1952 unreleased (not confirmed) tape demo lecture on "entities" by Hubbard. NY Post: "....humans are infested with the souls of dead space aliens."
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
[someone sent me this link to download a Hubbard lecture from 1952]
This is tape 5204c19 - "How to search for incidents on the track"
parts A and B of one reel to reel. It was originally named "How to
search for entities". It was part of the Hubbard College Lectures
("HCL") series of April 1952 and this tape is from FOUR DAYS prior to
Technique 88 being released. The tapes have not been released since
the 1950s because it contains confidential-like material discussing
entities connected to persons and bothering their thoughts/emotions.
Similar to OT-3.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=S26H28OP
Enjoy!
----------------------
(my thoughts:)
This isn't case restimulative enough "like OT 3" to have been named
"confidential".
I don't agree with this labeling.
Who is the person who stated this was NOT released due to it being
"confidential" categorized?
This is NOT even close to the other stuff that was NOT released, like
the Heaven Implants multi page long red ink HCOB from the summer of
1963 by LRH that is a wild bunch of embarrassing soap opera that
people like Dan Koon and Ray Mitoff intentionally did NOT put in the
1991 edition of the red tech vols.
In the early 1990s, Maria Starkey did a project from ASI, where she
was going through LRH's lectures, lectures NOT ever released, which
were 1965-66 vintage, looking for "OT 3" like material, real space
opera stuff that actually DOES relate to OT 3 stuff.
I helped her maintain the computer on which she was typing in
transcripts of all of LRH's unreleased tape lectures in the period
prior to the actual release of the real OT 3 stuff, and she was NOT
looking at a single 1952 tape lecture.
The "real" confidential OT 3 like material is from THAT time slot,
namely 1965-66.
There is NO 1952 tape lecture by Hubbard considered confidential like
OT 3.
It could be embarrassing but it is NOT the same level of
confidentiality as the "real" OT 3 stuff of the late 1960s.
In my opinion, this lecture is NOT even as restimulative or
embarrassing as is the book "History of Man."
There are some Freezone Hubbard fanatics who theoretically are trying
to connect dots between OT 3 confidential stuff and LRH's early
research.
The only connection is "souls", the telepathic leaking of mental
material from these "entities (souls)" that cohabit our bodies with
us, we being our own soul, and the telepathic leaking of mental
turmoil material from an "entity" that cohabits our bodies, from that
entity's mind into our own mind.
That is what is in this lecture that is similar to what LRH lays out
in theory for NOTs Indoctrination and in OT 3 theory.
The leakage of mental stuff from an entity (soul) into our own minds
(each one of us are our own soul with our own mind), THAT is spoken of
in this lecture, and that type of idea of this mental leakage
telepathically YES, I'd agree THAT is the OT 3 like part.
This is a building block to the telepathic leakage mental turmoil
craziness from one soul to another soul, us being the soul that we
are, and we being infested with other souls (body thetans) each of
whom are caked in implants from the 75 million year ago heavy duty 36
and 1/2 day long super intense implanting down back then directly
following the souls (body thetans) all being blown up in earth's
volcanons.
But the space opera intense, killer implant mental crap from the OT 3
incident Wall of Fire 36 and 1/2 half day confusing debilitating
"implant" that all thetans who were killed in the volcanos got, THAT
is the confidential "killer" stuff.
The accumulated automatic running of that implant, uncontrolled, by a
person's hitchhiking load of body thetans, who potentially and
theoretically could be triggered into "running" the 36 and 1/2 day
long implant, THAT is the killer potential "threat" to a
Scientologist's case, for which Hubbard had the protective rules NOT
to discuss the details in public, and trigger that type of mental
"collapse" into those leaked images coming from one's unhandled
unexorcized body thetans (dead alien souls full of implanted harmful
images from their 36 and 1/2 day long implants), that's the "danger"
to Tommy Davis' "case."
If you want to supposedly crash a Scientologist's "case" ask him if
any of his hitchhiking "body thetans" are running that 36 and 1/2
half long "implant" that all his "body thetans" were given 75 million
years ago.
