Cult of Scientology hidden secrets flushed out, with data points

haiqu

Active member
I get it that you don't like David Mayo. He committed the unforgivable sin of saying that Hubbard was primarily motivated by a craving for personal - Earthly - power, and a craving for money, and that Hubbard was willing to corrupt the "tech."
I have no opinion on people with whom I've never communicated. David Mayo to me is just a name.

Judging by the way you embellish the facts in a continuous effort to denigrate Scientology, it wouldn't surprise me to find that Mayo never said any of it. You're a legend in your own mind, Darth.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
I have no opinion on people with whom I've never communicated. David Mayo to me is just a name.
Judging by the way you embellish the facts in a continuous effort to denigrate Scientology, it wouldn't surprise me to find that Mayo never said any of it. You're a legend in your own mind, Darth.
.

Whoa, someone isn't a big fan of facts. LOL.

R-FACTOR (Ron Factor): L. Ron Hubbard was arguably the biggest EMBELLISHER of any religion in the world for the past 100 years! He pathologically lied about his tech, the non-existent states of Clear/OT, the attainment of supernatural powers, exteriorization and every other conceivable false gimmick to rape people's money and time.

Yet you troll a whistleblower like Veda, who has a stellar record of researching & reporting historical facts? LOL.

PRO TIP: When Ron tells you something--after clay demo'ing it, try a 30 second internet search for facts. Then do a 2nd clay demo why you think it's better to stick with Ron's lies.

.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
Why do all the discussions about the tech -- and its history -- end up this way? :unsure:
.
Interesting question. I don't know the answer. So what I will do now is just "start typing" and hopefully the answer will appear spontaneously at some point Let's try it now:

They end up this way because there are basically two (2) kinds of people on a Scientology discussion forum.

CATEGORY 1: People who understand that Scientology is a lie-filled hoax.
CATEGORY 2: People who think that Category 1 people are the real problem with Scientology. To wit, they think like Ron thinks--that someone else is causing all of his and Scientology's problems (i.e. it's the DBs, PTSs, DBs, bitter defrocked apostates, psychs, squirrels, et al).
PRO TIP: It's extremely difficult (and often impossible) to have any discussion about Scientology with Scientologists/Indie Scientologists. Because they're not here for the beer. They're here to deliver a sermon, briefing, r-factor and/or introductory lecture about Scientology. And in some cases, they are here to "handle" your nattery resistive case! lol

.
.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
I have no opinion on people with whom I've never communicated. David Mayo to me is just a name.
Riiiiiiiiiiight. :dance3:

Judging by the way you embellish the facts in a continuous effort to denigrate Scientology
"A continuous effort to denigrate Scientology" - That sounds like something that might be addressed by hunting down and processing "Evil Purposes," and since, per the "tech," for those who "continuously denigrate Scientology," there must be Evil Purposes, and, in a Scientology environment (and especially the ultimate Scientology environment: the "flagship"), they will be found (or manufactured), since they must be there. Much like "overts" that must be there.

David Mayo, particularly after he had freed himself from its influence, objected to this mindset, which regarded anyone with "counter LRH Intention" as EVIL.

John McMaster, "the world's first real Clear," who was head-gamed by Hubbard (and knew it, and even described it, but still couldn't free himself from the damaging effect), called "Commodore" Hubbard's "Flagship" a "floating insane asylum."

Many people were harmed on the "Commodore's Flagship": Children were subjected to prolonged and terrifying (and dangerous) chain locker punishments; other children were trained to be literal extensions of Hubbard's WILL and personality as his full time servants; adults were subjected to a variety of punitive actions for anything the "Commodore" regarded as a "slight," or a "flub." This included being hurled off the ship for the long drop to the filthy sewerage-laden dock water below.

And there was always the e-meter, to check on someone who might have "ever had any unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard."


Photo and caption featured in the Auditor magazine


it wouldn't surprise me to find that Mayo never said any of it.

....
It's securely preserved in the Private Message file at the original Ex Scientologist Message Board. (No one can change it. Only Emma has access to it. Why don't you ask her?)

