On Excalibur

Caroline

clerk #2
In this 1958 lecture to the 20th American Advanced Clinical Course, Hubbard answered some questions about Excalibur:

LRH: Yes?
Male voice: I've heard a lot of fabulous stories about the book Excalibur. Could you tell us a little about that?
LRH: It still - it still exists. I got a carbon copy of it. The original's been stolen.
Male voice: Will you ever put it in print, Ron?
LRH: The original... No. The original was stolen by the Russians a long time ago. They offered me a hundred thousand dollars to go to Russia and work exclusively in Russia - all laboratory facilities - and actually offered me any facility and pay and equipment that Pavlov had ever had and they almost had me on the boat, you know? That was back with Amtorg [Amerikanskaya Torgovlya - A Russian - American trading company].
And a few years later, why, my apartment was raided, doors smashed in and so forth, and the only thing missing in the whole place - papers were all thrown about and so forth - and the only thing missing (there were very many valuables there) and the only thing missing was the original copy of the book Excalibur. Still gone. I do have a carbon of it, however. I didn't know I had the carbon. The carbon is the first writing. The book that was stolen had been rewritten somewhat. That answer it?
Male voice: Well, I was wondering if it would be something that you might ever put in print or.
LRH: Highly doubtful.
Male voice: Was it dangerous to read, I mean, the subject.
LRH: Very, very.
Male voice: How about Scientology?
LRH: Terrifically introverting.
No. Scientology offers some hope. Excalibur simply was nothing on worlds, Earth - without any understanding at all on the subject of why. Or it simply said exactly what he was looking at and it evidently produced the mechanism, making him confront immediately and intimately all of the brain mechanisms. And, Excalibur is actually devoted to brain mechanisms as well as many of the principles which led to the research line. But it described brain mechanisms, and so forth, and guys read those things and they actually were sitting there just looking at them and they go up the spout.
Now, in Scientology you ask a man to confront why, you ask him to confront thinkingness, you ask him to confront reason and supposition. You don't give him the hard rock-bound object, you know? And he gets along all right. You can write too brutally on the subject evidently.
Scientology - I've never known anybody to do anything with Dianetics and Scientology or any book thereof, but after reading in one, to feel better, even though they were sometimes worried, or something of the sort. And I have had instances of people just reading the first article and stepping out of a hospital bed, and so forth.
So this is not true of Excalibur and Excalibur comes under the heading of a dangerous weapon.
Male voice: Would it still be dangerous for a Scientologist to read it?
LRH: Oh no, no. Matter of fact from that aspect I wouldn't publish it for another reason and that is that a modern Scientologist would laugh at it. It's the only book, too, by the way, that contains any nomenclature straight off my case. Many of the descriptive words in it are straight out of my own engrams. I'd had no auditing at the time; I'd had no broad look at the track, or anything of the sort; and I just picked up the handiest stuck phrase on the bank. Right.

Hubbard, L. R. (1958-08-04). Case Analysis - Rock Hunting - Question and Answer Period. Twentieth American Advanced Clinical Course, (20ACC-28). Washington, DC.
 

Caroline

clerk #2
In Hubbard's 1938 letter to Skipper about Excalibur, he claimed that he "could formulate a political platform, for instance, which would encompass the support of the unemployed, the industrialist and the clerk and day laborer all at one and the same time. And enthusiastic support it would be."​
In a 1969 "technical bulletin," Hubbard plotted a scale of "political philosophies," which he said he took from Excalibur, against his emotional tone scale.​
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1969