It is the fear that a person's load of body thetans will get triggered
into going into full uncontrolled unstoppable "recall" of that 36 1/2
day long implant, and in so doing, their mental activity will leak
into the Scientologist's mind, and cause the Scientologist thus a
mental deterioration.
Like a very "heavy" "case" question to ask someone like Tommy Davis or
John Carmichael or any other Scientology PR personl, would be:
"Hey Tommy/John, have any of your "body thetans" started to
uncontrollably run the OT 3 thirtysix day and a half long implant
incident and leak that material into your own mind?"
"Hey. are any of your body thetans running non stop through the 36 and
1/2 long day implant, and spreading that insanity into your head
telepathically recently?"
Asking any Scientologist if
"Are any of your body thetans leaking telepathically any bits of the
OT 3 thirtysix day long implant into your head recently?"
THAT will cause them to look at this possibility, and supposedly
"wreck" their "case."
So, compared to this lecture from April 19, 1952, THAT real OT 3
mental damaging "implant" material is WAY more "damaging" and thus
confidential from being discussed or thought about, by average
Scientologists.
The point is that the horrendously overwhelming amount of that
relatively "recent" 36 and 1/2 day long implanting that was done to
all thetans, and all our "body thetans" 75 short million years ago
here on earth, is FAR MORE damaging, supposedly, to Scientologists
"case" condition.
The 1952 earlier Hubbard "entity" telepathic leakage will always be
"lightweight" damage potential by comparison.
Hubbard was so fearful and fear mongering about all these ideas.
Scientology is science fiction spiritualism, it's alien soul
telepathic mental damage fear mongering, where Scientology won't
provide the details of WHY it is so deadly.
This following quote from today's NY Post is a nice simple one:
"The Church of Scientology is under fire for a spate of recent
defections and bizarre teachings, including the idea that humans are
infested with the souls of dead space aliens." - NY Post, 15 Nov 09,
Chuck
Skipper
<2f0375c5-ad3d-4b65...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, <
@aol.com"> wrote:
Chuck, have you ever known anyone who did heavy drugs (particularly
hallucinogens) constantly but could carry on what seemed to be a
coherent conversation, who spoke of things you wondered about but had
never encountered in real life?
I have. Unfortunately it took me a long time to realize Hubbard was a
heavy druggie. The naivete of youth couple with the conditioning of the
$cientology community, my bad.
Nevertheless, that's exactly what L. Ron Hubbard sounded like at his
most ridiculous, which he was doing as early as "The Role of Earth" in
the early 1950s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGKH4Ami59g
Seems to me you are still clinging to the idea that some kind of
esoteric something from $cientology will work somehow, when it's all
really bullshit, and most likely drug-induced bullshit.
Barbara Schwarz
wrote:
> [
It's a forgery.
Barbara Schwarz
Eldon
wrote:
>
> Chuck
Chuck,
Who (besides yourself) really gives a shit about Hubbard's
intergalactic version of shamanism/possession these day? Can you name
maybe three or four people?
Astrid
> In article
> Nevertheless, that's exactly what L. Ron Hubbard sounded like at his
> most ridiculous, which he was doing as early as "The Role of Earth" in
> the early 1950s.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGKH4Ami59g
>
> Seems to me you are still clinging to the idea that some kind of
> esoteric something from $cientology will work somehow, when it's all
> really bullshit, and most likely drug-induced bullshit.
I listened to some tapes of Charles Manson being interviewed in
prison. He reminds me of Hubbard too, except Manson made more sense.
Not referring to either of these links but even if I were a kid, I'd
raise my hand, and ask that if a civilization 75 million years ago,
was advanced enough to reach earth, why the hell would the even use
airplanes that even looked like DC8's. Wouldn't they just beam them
here, or use something like a saucer or sphere. Scientology is a
powerful drug, if people can listen to this stuff, think it means
something, and be impressed by it.
I see Marty Rathbun and his followers as all hallucinating still.
Their reality is Scientology, and other people who believe in it.
Skipper
<28d2d53a-1316-444d...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Astrid <Astrid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's the catch that most people who never went near $cientology don't
understand. THE STUFF THAT IS READILY AVAILABLE ON THE NET NOW WAS NOT
EVEN HINTED AT FOR YEARS OR DECADES TO PEOPLE WHO WERE IN SCIENTOLOGY
FOR A LONG TIME.
