Every time any honest person tries to approach scientology techs or people
or whatever is linked to scientology, the criminal cult does its best to
destroy the person.
That's what scientology is: a system of destruction of persons, inside or
outside, till all the power or money are out of the person and in the scientology
All this is exactly based onto the following Policy: Responsability of
Here are some parts of that policy, desmontrating how anybody should push
his/her power toward the power - that is, very clearly, hubbard.
It is interesting to note that the essential travel from Bolivar in France,
some years after the french revolution, has been almost erased by Hubbard,
or has been erased like if it had no importance, while this was Bolivar's
main schooling as a revolutionar; Hubbard says only that the revolution
there was unable to form a culture. He better should have looked at it
Also, Hubbard remains almost silent about the masonic links of Bolivar or
his taste for Jean Jacques Rousseau, the french philosoph, as well as the
years he passed into EU.
Similarly, the demands of help from Bolivar to the english governement
against the spanish one, have been erased from his past. Bolivar was'nt the
chief of the Junta then, he was just opposed to the spanish dictature, he
wanted a bit more freedom.
The role played by Bolivar in the treason againt Miranda, the true chief
the revolt against spanish kingdom, is also quite obscure and has not been
explained by Hubbard - probably he would'nt like to be compared to someone
having delivered its chief to spanish people? We'll never know: it's most
probable that Bolivar hid the facts, though nobody can't be certain..
Also, the sudden admiration of Hubbard toward Bolivar could have been born
out of the fact that Bolivar has started his "pleins pouvoirs" as
chief, through incredible killings and cruel murders of anything spanish,
similar as Hubbard's attempts to destroy his own past friends or anybody
daring to contradict him.
The facts laid out by Hubbard about Bolivar are quite different from the
realities, and far from showing a very intesresting "libertador",
someone who tried to oust the spanishes to get the power for himself, but
who, not unlike Hubbard, was unable to exercize any real power because he
was a mere dictator whose power was mostly supported by force.
[Besides, Hubbard dares to say this:
"And I used a military sphere so it could be seen clearly without
restimulation of admin problems." : That's insane, since any scientologist
having been audited can certainly declare that his/her "past lives
incidents" were generally from wars and military activities.]
Also, Hubbard ignores in his exposé that Bolivar decided himself to
exile after having been unable to be a real dictator; interesting enough,
Hubbard fled his own troops after fearing to be jailed for his tax (and
Hubbard attributes the famousness of Bolivar after he was dead. This is also
wrong: Bolivar reached it like some other military or philosophical
politicians, like Napoleon Buonaparte or Muhammad.
Besides, the story of Manuela Saenz, wife of Bolivar , does not makes its
way through Bolivar's story. Indeed, she looks to be there like a main proof
that wives should only be used as supports for their husbands. This is pure
sexism, moreover so since he goes even to say that she should have proposed
"a nice night" to a young officer top kill Santander, supposed, at
Hubbard, to be her, or Bolivar, arch-enemy.
He took as granted the fact that general Santander had been an "SP in
treason", but this is taken as wrong by most historians. Santander did
great job in his country, and no proofs were evr given that he had helped
those wanting to combat Bolivar.
He says: "You don't leave an enemy financed and solvent while you let
friends starve in a game like South American politics. Oh no.",
That is stupid. The then south america had not the least character of what
it became later, regarding politics, and USA or international banks were
behind playing finance games.
He adds about the couple: "
"A true hero, a true heroine. But on a stage and not in life. Impractical
and improvident and with no faintest gift either one to use the power they
could assemble.". But he forgets that he hubbard has never been able
assemble the least political power in any small country where he set a foot,
therefore, he's once again criticizing people while himself had not even
those abilities. His own superior gifts are simple: to Lie, in any case,
Quotes chossen from the 10 pages text on "power", by Hubbard
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 FEBRUARY 1967
Org Exec Course
ADMIN KNOW-HOW THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF LEADERS
A few comments on POWER, being or working close to or under a
Power, which is to say a leader or one who exerts wide primary
influence on the affairs of men.
I have written it this way, using two actual people to give an
example of magnitude enough to interest and to furnish some
pleasant reading. And I used a military sphere so it could be seen
clearly without restimulation of admin problems.
The book referenced is a fantastically able book by the way.
THE MISTAKES OF SIMON BOLIVAR
AND MANUELA SAENZ
Reference: The Book Entitled:
The Four Seasons of Manuela by Victor W. von Hagen, a biography.
A Mayflower Dell Paperback. Oct 1966. 6/
Simon Bolivar was the Liberator of South America from the yoke of
Manuela Saenz was the Liberatress and Consort.
Their acts and fates are well recorded in this moving biography.
But aside from any purely dramatic value the book lays bare and
motivates various actions of great interest to those who lead, who
support or are near leaders.
Simon Bolivar was a very strong character. He was one of the
richest men in South America.
He had real personal ability given to
only a handful on the planet. He was a military commander without
peer in history. Why he would fail and die an exile to be later
deified is thus of great interest. What mistakes did he make?
The freeing of things is the reverse unstated dramatization (the
opposite side of the coin) to the slavery enjoined by the
mechanisms of the mind.
