any good tool/s should.

      Thanks for the comm, Paul. πŸ™‚

      — Calvin.

  18. The answer is: NO PREDICTION.

    Already end of 1994, a time when all internetpages have been grey with black letters, Kurt Weiland has been in Germany on stage and telling the public: ” HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE INTERNET. ?” silence……
    You see this was Scientology mindset regarding Internet and its still today.
    I remember about 300 hits by searching SCN and all of it was “entheta”

    1. It ‘an opinion. The credo of scn, a
      paragraph says: everyone is free to express
      its opinion, the point of view, and
      counter that of others. In KSW1 if I remember
      well, says he will not let something that
      like, to make scn! It ‘a free choice.
      So is your ok it was not a prediction.
      You may also think that it has not wanted
      comm. They are opinions.
      A Scientologist who does not update
      the modern tech computer, or choose
      so, or is persuaded or plagiarized.
      There are no B or HCO PL about it.
      Indeed … Ron from many examples in his
      research, and in some parts says it has
      sense not use it if it is useful.
      This is the point.

      1. Basicly, Hubbard described all “handlings” of SCN enemies, drop-outs and whistle blowers in his glorious policies. In earlier times media made up stories of whistle blowers in news papers, books or tv by interviewing or researching the subject. The internet is bypassing the mainstream-media lines, by giving access directly to the originator. However I believe that mainstream media is still more effective and creating more, faster and broader impact in public. But church (OSA) handlings do not change. OSA does NOT operate based on church tech which is tought in SCN course rooms. Its exactly reverse. Church enemies are continously and deliberatly ARCbroken, chased and harrassed throughout years even decades. It has nothing to do with SCN tech- keeping ARC in, granting beingness and all the other shit. Its double standards, conflicting data. I believe that Internet is Scientologys Waterloo. And this is great. !!

        1. Are of agree with. I seek only the
          tech that produces good results.
          Where does not matter.
          Scn was the effort of many people.
          I think that some piece of good tech
          is in those materials.

  19. As more and more defectors speak out, more and more is known about the man behind the myth. Based on these testimonies I have concluded that Hubbard died a broken man, and quite possibly in a semi-psychotic state.

    His postulated state of Full OT is just that – a postulate. It is clear that Hubbard himself did not achieve this level of operation. He spent a good portion of his life chasing this idea, but in the end he had an average lifespan, was possibly senile, and lived in hiding.

    So, your question really only has meaning or significance to a Scnist who believes he was full OT. But, as you point out, numerous mere-mortals were able to predict the eventuality of the internet.

    On a slight tangent… years ago I spoke to a Sea Org member from Int (who I knew very well and trusted not to bullshit me), he told me he had read a confidential LRH Advice concerning an abandoned computer on the planet Venus that was the size of the city of Chicago. Apparently it was just sitting there, functional, just waiting for someone to flip the switch. What anyone would do with it (including LRH or the Sea Org), is anyone’s guess.

    You would think having access to the marvels of the whole track, one could leverage this insight to revolutionize our world. But sadly I know of only a couple of instances:

    1) The Org Board – lifted off the Galactic Confederacy, and we all know how that revolutionized organizations.
    2) The Cause Resurgence Rundown – apparently a whole track OT process and the only process NOT invented by LRH. Running around a pole….hmm…I don’t see it.

    Back in the early 90s there was a rumor going around that some engineer who was on his OT Levels stumbled upon a water purification process on the whole track. Then went to the drawing board and designed it from recall. And as the rumor goes, it worked and made him rich. I heard this from a number of Scnists, but oddly, no one could tell me his name or what the product was.

    1. statpush, I don’t know if you ever were in the Sea Org, but the Galactic Confederacy is the basic-basic for the sea org ( as a current interplanetary civilization to be taken ). It is symbolized in the Sea Org laurel wreath where each leaf is an inhabited planet, moon or asteroid. And the knowingness about it came not only from whole track recall but mostly indeed from pt knowledge coming from LRH exteriorization OT powers. The internet should be in such civilization somewhere. The eventuality of the internet was of course known by LRH but his secretive business was in a opposed vector to the internet honesty and free access to information. So, the next thing he did was to not is it.

    2. Ok statpush. Confirming what I said in a post.
      Geir says that Ron did not, prevision www.
      For me the question is: why has not comm.