For example, when I read the script "Revolt in the Stars" courtesy of
the $cientologist-owned "A Brilliant Film Company" I thought it was
pretty darn cheesy. I had lunch with some OTs and told them what was in
the script and one said "Why, that's the OT3 story!" I said, "I know"
even though I had no idea it was the OT3 story, just covering myself
PR-wise because she didn't know I wasn't OT3. It verified my suspicions
nicely, though.
Elwrong put in the idiot claims like "If you read OT3 before you're
ready you'll get pneumonia and die" and that kind of malarkey was
passed around endlessly. Yvonne Jentzsch, who supposed nursed the
redheaded blowhard back to health after he "broke his back getting
through the Wall of Fire" (OT3) told me all sorts of dire things would
happen to me if I read it before I was ready.
In fact, if you read it before you'd paid an arm and a leg for OT3 and
were completely surrounded by $cientologists as friends and didn't want
to lose your entire social structure by saying "Wow, this is
bullshit!"... well, you probably would have walked from $cientology the
minute you read that load of crap. After "Revolt in the Stars" I was
far less involved in "going up the Bridge" although I did dive heavily
into working on confessional and ethics stuff, wrongly thinking I had
some blame, after former girlfriend Laura Hippe, an OT3, Class IV
auditor who was an alcoholic, killed herself while being "counseled" by
Bruce Wiseman's brother, Bobby Wiseman.
It is very subtle and relentless how $cientology can suck you in with
emotional pulls, despite all logic, and a lot of it has to do with the
way they get you to surround yourself with $cientologists as friends.
xenufrance
"chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckb...@aol.com> a �crit dans le message de
news: 2f0375c5-ad3d-4b65...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I realized while reading (fast and through, no more than going through) a
number of pages of the first 9 blue volumes, that many things were related
to Valances. Further, if one reads the bizarre HCOB " The complexity of the
man" or something like that (1981 or 1982), LRH explains that man is a
complex thing; in terms incitating to think that one is not a single person.
Probably he was schizophrenic enough to develop his own schizophrenia in his
"techs": indeed, on can observe a number of other exemples of himself
describing himself in many of the worse man descriptions or theories he ever
wrote:
- DB
-1.1
-ARCX come from MWHs
-critic = MWHs
-sec checks, confessional questions, etc
-dangerous auditor
-SP, anti-social personality
-etc.
r
Hartley Patterson
> This is tape 5204c19 - "How to search for incidents on the track"
> parts A and B of one reel to reel. It was originally named "How to
> search for entities". It was part of the Hubbard College Lectures
> ("HCL") series of April 1952 and this tape is from FOUR DAYS prior to
> Technique 88 being released. The tapes have not been released since
> the 1950s because it contains confidential-like material discussing
> entities connected to persons and bothering their thoughts/emotions.
> Similar to OT-3.
It is amusing that if it survives Scientology will most likely end up in
the same state as Christianity. The scholars will have sorted out the
writings of LRH in a rational and logical fashion, but the believers will
be ignoring them, going back to Source, picking out the bits they like and
ignoring the rest.
--
ARS FAQ
Please read before posting
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/faq.htm
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
> In article
>
> > Chuck
>
> Chuck, have you ever known anyone who did heavy drugs (particularly
> hallucinogens) constantly but could carry on what seemed to be a
> coherent conversation, who spoke of things you wondered about but had
> never encountered in real life?
>
> I have. Unfortunately it took me a long time to realize Hubbard was a
> heavy druggie. The naivete of youth couple with the conditioning of the
> $cientology community, my bad.
>
> Nevertheless, that's exactly what L. Ron Hubbard sounded like at his
> most ridiculous, which he was doing as early as "The Role of Earth" in
> the early 1950s.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGKH4Ami59g
>
> Seems to me you are still clinging to the idea that some kind of
> esoteric something from $cientology will work somehow, when it's all
> really bullshit, and most likely drug-induced bullshit.
I don't think ANY of Scientology will do ANYTHING, I don't have a
scrap of hope for "exteriorization" or "out of the body", I'm totally
atheist, materialist, it is ALL MEST as far as I am concerned, I'm a
hard core Dawkins atheist.
No, my hope is for MORE simplifying and constant telling of the
Scientology/Hubbard alien exorcism fear mongering theories, in simple
terminology, so the public is served with simply understandable
descriptions.
In Harriet Whitehead's really pretty excellent in depth critical
scholarly book on Scientology, coincidentally it came out just after
LRH died, her book came out in 1987, her book's Chapters 2 and 3 are
excellent in my opinion.
I like the William Burroughs, Gore Vidal, Roy Wallis, Harriet
Whitehead more intellectual criticism of Hubbard.
I like the Steve Pinker, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins
and Christopher HItchens atheistic viewpoint, but I also have become a
"realist" in agreeing with Scott Atrans, who is an atheist but
recognizes/accepts that people will be believing in various unprovable
religious beliefs no matter what.
I think there will always be people sucked into Scientology.
I just want the Xenu/body thetans (alien souls) exorcism therapy
practice of Scientology repeated over and over and over, until the
average person gets what Scientology really is all about.
Because, in the end of the day, inside their "Advanced Organizations",
that is where people are still being sold alien soul exorcism therapy
practice, and learning how to do it on each other and themselves.
That's Scientology, it has to be repeated that that is what
Scientology is, period.
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
> Who (besides yourself) really gives a shit about Hubbard's
> intergalactic version of shamanism/possession these day? Can you name
> maybe three or four people?
Because I was so many years IN the muck, to answer people's questions
of me today, I give the alien exorcism answer to them.
People ask "What Is Scientology". I answer, it's a self-help
psychotherapy made up by a science fiction pulp writer, L. Ron
Hubbard, who's "churches" are really training/therapy centers where
the members learn how to become "spiritual" therapists. They have a
whole long step by step laid out spiritual therapy lineup, the first
big "plateau" is "Clear" where they supposedly handle their own soul's
trauma/mental turmoil (which includes all their past lives mental
trauma), and then the second plateau is the secret/confidential steps
where they learn they and everyone on earth is infested with tens of
thousands of dead alien souls (confidentially know as "body thetans"),
and on the "upper levels" (confidential and secret) that's where the
Scientologists do therapy on each other and "solo" on themselves and
uninfest themselves of the tens of thousands of these dead alien souls
("body thetans") that are infesting them. And THEN once this is all
done, they then supposedly are totally free to become pure souls, able
to "operate" without the need of their bodies.
This all I can explain in about 1 minute, and one for one, it handles
completely, to a new person, it ends the conversation, they feel
satisfied, they feel like they then "get" Scientology.
It's a soul therapy, cleaning up first our own souls, and then
exorcizing the souls infesting us, and it's by a science fiction
writer, and the long term goal is "operating soul", able to operate
without the need of a body.
Skipper
<5d8996dc-ca88-44f5...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, <
@aol.com"> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 1:05�ｿｽpm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2f0375c5-ad3d-4b65-8fab-e7bbd0f4b...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, <
> >
> >
> >
> > @aol.com"> wrote:
> > > [someone sent me this link to download a Hubbard lecture from 1952]
> >
> > > �ｿｽ �ｿｽ This is tape 5204c19 - "How to search for incidents on the track"
> > > parts A and B of one reel to reel. �ｿｽIt was originally named "How to
> > > search for entities". �ｿｽIt was part of the Hubbard College Lectures
> > > ("HCL") series of April 1952 and this tape is from FOUR DAYS prior to
> > > Technique 88 being released. �ｿｽThe tapes have not been released since
> > > the 1950s because it contains confidential-like material discussing
> > > entities connected to persons and bothering their thoughts/emotions.
> > > Similar to OT-3.
> >
> > > �ｿｽ �ｿｽhttp://www.megaupload.com/?d=S26H28OP
> >
> > > �ｿｽ �ｿｽ Enjoy!
> >
> > > ----------------------
> > > (my thoughts:)
> >
> > > This isn't case restimulative enough "like OT 3" to have been named
> > > "confidential".
> >
> > > I don't agree with this labeling.
> >
> > > Who is the person who stated this was NOT released due to it being
> > > "confidential" categorized?
> >
> > > This is NOT even close to the other stuff that was NOT released, like
> > > the Heaven Implants multi page long red ink HCOB from the summer of
> > > 1963 by LRH that is a �ｿｽwild bunch of embarrassing soap opera that
> > > any of his hitchhiking "body thetans" are running �ｿｽthat 36 and 1/2
> > > half long "implant" that all his "body thetans" were given 75 million
> > > years ago.
> >
> > > It is the fear that a person's load of body thetans will get triggered
> > > into going into full uncontrolled unstoppable "recall" of that 36 1/2
> > > day long implant, and in so doing, their mental activity will leak
> > > into the Scientologist's mind, and cause the Scientologist thus a
> > > mental deterioration.
> >
> > > Like a very "heavy" "case" question to ask someone like Tommy Davis or
> > > John Carmichael or any other Scientology PR personl, would be:
> >
> > > "Hey Tommy/John, have any of your "body thetans" started to
> > > uncontrollably run the OT 3 �ｿｽthirtysix day and a half long implant
> > > infested with the souls of dead space aliens." �ｿｽ- NY Post, 15 Nov 09,
> >
> > >http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/my_twisted_life_a...
> >
> > > Chuck
> >
> > Chuck, have you ever known anyone who did heavy drugs (particularly
> > hallucinogens) constantly but could carry on what seemed to be a
> > coherent conversation, who spoke of things you wondered about but had
> > never encountered in real life?
> >
> > I have. Unfortunately it took me a long time to realize Hubbard was a
> > heavy druggie. The naivete of youth couple with the conditioning of the
> > $cientology community, my bad.
> >
> > Nevertheless, that's exactly what L. Ron Hubbard sounded like at his
> > most ridiculous, which he was doing as early as "The Role of Earth" in
> > the early 1950s.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGKH4Ami59g
> >
> > Seems to me you are still clinging to the idea that some kind of
> > esoteric something from $cientology will work somehow, when it's all
> > really bullshit, and most likely drug-induced bullshit.
>
> I don't think ANY of Scientology will do ANYTHING, I don't have a
> scrap of hope for "exteriorization" or "out of the body", I'm totally
> atheist, materialist, it is ALL MEST as far as I am concerned, I'm a
> hard core Dawkins atheist.
That's too bad, sounds like a swing from looking for super OT powers to
"nothing works no way no how in the spiritual realm." Dawkins is an
idiot. Ben Stein took him apart in the documentary "Expelled" when
Dawkins finally in frustration declared that life exists on Earth
because of panspermia - so basically he's not much better than Hubbard,
and he looks about as insane on camera.
>
> No, my hope is for MORE simplifying and constant telling of the
> Scientology/Hubbard alien exorcism fear mongering theories, in simple
> terminology, so the public is served with simply understandable
> descriptions.
I don't really think they care.
>
> In Harriet Whitehead's really pretty excellent in depth critical
> scholarly book on Scientology, coincidentally it came out just after
> LRH died, her book came out in 1987, her book's Chapters 2 and 3 are
> excellent in my opinion.
>
> I like the William Burroughs, Gore Vidal, Roy Wallis, Harriet
> Whitehead more intellectual criticism of Hubbard.
>
> I like the Steve Pinker, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins
> and Christopher HItchens atheistic viewpoint, but I also have become a
> "realist" in agreeing with Scott Atrans, who is an atheist but
> recognizes/accepts that people will be believing in various unprovable
> religious beliefs no matter what.
>
> I think there will always be people sucked into Scientology.
>
> I just want the Xenu/body thetans (alien souls) exorcism therapy
> practice of Scientology repeated over and over and over, until the
> average person gets what Scientology really is all about.
That has been achieved, in spades. South Park took care of that
(seriously, that was a spine-breaker for the cult).
>
> Because, in the end of the day, inside their "Advanced Organizations",
> that is where people are still being sold alien soul exorcism therapy
> practice, and learning how to do it on each other and themselves.
> That's Scientology, it has to be repeated that that is what
> Scientology is, period.
>
Really? I don't think they're selling much of it.
When I got the hell out of the cult, my career boomed. I wouldn't have
sold all the books and scripts I have, taught the thousands of people I
have better writing techniques and ways of selling, and gained
influential friends all over the world had I spent my time solely
concentrated on the bullshit of $cientology. While I appreciate your
efforts, Chuck, I think you might be just a bit too delved into the
minutiae of the cult and esoteric pursuits about it that don't really
have much impact. I hope that you are more heavily involved in things
that are bringing you joy and remuneration and better health.
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
> "chuckbeatty77 @aol.com" <chuckbeatt...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message denews: 2f0375c5-ad3d-4b65-8fab-e7bbd0f4b__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
For very little money, I think Harriet Whitehead's "Renunciation and
Reformulation", 1987, Cornel University Press, on Amazon, is well
worth the price, only about 7 dollars US.
Her chapter 3 she compares Freud, Jung and Hubbard.
Her chapter 2 is a very good intellectual criticisms of Hubbard, and
his followers:
from "Renunciation and Reformulation" by Harriet Whitehead, 1987,
Cornell University Press,
page 52-53:
"...Elements of hype and razzle-dazzle, however, do nor necessarily a
con artist make. Taken in the context of Hubbard's long-term
commitment to the elaboration, promulgation, and defense of his idea
system, even during financially unrewarding years, and also in light
of the barricades of secrecy, conspiracy theory, and defensive
litigation with which he surrounded his embattled organization (see
Wallis 1976:190-241), these traits seem less indicative of greed for
gain than part of an egoistic complex that often characterizes
visionaries, cranky or not. If Hubbard had trouble appearing fully
sincere about his ideas when broadcasting them to the general public,
this is arguable the result of a deep unwillingness to reveal his real
vulnerability in regard to them. Knowing that his ideas wer apt to
take a critical pounding in the press, he hid behind flamboyant
overstatement and commercialism...."
"A somewhat different form of self-distancing can be discerned in his
taped lectures to Scientology audiences. Here, instead of a pitchman,
we hear a genial pedagogue, expounding his theories in a way best
described as affectionate and playful. His more stupefying
assertions, sliding by almost parenthetically, seem to bemuse him and
are often followed by some mood-lightening irreverence, as if to
proclaim, 'The truth is whacky, is't it, but what can I say?' Here
Hubbard models the stance of the pragmatic intellectualist who, upon
finding that it somehow 'works' to subscribe to certain ideas his
critical faculty may have difficulty accepting, surrenders his
resistance but not his sense of humor, the latter remaining to attest
to his fundamental good sense. I observed this stance in a number of
his followers too." - Harriet Whitehead, "Renunciation and
Reformulation", 1987, Cornell University Press.
She's not a hard core skeptic critic of Hubbard's behavior, but she
gets into what he's trying to pull over on his audience by his "self-
distancing".
I think she needed to listen to a couple of his lectures, like the one
I put at the top of this thread.
I was thinking of how had she listened to this lecture, and had she
listened to the Class 8 lecture, "Assists", and had she read some of
the OT 3 theory bulletins, and the NOTs Indoctrination Series number 1
issue, and if she read a few more of Hubbard's pulp stories, in
particular the "One Was Stubborn" story, and had she had access to
Hubbard's filing cabinets of private despatch traffic ("advices") to
his movement leadership in Hubbard's final 10 years, she'd have
changed her views a bit.
The INCOMM "advices" about the long ago space alien "Duke of Chug" who
was detected and executed by the computer system of that long ago
space civilization, on which the church's today INCOMM computer
organization is based, she'd see the blending of Hubbard's science
fiction beliefs (reality) as operative on the church today, there is a
huge blending of the results of Hubbard's and his followers' mental
created science fiction imagery memories that found their way into
existing church policy.
And if she had seen the "Why TRs" film where LRH, speaking through the
narrator of this church training film that is seen today only by Class
6 church therapists, she'd have seen Hubbard's future lives vision for
the higher trained Scientologists.
I wish we had another Harriett Whitehead out there willing to really
dig into Scientology like she and Roy Wallis did.
We have a LOT more raw material to feed that future scholar who
attempts the big "monograph" book Scientology or Hubbard.