Arthur Conway Hubbard speaks

[Veda]

Arthur is at center top. Suzette at left. Quentin at right.
Diana at center bottom. From mid 1970s.
________________

Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard

Answering some questions into the history and workings of the Church of Scientology

Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard

Answering some questions into the history and workings of the Church of Scientology.

arthurconwayhubbard.com

_________________​

This is recent, being from a month ago.

"...I have many friends that are members in good standing that have bought paintings from me..."

It appears that Arthur is sincerely wishing to express himself on the topic of Scientology, yet he must be aware that, if he crosses a certain line, he will lose some friends and, perhaps, some patrons.

Before this, the only L. Ron Hubbard offspring to say anything independently, publicly, on the topic of Scientology was L. Ron Hubbard Jr.

Post January 1986, there was a settlement, involving a payment of an undisclosed sum of money, along with the standard gag agreement, to the Hubbard offspring. Are we to assume that Arthur was not gagged?

To indulge in some (perhaps extreme) cynicism, would it be possible that Miscavige has decided it's time to create - or expand - the "I'm not a Scientologist, but..." operation: a collection of people who are former Scientologists and have a (pretty much) positive (yet convincingly independent) or, at least, comfortably neutral, expressed view of the Scientology organization?

Another such person would be the small businessman - Morton Myers - who's currently running for mayor of Clearwater, Florida.

The statements from that aspiring Mayor of Clearwater, and from Arthur, are very different than that of Guy White who is the former husband of Suzette Hubbard.

There's no response (of which I know) to either Morton Myers or Arthur, but there has been a strident response of disapproval from Scientology Inc. to Guy White.

Arthur does seem more authentic than Morton of Clearwater.

I think everyone wishes Arthur well.

________________

Arthur quotes Carl Jung in his blog: "One of the main functions of organized religion is to protect people against a direct experience of God."

_______

​

By chance, if Arthur sees this, he might enjoy a video/audio of Jung attempting to communicate with his Soul:

He is certainly welcome to join ESMBR.

​

 

[Lee #28]

Funny story to tell about Arthur.

I was friends with a Celebrity Center public.....that made his living as a Commercial Artist. His specialty was Chrome.....is could render Chrome very well. (air brush...) He did lots of VHS sleeve artwork. ( His Rep...was and OT 8....she got him lots of work....)

Anyway, one day, I was over at his apartment, we were just hanging out.....and Arthur pops over for a visit.

So...my friend makes introductions. He says Arthur this is Lee...and Lee, this is Arthur.

Arthur then puffs up as we shake hands.....and says to me in a very forceful statement (tone40?) KING ARTHUR.

I was kinda taken aback....and didn't know what to say.

I always close down a bit and become wary..... when the crazy comes out in someone.

Edited: poor guy, I wonder if this is a past life that Hubbard ever explored ....in his son....or laid on him in some way...

 

[Harold#1]

Did "KING ARTHUR" say anything else that was interesting?

 

[stratty]

Did "KING ARTHUR" say anything else that was interesting?

Something about 'Excalibur' maybe?

 

[Deleted member 51]

IMO, this doesn't read like something Arthur Hubbard would have written. I think someone wrote it for him, or changed something he said quite a bit, but that's just my opinion.

I've known him to be direct and concise in anything he said or wrote. This is neither.

 

[Enthetan]

IMO, this doesn't read like something Arthur Hubbard would have written. I think someone wrote it for him, or changed something he said quite a bit, but that's just my opinion.

I've known him to be direct and concise in anything he said or wrote. This is neither.

I think DM would try very hard to keep any Hubbard offspring under his thumb. He would NOT want any Hubbard kids to be saying "This is not what my Dad, L Ron Hubbard, created as Standard Tech". He ESPECIALLY would not like one of the Hubbard kids getting involved in the FreeZone and proclaiming a group as "the ONLY, REAL Standard delivery unit".

I could see DM giving the kids a stipend, conditional upon them either keeping quiet or saying only the script he gave them.

 

[Caroline]

To indulge in some (perhaps extreme) cynicism, would it be possible that Miscavige has decided it's time to create - or expand - the "I'm not a Scientologist, but..." operation: a collection of people who are former Scientologists and have a (pretty much) positive (yet convincingly independent) or, at least, comfortably neutral, expressed view of the Scientology organization? [...]

I never met Arthur. In some respects, his blog article seems to conform to the familiar "I'm not a Scientologist, but..." operation/shore story you describe. There is some Scientology Zero "tech" in there: shades of "Dangerous Environment," a hint of "The True Story of Scientology (Fundamentals of Thought), and a suggestion of "Something Can Be Done About It."