Unless there is something to free men into, the act of freeing is
simply a protest of slavery. And as no humanoid is free while
aberrated in the body cycle, it is of course a gesture to free him
politically as it frees him only into the anarchy of dramatizing
his aberrations with NO control whatever and without something to
fight exterior and with no exteriorization of his interest he
simply goes mad noisily or quietly.
Bolivar had no personal insight at all. He could only "outsight"
and even then he did not look or listen. He glowed things right.
Pitifully it was his undoing that he could.
It never occurred to him to do more than personally magnetize
things into being right and victorious.
He never began to recognize a suppressive and never considered
anyone needed killing except on a battlefield. There it was
glorious. But somebody destroying his very name and soul, and the
security of every supporter and friend, the SP Santander, his
vice-president, who could have been arrested and executed by a
corporal's guard on one one-hundredth of available evidence, could
suborn the whole treasury and population against him, without
Bolivar, continually warned, loaded with evidence, ever even
reprimanding him. And this brought about his loss of popularity and
his eventual exile.
You don't leave an enemy financed and solvent
while you let your friends starve in a game like South American
politics. Oh no.
Honors meant a great deal to Bolivar. To be liked was his life. And
it probably meant more to him than to see things really right.
He had all the power. He did not use it for good or evil. One
cannot hold power and not use it. It violates the power formula.
No, Bolivar was unfortunately the only actor on the stage and no
other man in the world was real to him.
The tragedy of Manuela Saenz as Bolivar's mistress was that she was
never used, never really had a share and was neither protected nor
honored by Bolivar.
Her most fatal mistake was in not bringing down Santander,
Bolivar's chief enemy.
If one would live a life of command or one near to a command, one
must then accumulate power as fast as possible and delegate it as
quickly as feasible and use every humanoid in long reach to the
best and beyond his talents if one is to live at all.
Man is too aberrated to understand at least 7 things about Power:
I Life is lived by lots of people. And if you lead you must either
let them get on with it or lead them on with it actively.
2. When the game or the show is over, there must be a new game or a
new show. And if there isn't somebody else is jolly well going to
start one and if you won't let anyone do it the game will become
3. If you have power use it or delegate it or you sure won't have
4. When you have people use them or they will soon become most
unhappy and you won't have them any more.
5. When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on
the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with
your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail an every
erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the
addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and
bribe the police. And even then you may not live long if you have
retained one scrap of domination in any camp you do not now control
or if you even say, "I favour Politician Jiggs." Abandoning power
utterly is dangerous indeed.
But we can't all be leaders or figures strutting in the limelight
and so there's more to know about this:
6. When you're close to power get some delegated to you, enough to
do your job and protect yourself and your interests, for you can be
shot, fellow, shot, as the position near power is delicious but
dangerous, dangerous always, open to the taunts of any enemy of the
power who dare not really boot the power but can boot you. So to
live at all in the shadow or employ of a power you must yourself
gather and USE enough power to hold your own-without just nattering
to the power to "kill Pete", in straightforward or more suppressive
veiled ways to him as these wreck the power that supports yours. He
doesn't have to know all the bad news and if lie's a power really
he won't ask all the time, "What are all those dead bodies doing at
the door?" And if you are clever, you never let it be thought HE
killed them-that weakens you and also hurts the power source.
"Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will
suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking out,
didn't like me," "Well," he'll say if he really is a power, "why
are you bothering me with it if it's done and you did it. Where's
my blue ink?" Or "Skipper, three shore patrolmen will be along
with your cook, Dober, and they'll want to tell you he beat up
Simson." "Who's Simson?" "He's a clerk in the enemy office
downtown." "Good, when they've done it, take Dober down to the
dispensary for any treatment he needs. Oh yes. Raise his pay." Or
"Sir, could I have the power to sign divisional orders?" "Sure."
7. And lastly and most important, for we all aren't on the stage
with our names in lights, always push power in the direction of
anyone on whose power you depend. It may be more money for the
power, or more ease, or a snarling defense of the power to a
critic, or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark, or
the glorious blaze of the whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise.
If you work like that and the power you are near or depend upon is
a power that has at least some inkling about how to be one, and if
you make others work like that, then the power-factor expands and
expands and expands and you too acquire a sphere of power bigger
than you would have if you worked alone. Real powers are developed
by tight conspiracies of this kind pushing someone up in whose
leadership they have faith. And if they are right and also manage
their man and keep him from collapsing through overwork, bad temper
or bad data, a kind of Juggernaut builds up. Don't ever feel weaker
because you work for somebody stronger. The only failure lies in
taxing or pulling down the strength on which you depend. All
failures to remain a power's power are failures to contribute to
the strength and longevity of the work, health and power of that
power. Devotion requires active contribution outwards from the
power as well as in.
If Bolivar and Manuela had known these things they would have lived
an epic, not a tragedy. They would not have "died in the ditch",
bereft of really earned praise for his real accomplishments even to
this day. And Manuela would not be unknown even in the archives of
her country as the heroine she was.
Brave, brave figures. But if this can happen to such stellar
personalities gifted with ability tenfold over the greatest of
other mortals, to people who could take a rabble in a vast
impossible land and defeat one of Earth's then foremost powers,
with no money or arms, on personality alone, what then must be the
ignorance and confusion of human leaders in general, much less
little men stumbling through their lives of boredom and suffering?
Let us wise them up, huh? You can't live in a world where even the
great leaders can't lead.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder
LRH:jp.rd Copyright (c) 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED