What is always in dispute between critics and scientologists, is the scientology pretenses and claims.

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 scam.

All this is exactly based onto the following Policy: Responsability of Leaders.

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 earased 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 twice.

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 earsed from his past. Bolivar was'nt the chief of the Junata 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 of 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.

Also, the sudden admiration of Hubbard toward Bolivar could have been born out of the fact that Bolivar has started his "pleins pouvoirs" as a military 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 Hubabrd about Bolivar are quite different from the realities, and far from showing a very intesresting "libertador", show 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 flee in 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 others) crimes.

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 least by 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 a 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 your 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 not 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 to 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, to everybody.

Is there somebody who has read the book :

"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/"

and compared it to what LRH wrote in his text, so as to know if he has copied entire portions of it?


224 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 Spain.

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?

.../...

BOLIVAR'S ERRORS 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.

.../...

MANUELA SAENZ 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 "getting you".

3. If you have power use it or delegate it or you sure won't have it long.

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 soon with your cook, Dober, and they'll want to tell you he beat up 233 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", he 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

Go Back