Remimeo
POLITICS

Here is a scale taken from Excalibur from memory. Excalibur was an unpublished book written in the very late 1930s. Only fragments of it remain.
By placing it against the Tone Scale developed at the end of 1950, certain current political philosophies are better estimated. By then looking up these tone characteristics in Science of Survival much can be learned and the ideologies are thus made easier to predict or handle.
REPUBLIC 3.0
DEMOCRACY 2.5
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY 2.0
FASCISM 1.5
COMMUNISM 1.1
ANARCHISM 0.0
The cycle of a nation goes on a descending spiral down this scale.
Those two tones apart are not likely to fight. Those a tone apart fight seldom. Those a half tone apart are in continual conflict.
As this was worked out before World War II, it is quite remarkable to see how true it has held. And how each one has taken something from its neighbors.
I will not go into what lies above democracy except that man is trying with his ideologies to solve mainly the problem of succession. History has seen other government forms work far more ideally than those named but in none of these could one guarantee succession of the beneficial rule. Thus adherents to all forms of ideology can be made to agree that "benign monarchy" is an excellent form of government. But they discard it because a truly good benign monarch is not necessarily succeeded by one in the next reign.
Few governments exist in pure form. (Note there are no major governments at this writing above Social Democracy.)
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. Ron (1969-03-17) Politics. Technical Bulletins. (1991 ed., Vol VIII, p. 331)Bridge Publications, Inc.
 

Ed8

Active member
From the First American Advanced Indoctrination Course, Hubbard mentioned being struck every once in a while by there being "sufficient orienting factors" in Excalibur that made it more workable than the deeper technology in the 1950s.

He also says that his bizarre, and arguably antisocial rule, that "a man is as sane as he considers himself dangerous to his environment," originates in Excalibur. This is a basic Scientology datum. It can also be found stated in various ways in Hubbard's affirmations:

  • You are rich in wisdom. You are therefore dangerous beyond the claws of tigers. You never need speak of your dangerousness. Everyone knows you are and it scares them when you mention it. You are kind and soft-spoken always.
  • There was no danger for you from government or navy. You are too big to be touched by their petty opinions and force. Your force and destiny is infinite power.
  • Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler.
    You don’t have to talk about all this. You know too well it is true. You never have to argue, all you need to do is sit back with a calm, kind smile and people will come to you with their opinions. You need never talk to fill silences in a group. You are an arbiter, a kindly one. You do not have to talk. But when you do talk you are amusing, witty, so personable no one can resist your charm. If they do not reply, it is because they are afraid of you.
The Admissions of L. Ron Hubbard

__________

Subjective Processes (Cont'd) Why a Thetan is Stuck in a Body
First American Advanced Indoctrination Course Lectures
Lecture of October 16, 1953

[...]​

I wrote a book in 1938 and probably will never completely recover from having done so. And I gave this book the working title - the mask you might say - of Excalibur. And it was quite a book. It contains, in essence, most of the theory which has been later used. But it didn't have it in any kind of a transmittable organization.
Every once in a while - the book has sufficient orienting factors in it that every now and then I am struck by the fact that we have gone into too deep, technical communication networks concerning this material. And I go back and reevaluate the material against the original postulates in that 1938 book and all of a sudden we lose a lot of technology suddenly and gain a lot of workability.
It would seem to indicate, if the reductio ad absurdum were followed, that everything would simply boil down to one flash. And this would be very nice to contemplate but I have not found this really taking place.
I have, however, found that with the Prelogics, the fact that the mission of theta is to create space in which to locate matter and energy - the Prelogics are a very definite advance. There's the Theta-MEST theory and those. They're very good evaluating theories. Extremely good.
But in this original book there is something that you should know: A man is as sane as he considers himself dangerous to his environment. A real good one for you. That is a not entirely integrated statement. But it is an entirely workable statement.
A man is as sane as he considers himself dangerous to his environment. A woman is as sane as she considers herself dangerous to her environment. Follows with a corollary that a person is as bad off as he considers himself in a dangerous environment. Follow?
Insanity, then, would be that condition pursuant to the consideration of the individual that he is in a dangerous environment, so dangerous that it cannot ever be coped with now or in the future and probably in the belief that he'd never coped with it. See, that would be the complete "gone apathy" about the whole thing.
Well, now let's integrate that with regard to the fellow caught in his body. He is not dangerous to his environment as much as he would like to be and he considers his environment dangerous to him. If you remember this as an auditor - if you remember this, actually, as a case, your problems have a tendency to sort of wither away.

Hubbard, L. R. (1953-10-16). Subjective Processes (Cont'd) Why a Thetan is Stuck in a Body. First American Advanced Indoctrination Course Lectures. Camden, NJ.

"The Dangerous Environment" theory is taught at all levels of Scientology, beginning with introductory courses and Volunteer Minister propaganda. This theory is a key part of Hubbard's Suppressive Person doctrine. See "Scientology, the Dangerous Environment Racket" by Gerry Armstrong (2009).
From the First American Advanced Indoctrination Course, Hubbard mentioned being struck every once in a while by there being "sufficient orienting factors" in Excalibur that made it more workable than the deeper technology in the 1950s.

He also says that his bizarre, and arguably antisocial rule, that "a man is as sane as he considers himself dangerous to his environment," originates in Excalibur. This is a basic Scientology datum. It can also be found stated in various ways in Hubbard's affirmations:

  • You are rich in wisdom. You are therefore dangerous beyond the claws of tigers. You never need speak of your dangerousness. Everyone knows you are and it scares them when you mention it. You are kind and soft-spoken always.
  • There was no danger for you from government or navy. You are too big to be touched by their petty opinions and force. Your force and destiny is infinite power.
  • Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler.
    You don’t have to talk about all this. You know too well it is true. You never have to argue, all you need to do is sit back with a calm, kind smile and people will come to you with their opinions. You need never talk to fill silences in a group. You are an arbiter, a kindly one. You do not have to talk. But when you do talk you are amusing, witty, so personable no one can resist your charm. If they do not reply, it is because they are afraid of you.
The Admissions of L. Ron Hubbard

__________

Subjective Processes (Cont'd) Why a Thetan is Stuck in a Body
First American Advanced Indoctrination Course Lectures
Lecture of October 16, 1953

[...]​

I wrote a book in 1938 and probably will never completely recover from having done so. And I gave this book the working title - the mask you might say - of Excalibur. And it was quite a book. It contains, in essence, most of the theory which has been later used. But it didn't have it in any kind of a transmittable organization.
Every once in a while - the book has sufficient orienting factors in it that every now and then I am struck by the fact that we have gone into too deep, technical communication networks concerning this material. And I go back and reevaluate the material against the original postulates in that 1938 book and all of a sudden we lose a lot of technology suddenly and gain a lot of workability.
It would seem to indicate, if the reductio ad absurdum were followed, that everything would simply boil down to one flash. And this would be very nice to contemplate but I have not found this really taking place.
I have, however, found that with the Prelogics, the fact that the mission of theta is to create space in which to locate matter and energy - the Prelogics are a very definite advance. There's the Theta-MEST theory and those. They're very good evaluating theories. Extremely good.
But in this original book there is something that you should know: A man is as sane as he considers himself dangerous to his environment. A real good one for you. That is a not entirely integrated statement. But it is an entirely workable statement.
A man is as sane as he considers himself dangerous to his environment. A woman is as sane as she considers herself dangerous to her environment. Follows with a corollary that a person is as bad off as he considers himself in a dangerous environment. Follow?
Insanity, then, would be that condition pursuant to the consideration of the individual that he is in a dangerous environment, so dangerous that it cannot ever be coped with now or in the future and probably in the belief that he'd never coped with it. See, that would be the complete "gone apathy" about the whole thing.
Well, now let's integrate that with regard to the fellow caught in his body. He is not dangerous to his environment as much as he would like to be and he considers his environment dangerous to him. If you remember this as an auditor - if you remember this, actually, as a case, your problems have a tendency to sort of wither away.

Hubbard, L. R. (1953-10-16). Subjective Processes (Cont'd) Why a Thetan is Stuck in a Body. First American Advanced Indoctrination Course Lectures. Camden, NJ.

"The Dangerous Environment" theory is taught at all levels of Scientology, beginning with introductory courses and Volunteer Minister propaganda. This theory is a key part of Hubbard's Suppressive Person doctrine. See "Scientology, the Dangerous Environment Racket" by Gerry Armstrong (2009).
Thank you for this thread, Caroline.

About:
"But in this original book there is something that you should know: A man is as sane as he considers himself dangerous to his environment. A real good one for you. That is a not entirely integrated statement. But it is an entirely workable statement." -LRH

And that right there points at a flaw in Hubbard's methods. He wants it 'workable' (including optimum) instead of exact or perfect. He doesn't insist on the exact truth, he just wants something that works. This M.O. produces partial truths instead of full truths. This is the equivalent of accepting a Reliable Item (RI) instead of the Actual Goal which makes the RI always read. This method lead to promoting some urges such as anchor points, while criticizing the opposite of anchors, which is shifting viewpoints -- and this lead to insisting on viewpoints being anchored. Huge mistake because it limits ability to view.