    3. Computer on Venus ? Just another mystery sandwich. If you havnΒ΄t observed its not true , right ?
      Unimportant and useless data.

  20. I think Hubbard missed Internet because he was too introverted into his case. Dianetics started as an experimental technique to resolve his case. He used others as guinea pigs for it. Success with Dianetics actually restimulated his case. Greed and avarice were part of his case.

    Hubbard dramatized his case through Scientology while continuing his experimentation with others. I am not sure what part of his case he wanted to resolve most deperately. But his research continued as he could not resolve his case.

    He did focus on keeping a lid on criticisms and exposes. He knew that his game would be over the moment a large number of public became aware of his lies. But as long as such criticisms and exposes had no staying power in social memory, they were not a danger to him. He was successful in controlling criticisms and exposes as they occurred. The hub hub simply died down after a while.

    Basically, what Hubbard missed was the staying power, which lay in computer memory, and which could be shared and searched through a network of computers. This is basically what the Internet is. But there are many other elements requited to finally keep exposes in headlines day after day, even on Internet. It takes time to build up such a momentum. It has taken more than 20 years of Internet for Going Clear Documentary to come about.

    Hubbard could have predicted some of the above possibilities. But, probably, he thought he could control enough key variables that computer networks did not pose a problem for him. I simply think that Hubbard was not in a good enough case shape to predict not only the power of Internet to amplify the grievances of those abused by Scientology, but also their perseverance.

    I feel sorry for Hubbard that he could not resolve his case.

    1. Vinay – in 1973 Hubbard was involved in a very bad motorcycle accident and suffered severe injuries – at the time people did not wear helmets so there is no doubt that his brain case was smashed very badly and he suffered from brain damage. Brain injuries have now been traced to extreme mental, emotional, logical and cognitive difficulties – paranoia, lapse in judgement, and a host of other problems:

      It could be that simple. And the sad thing would be that with that kind of injury he would have been blindsided, convinced and convincing others that he had miraculous channels of perception and so on. i.e. didn’t know he didn’t know

      1. Hi Maria – good to hear from. I am aware of your current condition, and how bravely you are handling it in quintessential Maria style. I wish you rapid recovery.

        I was on the ship when Hubbard’s motorcycle accident occurred. The whole ship went into a tip-toe mode. I remember seeing him extremely angry. Hubbard was averse to going to the hospital and get proper medical treatment. It didn’t help his case.

        Hubbard was convinced about his miraculous channels of perception very early in 1930s, after the nitrous oxide incident that resulted in his writing of the book Excalibur.

        1. Ah yes, I forgot about that incident. It was a bit of a jolt for me to awake in ICU to the very description of a “badly run\’ hospital unit as he was one of his fondest descriptions of “psych” facilities Perhaps it was ICU and morphine and a really bad injury on top of it all! Having now experienced the bizarre response of brain injury I can say I wouldn’t have understood this at all without having a somewhat similar event.

          Thank you for your good wishes!

          1. Not all hospitals are badly run. The Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater is one of the 10 best hospitals in the country. My wife is one of the ICU nurses there. She is the hardest working person I know.

            If you do not get good hospital service where you are, then come to Clearwater. You can stay with us for recovery.

            1. Actually I was making a joke about what \LRH had said in one of his lectures (LOL) – I thought they were very good when I was in recovery! Thank you for offering to help me – I have surely learned through this (and many similar experiences) just how fine and kind and wonderful people can be – so much heart!

  21. Hi Geir. Thanks for sprucing up the blog format and too, for your re-inclusion of the “recent comments sidebar”. I personally enjoyed your older, green background, the most, as well as the other tints, but this stoic black on white is acceptable, since now adding the light grey contrast for responses. So, tenk yoo! πŸ™‚

  22. Hey Geiru, here’s a twist to upset sensitive nostrils! I mean, the OP appears to have flat-lined, man! So I’m asking how YOU could have missed it??? πŸ™‚ That is, after one week, a “corpse” starts to SMELL! You know? Even the hounds seem to have wandered off in disgust. — yuck!….