See, this is the thing: what we must all really try to do is try not to adhere to any ideology that makes the world too simple (dualistic). That’s the strategy of the mass media and all most easily accessible info/entertainment, sites**. Their reality is simple: it’s all bad, dangerous and hopeless so stay safe at home, watch all our ads and get yourself further into debt by buying lots of stuff you don’t need and whatever else you do, DON’T THINK!

What worries me about the pop-media story of Scientology is its two-dimensionality. Same thing worries me about most everything in the world of infotainment: it’s designed to distract people who are tired, maybe a little discouraged and just want some mindlessness thus it needs to be punchy, simple and, above all, controversial. I’m not against entertainment but if it’s parading as information then I think that’s a real problem for our society.

I’m also trying to say, let us try to construct a philosophy that’s not too complicated but is mostly, and most importantly, useful. That’s not an easy thing to do, nearly impossible maybe, but it’s vital that everyone eventually learn how to try to do that. And that, right there, is the actual and true origin of Scientology. Scientology version 1.0.0. that is.

Scientology version 1.0.0 as Arthur described above is not the actual and true origin of Scientology. Not that most of us knew the actual and true origin when we were involved. Arthur as a child would not have known anything but that version, but as an adult there is wealth of solid data available to him that challenges the version he has constructed.

 

[Veda]

I never met Arthur. In some respects, his blog article seems to conform to the familiar "I'm not a Scientologist, but..." operation/shore story you describe. There is some Scientology Zero "tech" in there: shades of "Dangerous Environment," a hint of "The True Story of Scientology (Fundamentals of Thought), and a suggestion of "Something Can Be Done About It."



Scientology version 1.0.0 as Arthur described above is not the actual and true origin of Scientology. Not that most of us knew the actual and true origin when we were involved. Arthur as a child would not have known anything but that version, but as an adult there is wealth of solid data available to him that challenges the version he has constructed.

At first glance it seemed that this blog statement contained a criticism of organized religion, as I assumed that a direct experience of God would be desirable. I may have been mistaken in that interpretation.

________Begin quote________​

...[The story of Scientology and the story of the world] is much more interesting, much more complicated and much, much older than is generally known and contains fundamental elements so wild and dangerous that the whole pop version becomes utterly boring (unless gossip is your thing).

And by dangerous I refer to what Jung said. "One of the main functions of organized religion is to protect people against a direct experience of God."

Why the hell would he say that?! Because, if you're not careful, such an experience could happen to you and then, as they say, God help you.

_______End quote______

?​

 

[Lee #28]

Did "KING ARTHUR" say anything else that was interesting?

I really don't remember. I think I left at that point....or had been on my way out, when he arrived. So, it was a brief meeting.

A bit later in time from that incident.....the "Art World" was kinda in a flutter as some artists started using Bodily Fluids to make art work with.

One that got a lot of Media Coverage was called "Piss Jesus"......which was a little plastic Jesus figure in a glass jar, filled with urine.

Another Artist was making his art work with Elephant Dung.....

Anyway, I recall Arthur had an art show at some time....and if I remember correctly.....he was making his art work with his own blood. I assumed to try to jump on that currently vogue band wagon

Perhaps someone here can verify that....as my memory on this is not that clear.

Basically....I just didn't give it any attention....but became tangentially aware of it due to a Flyer going around in the Scientology community in LA.

 

[Deleted member 51]

At first glance it seemed that this blog statement contained a criticism of organized religion, as I assumed that a direct experience of God would be desirable. I may have been mistaken in that interpretation.

________Begin quote________​

...[The story of Scientology and the story of the world] is much more interesting, much more complicated and much, much older than is generally known and contains fundamental elements so wild and dangerous that the whole pop version becomes utterly boring (unless gossip is your thing).

And by dangerous I refer to what Jung said. "One of the main functions of organized religion is to protect people against a direct experience of God."

Why the hell would he say that?! Because, if you're not careful, such an experience could happen to you and then, as they say, God help you.

_______End quote______

?​

Good catch, Veda.

That's not a COS statement.

Judging from his dark, dark artwork in years past, I thought Arthur was suffering from some sort of PTSD for a long time and deep pain and despair. Certainly feeling detached from life.

It may have been Karl Jung who believed that some people become schizophrenic after a direct experience with God. (Not sure it was Jung who said that, though.) The idea is intriguing, that seeing God directly could and would break a person's mind. I'm pretty sure this is what Arthur is referring to - and that part sounds like Arthur.