In another matter, thank you again for posting those letters. They show how Hubbard expressed himself when he was not wearing a know-it-all valence: loose, sloppy and creative.

Last I want to remark on the subject of affirmations. Affirmations as done in the early 20th century have various sources, the most prominent I see are two:
1. The work of Phineas Quimby on positivity.
2. Patanjali's yoga sutras, where he advises a person to meditate on the opposites. This latter was mistranslated and misunderstood as meaning to meditate on the positives only. It actually means to meditate on both poles of a dichotomy disturbing the meditator.

The affirmation style above is working positives only. Unfortunately you cannot invoke a positive of any dual item of mindstuff without getting both. Buddhism has a term for it, usually it is translated into English as 'dependent co-arising' (Pratītyasamutpāda). The original has a sense of 'bundled together'. What it means in relation to affirmations is that you cannot invoke a positive without getting the negative also appearing. Hubbard, as an O.T.O. magician should have known better because it is standard practice in cermonial magick to first bind the negative prior to invoking a positive.
Ed
 

Cat's Squirrel

Well-known member
Thank you for this thread, Caroline.

About:
"But in this original book there is something that you should know: A man is as sane as he considers himself dangerous to his environment. A real good one for you. That is a not entirely integrated statement. But it is an entirely workable statement." -LRH

And that right there points at a flaw in Hubbard's methods. He wants it 'workable' (including optimum) instead of exact or perfect. He doesn't insist on the exact truth, he just wants something that works. This M.O. produces partial truths instead of full truths. This is the equivalent of accepting a Reliable Item (RI) instead of the Actual Goal which makes the RI always read. This method lead to promoting some urges such as anchor points, while criticizing the opposite of anchors, which is shifting viewpoints -- and this lead to insisting on viewpoints being anchored. Huge mistake because it limits ability to view.

In another matter, thank you again for posting those letters. They show how Hubbard expressed himself when he was not wearing a know-it-all valence: loose, sloppy and creative.

Last I want to remark on the subject of affirmations. Affirmations as done in the early 20th century have various sources, the most prominent I see are two:
1. The work of Phineas Quimby on positivity.
2. Patanjali's yoga sutras, where he advises a person to meditate on the opposites. This latter was mistranslated and misunderstood as meaning to meditate on the positives only. It actually means to meditate on both poles of a dichotomy disturbing the meditator.

The affirmation style above is working positives only. Unfortunately you cannot invoke a positive of any dual item of mindstuff without getting both. Buddhism has a term for it, usually it is translated into English as 'dependent co-arising' (Pratītyasamutpāda). The original has a sense of 'bundled together'. What it means in relation to affirmations is that you cannot invoke a positive without getting the negative also appearing. Hubbard, as an O.T.O. magician should have known better because it is standard practice in cermonial magick to first bind the negative prior to invoking a positive.
Ed
That's interesting. Was he a genuine O.T.O magician though, or was he one in the same way he was a nuclear physics graduate (i.e. a soi-disant one)?
 

Ed8

Active member
That's interesting. Was he a genuine O.T.O magician though, or was he one in the same way he was a nuclear physics graduate (i.e. a soi-disant one)?
Good question, Cat's Squirrel. I do not know what level of attainment Hubbard reached. But any Hermetic magician should know that. :)
Ed
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Good question, Cat's Squirrel. I do not know what level of attainment Hubbard reached. But any Hermetic magician should know that. :)
Ed

The highest level of attainment Hubbard reached was DB.

Dead Being.

This is very unfortunate for Scientologists. Because it's always a buzz kill for cult members when their omnipotent guru unexpectedly drops dead, dumping his "Clear The Planet" hat on them.