    Only one thing left to do — yep, bury the friggnn’ thing (OP) and then, (of course) lobb
    a fresh new substantial, meaty bone high into the air, (sniff, sniff!!) and then let it come to rest in the sandy playground with a heavy thudddd!! (hark! wot’s that I hear?) Now, if anything can get a pack of hungry hounds to come charging thru’ the place, filling the joint with their baying, barking, arf’ing and yapping again — then THAT should do it!

    otherwise, just ho-hum, Z-zZZZ — zzzZZ !! πŸ™‚

    1. The internet was the greatest single factor in my salvation Calvin. It first had to be developed, gradually implemented, and used by people who knew more than me to store information and make it available. Then I had to learn about it and begin to use it. Now it seems it is part of my own neural network. I read earlier to day that it took one ex-SO member a whole year to unravel from their experiences in the SO. It took me 15 years to begin to start to unravel and another 10 years to unravel, much of it on this blog. It has been quite a trip.

  23. I think it is entirely possible that the World Wide Web is a never before seen wildcard of mythic proportions, so improbable that even DARPA failed to recognize it as a very real threat when they commissioned its invention. Networks are one thing, the Web is a beast of completely different feather. I don’t think anyone expected a network that ANYONE could get onto and blow their horn. Networks are controllable. The WWW is not. It is an out of control and radical departure from all previous communication networks because it is cheap, easily accessible and notoriously difficult to track people on if they set out not to be tracked.

    I don’t think any businesses, governments, or organizations saw it coming. Just think about how many have been caught with their pants around their ankles as the lowly “consumers” or “little people” find their voice and speak up loud and long.

    And none of them saw those ubiquitous cell phones either — with their power to flashmob, document, record, and provide instantaneous information over (you guessed it again) the World Wide Web!

      1. Is there really a whole track, or is it merely a supposition?

        If there is a whole track of an atom or molecule, how do we trace it? Similarly, there could be motion and awareness associated with that atom or molecule, but how can it be traced?

        Per Buddha, there is no permanent soul. Therefore, there is no whole track of individual memory. At the most we can have whole tracks of atoms and molecules and the motion and awareness associated with them. But the way, Quantum Mechanics is going, there may be no permanent atoms and molecules either.

        The idea of whole track is bound to the idea of an identity that is permanent, even if it is at an atomic level.

        Is there a permanent identity?

        1. G & V. — without any certain means of verifying any of this, I guess we thus remain confined to conjecture and supposition. The unknowable — is just what it is! πŸ˜‰

          1. I never heard about that before. In any case, I wasn’t walking about the Internet, or computer hardware, I was talking about the WWW as it evolved. I’m quite certain there were microchips and computers in at least some whole tracks not to mention ET scenarios — that would explain the hysteria about building a “big brother” network that everyone got sucked into and enslaved by — the way www was originally designed was quite a step away from that. As I understand the hysteria was about having big autonomous networks under the complete control of the owners and it appears that LRH thought Incomm would be one of the “big” players in such a scenario.

      2. Sure, if the whole track is indeed constructed the way Hubbard said – as I recall, a continually recurring pattern that made our time look just like a time from the past, complete with fedoras, so repetitive that he claimed there was nothing new in the world, just an endless loop of the same dramatizations. I think this claim is certainly open to debate and disagreement. I find it hard to believe that NOTHING new could unfold. Perhaps the www is one of these new (and unexpected) manifestations.

          1. To tell you the truth, I find much of what Hubbard had to say hard to believe these days. I can tell you that more often than not, his description of whole track and my own whole track did not agree. When Marty did his surveys on people it was quite remarkable how divergent the answers are. LRH had a great love affair with “standard” — he assumed there was a standard time track too. Perhaps not.

            1. Hi Maria, it is true that it was in the track www
              The microchip has not been discovered by scientists.
              E ‘was found. Within a stone that was broken.
              Broken due to an explosion, for road works.
              In Australia, they have published the article, the journal
              Scientific American. We have also published!
              Scientists after eight months, have begun to understand
              what it was. After it is ” born ” the first PC.

    1. Maria, great homework there! One is inclined to overlook the fact that there is much evidence of evolution being an “unfolding”, rather than the conjecture of a repeat performance, from elsewhere and elsewhen. Are dinosaurs ever likely to re-appear? Anywhere? Anytime? Repeated inTHOSE formats? Poor buggers!! πŸ™‚

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s