In the Bible story of Sodom and Gomorrah, they were instructed to look away and not look back at the destruction of those cities, but Lot's wife turned around and turned to stone. That story is out of Genesis, and Arthur refers to the very beginnings.

There was always an underlying story in Catholicism (and other branches of Christianity and many other religions, too), that humans cannot look directly at God or it would break their minds. We wouldn't be able to take it.

 

[Lee #28]

I never met Arthur. In some respects, his blog article seems to conform to the familiar "I'm not a Scientologist, but..." operation/shore story you describe. There is some Scientology Zero "tech" in there: shades of "Dangerous Environment," a hint of "The True Story of Scientology (Fundamentals of Thought), and a suggestion of "Something Can Be Done About It."



Scientology version 1.0.0 as Arthur described above is not the actual and true origin of Scientology. Not that most of us knew the actual and true origin when we were involved. Arthur as a child would not have known anything but that version, but as an adult there is wealth of solid data available to him that challenges the version he has constructed.

I agree.

Additionally, the second block of quoted Arthur writing....looks to me like he is selling Scientology....and suggesting one check it out....and sign up. IMO

It is rather slick that Arthur calls it "Scientology version 1.0.0." By doing so he is employing Scientology Marketing tech to place Scientology next to a known product.....Computer Software. In employing a modern day relationship to computer software...and a beginning version of a program. ( this would insinuate that later versions will be improvements....)

 

[Lee #28]

Good catch, Veda.

That's not a COS statement.

Judging from his dark, dark artwork in years past, I thought Arthur was suffering from some sort of PTSD for a long time and deep pain and despair. Certainly feeling detached from life.

It may have been Karl Jung who believed that some people become schizophrenic after a direct experience with God. (Not sure it was Jung who said that, though.) The idea is intriguing, that seeing God directly could and would break a person's mind. I'm pretty sure this is what Arthur is referring to - and that part sounds like Arthur.

In the Bible story of Sodom and Gomorrah, they were instructed to look away and not look back at the destruction of those cities, but Lot's wife turned around and turned to stone. That story is out of Genesis, and Arthur refers to the very beginnings.

There was always an underlying story in Catholicism (and other branches of Christianity and many other religions, too), that humans cannot look directly at God or it would break their minds. We wouldn't be able to take it.

Sheila, you could be completely correct.... (didn't you know him....I seem to recall that.)

But, I have an opinion that Arthur struggled with was every young man growing up and coming of age has to deal with. And that is how to strike out on one's own....and get going in the world. What to do....how to make a living.....what occupation to take up...and how to get started it a field. ( and girls of course...)

Perhaps son's of famous people have more problems with this than others?

He could have always left LA....and moved anywhere....

I find it interesting that an Arthur Hubbard web page now appears here on ESMB....is it new....or is it old? I have no idea. ( I think all web pages should be Dated. One should be able to know the when....)

But kinda weird that if this is new....that all these years....actually, decades have gone by...and he is trying to make sense of it? ( for others?)

He certainly is not a young man at this point....

 

[Deleted member 51]

Sheila, you could be completely correct.... (didn't you know him....I seem to recall that.)

But, I have an opinion that Arthur struggled with was every young man growing up and coming of age has to deal with. And that is how to strike out on one's own....and get going in the world. What to do....how to make a living.....what occupation to take up...and how to get started it a field. ( and girls of course...)

Perhaps son's of famous people have more problems with this than others?

He could have always left LA....and moved anywhere....

I find it interesting that an Arthur Hubbard web page now appears here on ESMB....is it new....or is it old? I have no idea.

But kinda weird that if this is new....that all these years....actually, decades have gone by...and he is trying to make sense of it? ( for others?)

He certainly is not a young man at this point....

What's that about Arthur having a web page on ESMB?

Yeh, I spent weeks working alone with him on the PAC RPF in late 1985-1986 and we got along and he was a nice guy and we had a lot of conversations. He was in his mid 20s then. He did not believe in Scientology then. You might call him "open minded."

I agree he was completely unequipped to fend for himself in the real world. All he knew was his artwork. He was a child to the world. He was intelligent, but had no real life experience and lived an insular life, despite plenty of stories circulating around the complex of his relationships with various women.

COS has tried to recover him or even make him into a Scientologist many times and I'm sure someone is on his tail now. He might have even been given a few sessions he liked.