Not that it would matter to an "in ethics" Scientologist. Un-looking and "erasing" become second nature.

Events, and even people, can be "erased."





"I never had a second wife."


David Mayo was telling the truth when he told of Hubbard's insatiable lust for power and money, of Hubbard's cruelties, and of Hubbard's willingness to corrupt (and lie about) the "tech" that Scientologists so revere. He was telling the truth when he told of Hubbard's alcohol and drug consumption, and when he described what was the pinnacle of Scientology's insanity, the last half of the Scientology saga, when Hubbard made himself the "Commodore" of the "Sea Organization."









 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
Gotta say, it's entertaining watching Veda's "this MB needs many viewpoints expressed"
concept in full play. Entertaining, if somewhat predictable. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

With all due respect to all . . . this is pretty humorous.
. . . it wouldn't surprise me to find that Mayo never said any of it.
David Mayo to me is just a name.
:wow:

David Mayo was the guy LRH entrusted to safeguard and update
the tech after "source" passed on. LRH wrote David Mayo a long letter,
which many have seen and read.

“In April 1982, L. Ron Hubbard sent a very long and detailed letter​
to David Mayo concerning the future of the tech. A copy of the letter​
was sent to a good many other people: I was on the list, as Senior C/S​
INT Assistant; also CO CMO INT (John Nelson, at the time); Maureen​
Samuels (who was either CO CMO SU of CO CMO GOLD); and several​
others. ”​
Julie Mayo
From 1979/1980 forward into 1982, I began to develop and release new technical procedures and began a long term project of `studying and researching, reviewing and correcting and possibly replacing the existing levels and developing new ones,' (a near paraphrase of how Hubbard described my work in a memo he wrote on or about April 14, 1982, in which he outlined what he expected me to continue to do in the event of his death). Until that time and even for a few months after, Hubbard thought highly of my work, frequently commended me and considered me to be his replacement for `technical' (i.e., relating to auditing techniques) matters. He went further in that memo, to say that it would be up to me to develop OT VIII (which contrary to PR statements, did not exist at that time) and subsequent levels. I was rather dismayed by this news as I had really been expecting him to do that; I wondered, if he as `The Founder' of the subject had not managed to develop these OT levels and the OT powers he had claimed for them, how could he expect me to able to fulfill his obligation -- he had just tossed me the ultimate Hot Potato!​
David Mayo, 1996

David and LRH had a falling out a bit later. That doesn't negate what went on earlier or David's
long tenure as LRH's right hand technical man. This is all well-known historical fact.

Here's a video where David talks about the letter and LRH researching
and auditing himself up to OT11, which should interest you.


Believe what you want. I don't have a dog in this fight.

Just here for the occasional giggles. :coolwink:
 

Cat's Squirrel

Well-known member
I have no opinion on people with whom I've never communicated.
How far do you want to take that though? It's just possible that, for example, Idi Amin was a gentle and peace-loving guy who was very tolerant of opposing points of view and believed in turning the other cheek towards his opponents, but I never communicated with him so I'll never know? And if not Amin, how about Miscavige with whom I've also never communicated and he wouldn't want to communicate with me anyway so it's very unlikely to happen?

I know I'm being sarcastic here, but I think sometimes it's good to stretch a position as far as it will go to see how well it holds up in practice.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
I have no opinion on people with whom I've never communicated. David Mayo to me is just a name.
.
.
I would like to nominate that rhetorical gimmick for the:

TOP 10 RHETORICAL DODGES SCIENTOLOGISTS & INDIES RESORT
TO WHEN CONFRONTED WITH FACTS THEY FIND UNCONFRONTABLE.

I won't try to re-construct the whole list, but some of the more famous ones are:

"I have no opinion on people with whom I've never communicated."

"You need to stop talking about Hubbard because he died (specified number) years ago!"

"Neither you nor I was there when Ron allegedly did that
(specified atrocity)!"

"Ron would never do
(specified atrocity) because he has a policy against that!"


The problem with that last one is that Hubbard has a policy against everything---and also a policy for everything. It all depends on which reward or punishment he expediently and capriciously requires at any given moment (see "Hubbard Law of Commotion").