.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
Hubbard's remarks above make it clear that Bill Robertson was lying through his teeth when he claimed to have Hubbard's Excalibur and that this was an alternative version of NED for OTs. Every single Freezone or Independent Scientology group - without exception - that claims to be delivering Ron Hubbard's Excalibur is also lying, whether they know it or not. :mad:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

Hubbard's remarks above make it clear that Bill Robertson was lying through his teeth when he claimed to have Hubbard's Excalibur and that this was an alternative version of NED for OTs. Every single Freezone or Independent Scientology group - without exception - that claims to be delivering Ron Hubbard's Excalibur is also lying, whether they know it or not. :mad:
.

I understand what you are saying, but I try to look at things from a positive perspective.

I think what you report is a very positive thing, indeed---because all those Indie Scientologists are standardly duplicating and following Ron's policies, directives and successful actions on lying. Ron lied about his bridge to OT and they lie about their indie bridge to OT. What's not to like? LOL

When all beings are on Source in this way, we will finally have a world without criminality and insanity!

.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Hubbard's remarks above make it clear that Bill Robertson was lying through his teeth when he claimed to have Hubbard's Excalibur and that this was an alternative version of NED for OTs. Every single Freezone or Independent Scientology group - without exception - that claims to be delivering Ron Hubbard's Excalibur is also lying, whether they know it or not. :mad:
Did Robertson claim that he had Hubbard's 1938 Excalibur?

My understanding is that what was originally called Super NOTs by Robertson, then renamed Excalibur, was inspired by Hubbard's confidential 1980 OT 8 HCOB, and not related to the original Excalibur, except that it used the name.
 

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
I think that Veda is correct. I got the same impression when reading both of them. The problem being tackled seems to be the dividing and sub-dividing of Beings into hats and divergent time/ space/ locations. I experienced this after doing some Aspectics. When the 'goal' which was trapping consciousness is satisfied....the hat releases.

The Matrix film kinda echos the predicament a person finds himself in when attempting to extract. In the movie, the person had some identity/ body he's attached to...... since before he went in.

My opinion is these structures were part of games LRH and Capt Bill played. I'm sure there are some on Earth who are home grown and not ricocheting around the universe through time.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
In this 1958 lecture to the 20th American Advanced Clinical Course, Hubbard answered some questions about Excalibur:

LRH: Yes?
Male voice: I've heard a lot of fabulous stories about the book Excalibur. Could you tell us a little about that?
LRH: It still - it still exists. I got a carbon copy of it. The original's been stolen.
Male voice: Will you ever put it in print, Ron?
LRH: The original... No. The original was stolen by the Russians a long time ago. They offered me a hundred thousand dollars to go to Russia and work exclusively in Russia - all laboratory facilities - and actually offered me any facility and pay and equipment that Pavlov had ever had and they almost had me on the boat, you know? That was back with Amtorg [Amerikanskaya Torgovlya - A Russian - American trading company].
And a few years later, why, my apartment was raided, doors smashed in and so forth, and the only thing missing in the whole place - papers were all thrown about and so forth - and the only thing missing (there were very many valuables there) and the only thing missing was the original copy of the book Excalibur. Still gone. I do have a carbon of it, however. I didn't know I had the carbon. The carbon is the first writing. The book that was stolen had been rewritten somewhat. That answer it?
Male voice: Well, I was wondering if it would be something that you might ever put in print or.
LRH: Highly doubtful.
Male voice: Was it dangerous to read, I mean, the subject.
LRH: Very, very.
Male voice: How about Scientology?
LRH: Terrifically introverting.
No. Scientology offers some hope. Excalibur simply was nothing on worlds, Earth - without any understanding at all on the subject of why. Or it simply said exactly what he was looking at and it evidently produced the mechanism, making him confront immediately and intimately all of the brain mechanisms. And, Excalibur is actually devoted to brain mechanisms as well as many of the principles which led to the research line. But it described brain mechanisms, and so forth, and guys read those things and they actually were sitting there just looking at them and they go up the spout.
Now, in Scientology you ask a man to confront why, you ask him to confront thinkingness, you ask him to confront reason and supposition. You don't give him the hard rock-bound object, you know? And he gets along all right. You can write too brutally on the subject evidently.
Scientology - I've never known anybody to do anything with Dianetics and Scientology or any book thereof, but after reading in one, to feel better, even though they were sometimes worried, or something of the sort. And I have had instances of people just reading the first article and stepping out of a hospital bed, and so forth.
So this is not true of Excalibur and Excalibur comes under the heading of a dangerous weapon.
Male voice: Would it still be dangerous for a Scientologist to read it?
LRH: Oh no, no. Matter of fact from that aspect I wouldn't publish it for another reason and that is that a modern Scientologist would laugh at it. It's the only book, too, by the way, that contains any nomenclature straight off my case. Many of the descriptive words in it are straight out of my own engrams. I'd had no auditing at the time; I'd had no broad look at the track, or anything of the sort; and I just picked up the handiest stuck phrase on the bank. Right.

