Hubbard vs. Freud


Sigmund Freud, 6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939 (83 years), Austria
L. Ron Hubbard, 13 March 1911 – 24 January 1986 (74 years), USA

The new master always shows his dedication to the previous master … at least at the beginning. This is ancient rule that we observe throughout each history book.
It was Commander Thompson, who presumably taught Hubbard about Freudian Psychology. True or not, who cares?

Ron rarely had good things to say about anyone. There was always something, why everybody was wrong and Hubbard was right. It is a good trick to sell your own Kool-Aid.
Freud did everything wrong. According to Hubbard he only concentrated on sex (libido), wrote many useless books and had no cure. In hindsight I could say, Hubbard described himself.
Freud did not start a religion, he did not have any kind of Guardian Office, he did not die that early, had not Vistaril in his blood, did not take drugs and he had no reason to hide. Freud was not convicted of any crime anywhere (as far as I know). I’d say more people were acknowledging Freud than Hubbard.

Freud’s psychoanalysis was mundane. Nevertheless, it was not for public/general use. And it was exactly this neglected factor that gave Hubbard’s Dianetics the famous push for a while. Hubbard reduced Freud’s ideas to what he could understand himself, claimed it was not psychoanalysis (and hypnotism), and then told people on the streets that they could use HIS technique right away.

Hubbard was not awarded an Honorary Doctorate like Freud. His life was full of lies and fiction, whereas Freud did some serious pioneer research. I am still not sure if Hubbard believed in his proclaimed research, many parts are heavily superficial or made up. It sometimes seems that he did find out something useful, but then it is his overall personality making him questionable and disturbing.

David Mayo audited Hubbard, so Hubbard did believe in his science. But at the same time he knew that he was a con man, didn’t he? Was he aware of this? Was it his drug abuse that made him behave like this? Hubbard knew his own folder, because Otto Roos had nearly caused him big trouble with his rock slams. Hubbard – as a scientist – could not have possibly ignored his own rock slams; only as con man. Otto Roos unmistakably indicated to Hubbard that he was a big pile of evil purposes. Roos was not just anyone. He was the first OT VIII and one of only five top-level Class XII auditors trained by Hubbard himself. For sure Roos had to be wrong, it would have been the end of Scientology.

This meter reading of Scientology seems to work properly.
At that point Ron must have understood two things:
a) Scientology worked, which was good news.
b) Scientology worked against himself by disclosing his real personality.

This is very contradicting. And I am sure Hubbard came across many similar situations. It could explain his situation of actively conning everyone while believing in his technique (without necessarily having to be schizophrenic).
Therefore Ron knew he was a con man AND he was also convinced that there was some truth in what he was selling.

When you study Scientology – knowing Hubbards personality muddle – only then you can understand that there were indeed two personalities. Only people with full background data can fully understand Hubbard’s bulletins and policy letters. Sometimes they were written to defend and explain away Hubbard’s mega fraud, sometimes they were written by a dedicated person.

Hubbard was smart and insane, he was a genius and a demon. He was never caught.

Freud was none of that. He was a scientist and pioneer. I don’t know how much Freud copied from others. But for sure it was not as much as Hubbard did. Freud sold his own research, Hubbard sold his own and everyone else’s research in his own name … if you can call this research at all. Freud was far more honest than Hubbard. His wealth was limited, unlike Hubbard who died as a super rich man.

What about religion?
Sigmund Freud was born to Jewish parents in the heavily Roman Catholic town of Freiburg, Moravia. Throughout his life, Freud endeavored to understand religion and spirituality and wrote several books devoted to the subject, including Totem and Taboo (1913), The Future of an Illusion (1927), Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), and Moses and Monotheism (1938).
Religion, Freud believed, was an expression of underlying psychological neuroses and distress. At various points in his writings, he suggested that religion was an attempt to control the Oedipal complex, a means of giving structure to social groups, wish-fulfillment, an infantile delusion, and an attempt to control the outside world.

And was Hubbard religious? I doubt! He used religion to escape the law. Under the guise of several church institutions there was no need to prove any pseudo science and there was no need for qualifications. We are not even discussing the IRS.
Hubbard was selfish like mad. He was rich while the Sea Org members were suffering. This has nothing to do with religion, even though you could argue that money has always been an issue in any religion.
Hubbard could have used the money to disseminate his religion much faster, but in fact he did not!
He was definitely a person without any sympathy. He just tried to find his own benefit at all times. His children, he did not care. His wifes, he did not care. His business partners, he did not care. Furthermore he used them; abuse is probably a better word. Read Bare-Faced Messiah and get the full story.

This might interest you as well:
Healer Hubbard vs. Healer Burzynski


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s