Arthur is in his own world, Lee, I don't know how else to put that. He's not a Scientologist, I can't see him ever becoming Scientologist, either, but I could see him letting someone give him a few sessions for as long as he enjoys it. He's just not the type to commit to anything. If someone were to remind him of the pain those in the Sea Org went through and ask him not to write anything positive about Scientology that would encourage more to go through that pain, he'd probably stop writing. Scientology was never important to him.

That's why I think this is mostly what someone else wrote or pushed to have him publish. Like Veda and others said, he has Scn friends and clients but he also has non-Scn business connections. I just don't think he cares a whole lot about Scn one way or the other, but who knows? Pretty weird he would write this or allow it to be written for him.

 

[stratty]

I met Arthur. Once. I was walking along the drive at Saint Hill Manor and he leaped out of the bushes and tried to wrestle with me. He must have been about seven years old, something like that. Ron was with him and he thought it was very funny.

 

[Deleted member 51]

...

Anyway, I recall Arthur had an art show at some time....and if I remember correctly.....he was making his art work with his own blood. I assumed to try to jump on that currently vogue band wagon

Perhaps someone here can verify that....as my memory on this is not that clear.

Basically....I just didn't give it any attention....but became tangentially aware of it due to a Flyer going around in the Scientology community in LA.

Yeh, he had years of artwork in blood, but not sure it was his blood. Might have been animal blood. The paintings themselves were dark in a depressed, horrific way. That was the lowest I've seen his art go. I thought he was in emotional pain at the time. Even the artwork of the paintings themselves wasn't very good, IMO.

I tried writing him back then but he never answered me. I didn't expect he would. Besides only knowing him from the SO/RPF years ago, Arthur has always been a loner.

I don't know what to think, Lee. :shrug: Just pretty sure he'd never personally get excited about Scientology.

 

[Deleted member 51]

I met Arthur. Once. I was walking along the drive at Saint Hill Manor and he leaped out of the bushes and tried to wrestle with me. He must have been about seven years old, something like that. Ron was with him and he thought it was very funny.

Pretty awkward having to nicely hold off a 7-year old boy jumping and trying to wrestle you with your cult leader standing there laughing, right?
There were a lot of stories about him being a spoiled child on the ship who could do whatever he wanted. Arthur personally admitted to that, too. He was apparently both well-loved and not well-liked by the crew.

 

[Lulu Belle]

Arthur is at center top. Suzette at left. Quentin at right.
Diana at center bottom. From mid 1970s.
________________

Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard

Answering some questions into the history and workings of the Church of Scientology

Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard

Answering some questions into the history and workings of the Church of Scientology.

arthurconwayhubbard.com

_________________​

This is recent, being from a month ago.

"...I have many friends that are members in good standing that have bought paintings from me..."

It appears that Arthur is sincerely wishing to express himself on the topic of Scientology, yet he must be aware that, if he crosses a certain line, he will lose some friends and, perhaps, some patrons.

I just read all of it, and he basically said absolutely nothing.

I have no idea what point he is trying to make. If any.

 

[Lee #28]

I just looked at the BLOG.....and it is dated. It is dated Oct 18, 2019. So this blog is very current and new.

He is promoting this as a blog about Scientology, and has asked viewers to Subscribe.....and it looks like it is not a one off page....but rather its going to be a running Blog about Scientology.

This I just don't understand.

At this time and place in the on going situations of Scientology.....why now?

To what purpose?

What insight currently, does Arthur think he can relate to readers?

Why is he still associating himself with Scientology and wanting to write about it?

And why is he promoting himself as knowledgeable about Scientology? (if he has never done any of it....)

Sheila, if you were on the RPF with him....what can you tell us of what Arthur had done training / auditing wise?

And thanks Sheila....yea, that is what I thought...Arthur is approximately in he early 60's at this time.

Unfortunately.....I don't think Arthur can disassociate himself from Scientology. I can only assume that he traveled in very elite Scientology circles.....even if only Public Scientology circles....

I would guess that Scientology cannot issue a Golden Rod and name Arthur as an SP......due to Out PR reasons. And conversely Arthur cannot write any statements against Scientology because then those he knows still in the Cult would have to Disconnect from him...

 

[Lee #28]

Well, I had to Google his name....and came up with this:



He was born in 1958...and he is 61 years old. He was born in Wash. D.C.

But I would imagine...as Strati says he was a young boy in England....he went to some English grammar schools....?

Then....on the Apollo, cruising the Mediterranean..... ( entirely SO...except him? I doubt it....)

Then?

 

[Lee #28]

Veda, did you know him, back in the day?