Hubbard, L. R. (1958-08-04). Case Analysis - Rock Hunting - Question and Answer Period. Twentieth American Advanced Clinical Course, (20ACC-28). Washington, DC.
great stuff Caroline, the whole tread. We have to remember Hubbard said he was only a writer.

One of the things that come to mind is that Hubbard said for a good story line you have a weenie, that means something everybody is after. Excalibur is a weenie, hence the Russians stole it, everbody wants it, secrets, lol. But also later on up the story line, the OT levels are a weenie, LOL. Even NED and Super Power came to be a weenie. Shoot, the whole Bridge to Freedom is one big weenie, step by step. I believe Forrest Ackerman even said this more or less. It's also part of Hubbard's marketing and PR series which basically comes done create a mystery to draw in customers.

Regarding timeline of Excalibur, it's interesting to note that in Hubbard's letter to his Dean Wilbur in 1936, and excalibur was written in 1938, Hubbard told his Dean Wilbur that he would write a book.

"Do not allow this to upset you in any way. Put it down that I am a rebel, a nonconformist, anything. Some of these days I am going to set down these things in a book, and your rhetoric, very battered now, will be open on the desk beside me when I write it. '

quote source: Dear Dean Wilbur

Dean Wilbur rhetoric was his book called English Rhetoric that Hubbard took as a college course at George Washington U.

You have his report card from GWU, check it out.

Here is the book, interesting to read on how Hubbard learned to write and speak and give lectures using stories.

 

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
great stuff Caroline, the whole tread. We have to remember Hubbard said he was only a writer.

One of the things that come to mind is that Hubbard said for a good story line you have a weenie, that means something everybody is after. Excalibur is a weenie, hence the Russians stole it, everbody wants it, secrets, lol. But also later on up the story line, the OT levels are a weenie, LOL. Even NED and Super Power came to be a weenie. Shoot, the whole Bridge to Freedom is one big weenie, step by step. I believe Forrest Ackerman even said this more or less. It's also part of Hubbard's marketing and PR series which basically comes done create a mystery to draw in customers.

Regarding timeline of Excalibur, it's interesting to note that in Hubbard's letter to his Dean Wilbur in 1936, and excalibur was written in 1938, Hubbard told his Dean Wilbur that he would write a book.

"Do not allow this to upset you in any way. Put it down that I am a rebel, a nonconformist, anything. Some of these days I am going to set down these things in a book, and your rhetoric, very battered now, will be open on the desk beside me when I write it. '

quote source: Dear Dean Wilbur

Dean Wilbur rhetoric was his book called English Rhetoric that Hubbard took as a college course at George Washington U.

You have his report card from GWU, check it out.

Here is the book, interesting to read on how Hubbard learned to write and speak and give lectures using stories.

Triggering the active imagination. Ron followed suit, being a man of his times. There is nothing new under the sun.


BELOW from a free Amazon video, The Hermetic Jung. From the 34 min mark.....then, again right after the 51 minute marker. Ron was the quintessential psychonaut. Unfortunately, or unfortunately, he tried to give others the same tour he took. That too, is an ages old effort.

 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
Hubbard's remarks above make it clear that Bill Robertson was lying through his teeth when he claimed to have Hubbard's Excalibur and that this was an alternative version of NED for OTs. Every single Freezone or Independent Scientology group - without exception - that claims to be delivering Ron Hubbard's Excalibur is also lying, whether they know it or not. :mad:
It's a mish mash or familiar things. Doing their best to look standard I suppose. Not too shoddy. Got this online from expansive cache called repairlist dot something
 
Top