.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
Gotta say, it's entertaining watching Veda's "this MB needs many viewpoints expressed"
concept in full play.
IMO, variation enhances the MB. Better the clamor of Hyde Park, than the silence of an empty room. (The Hyde Park reference may be outdated since, from what I hear, there are so many, these days, who are so easily "offended," plus another category of people who actually become violent at almost anything, who the politicians and police appease, to the extent that someone peacefully standing on a soapbox making a speech, not the crazed rioters, will be arrested. But you know what I mean.) A little stirring is good. :stir:


Entertaining, if somewhat predictable. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

With all due respect to all . . . this is pretty humorous.


:wow:

David Mayo was the guy LRH entrusted to safeguard and update
the tech after "source" passed on. LRH wrote David Mayo a long letter,
which many have seen and read.

“In April 1982, L. Ron Hubbard sent a very long and detailed letter​
to David Mayo concerning the future of the tech. A copy of the letter​
was sent to a good many other people: I was on the list, as Senior C/S​
INT Assistant; also CO CMO INT (John Nelson, at the time); Maureen​
Samuels (who was either CO CMO SU of CO CMO GOLD); and several​
others. ”​
Julie Mayo
From 1979/1980 forward into 1982, I began to develop and release new technical procedures and began a long term project of `studying and researching, reviewing and correcting and possibly replacing the existing levels and developing new ones,' (a near paraphrase of how Hubbard described my work in a memo he wrote on or about April 14, 1982, in which he outlined what he expected me to continue to do in the event of his death). Until that time and even for a few months after, Hubbard thought highly of my work, frequently commended me and considered me to be his replacement for `technical' (i.e., relating to auditing techniques) matters. He went further in that memo, to say that it would be up to me to develop OT VIII (which contrary to PR statements, did not exist at that time) and subsequent levels. I was rather dismayed by this news as I had really been expecting him to do that; I wondered, if he as `The Founder' of the subject had not managed to develop these OT levels and the OT powers he had claimed for them, how could he expect me to able to fulfill his obligation -- he had just tossed me the ultimate Hot Potato!​
David Mayo, 1996

David and LRH had a falling out a bit later. That doesn't negate what went on earlier or David's
long tenure as LRH's right hand technical man. This is all well-known historical fact.

Here's a video where David talks about the letter and LRH researching
and auditing himself up to OT11, which should interest you.

As you showed with your quotes from Mike Rinder (which I very much appreciate you having provided), expressing views from different time periods, people exiting Scientology sometimes change. It usually takes a while. First we had Mike Rinder insisting that Hubbard "didn't know," then, a few years later, admitting that Hubbard knew.

"Besmirching LRH" was a big deal with Mike & Marty for a while, and they were protective of Hubbard's reputation. That phase lasted a few years, until they both realized how silly it was, and they stopped covering for Hubbard and the "tech." (Unfortunately, Marty Rathbun was sucked back into Scientology Inc.'s field of influence where he serves as a "reasonable critic.")

David Mayo went through changes too, and, while "out," for a time, still covered for Hubbard for a few years.

There is something akin to "brainwashing" that occurs in Scientology, and it takes a while to wear off. For some it never does wear off completely.

Believe what you want. I don't have a dog in this fight.

Just here for the occasional giggles. :coolwink:


 

haiqu

Active member
Why do all the discussions about the tech -- and its history -- end up this way? :unsure:
Because some people can't help themselves from pushing their own barrow full of case down our throats, mainly.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
Because some people can't help themselves from pushing their own barrow full of case down our throats, mainly.
Lighten up.

It would be helpful see the coroner's report.

If we could hear from a relative that would be good .

Most of the casualties of Hubbard and Scentology go silent or, at some point, they or their family put out a "good roads and fair weather" statement.

That pattern has been repeated for decades.

As for "case," you've adopted Hubbard's case as your own, and are busy "running" it on yourself.

Plus you seem to have developed a kind of fetish for e-meters. Long term, daily, e-meter users can becoime junkies (of sort) for the tiny electrical current.

So good luck with that.
 
Top