From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 2 - August 1991

See Home Page at

The Past Lives of L. Ron Hubbard(1)
and what can be learned from them.

by Knud Eriksen, Denmark

L. Ron Hubbard didn't 'believe' in past lives. He worked with
them - used them in the techniques of auditing. They constituted
the dominant part of his philosophy, and he is quoted as having said:
' I know with certainty where I was and who I was in the last
80 trillion years.' Although this may be slightly exaggerated
and a good example of his taste for colouring his stories - to
put it diplomatically - there are several facts which indicate
that he, himself, was totally certain of at least some of his earlier
One of these facts is the well-known Mission into Time cruise
of l968, also called A Test of Whole Track Recall. This expedition
was partly a treasure hunt, during which Ron intended to dig up
which he had stashed away in past lives - as a captain or sailor
in the phoenician navy around 200 B.C. and in the 18th century as
a pirate, sailing between the Mediterranean and the new world.
Ron was obsessed with gold and cash, according to statements from
many of his nearest associates.
A couple of years earlier Ron had carried out another treasure hunt -
a one-man expedition of 3-4 months duration in Rhodesia.
His double purpose in paying this visit to Rhodesia in the spring
of 1966 was to win a country for Scientology (after the 'loss'
of Australia and at a time when Rhodesia had just made a Unilateral
Declaration of Independence in defiance of the British government)
and to find the enormous diamond and gold treasures, which he was
convinced that the multi-millionaire Cecil John Rhodes (after whom
Rhodesia was named) had stashed away.
Ron would be the person to know this, since he was certain
that he was Cecil Rhodes, in an earlier life from 1853 until 1902.
From 1902 to 1911 he was a little boy, who drowned. In 1911 L. Ron
Hubbard was born. He was so certain that he had been Rhodes, that,
during his stay in Rhodesia, he carried on just as if he was the
owner of the country, who had returned. He also liked to sport the
kind of hat worn by Rhodes.
Neither the treasure hunt in Rhodesia nor the one in the Mediterranean
were any great successes for Ron. In July 1966 he was expelled from
Rhodesia as an unwanted person, and he later claimed, to have lost
o200,000 in this adventure. During the Mediterranean cruise no gold
was found, either, as far as I know. However, there have been
from members of the expedition (f.ex. Hana Eltringham) to the effect
that metal detectors gave positive reads where Ron had predicted
treasures. However, all the locations were guarded historical ruins.
One member (Larry Reeves) claims to have seen a pirates chest full
of jewels and ancient gold coins in the ship.

Valuable exposures.

However, I'm not nearly as interested in Rons gold as I am in an
of his (alleged) past lives. Several people have, by now, studied
and brought to light many sections and aspects of his latest life.
This has given me a valuable understanding of the philosophy, the
organisation and the way of life which I have known and felt attached
to for many years.
An interesting parallel to the exposure-books about L. Ron Hubbard
is the present controversial book Intellectuals by the English
historian Paul Johnson. In it many of the fathers and founders of
socialist and communist philosophies, from the past 200 years,
are examined under the magnifying glass. This certainly doesn't do
much for their looks, but just as Paul Johnsons book probably, in
most cases, doesn't remove the basic fascination which socialists
have towards socialism and the various founders of it, such as
Rousseau, Marx and Bertrand Russell, the juicy exposures of Rons life
and background hasn't taken away my old wish to continue studies of,
and use of his philosophy and techniques. And I am, if anything, more
fascinated with L. Ron Hubbard, the more I have read about his
life and complex personality.
It is this fascination, then, which is the reason why I started to
read biographies of Cecil John Rhodes and the other historical persons
which Ron claims to have been, to see if there might be any truth
in this.
As far as I know no-one has done so yet (if I'm wrong I'll be very
interested to hear their results).
It has been very exciting to do this, and I feel that I've come to
understand L. Ron Hubbard better than before.

Cecil John Rhodes.

First let me give a mini-introduction of him, taken from three
different encyclopedias:
'The life of Cecil John Rhodes (1853-1902), South African financier
and statesman and one of the great empire builders, spanned the heyday
of British imperialism. When he was born, central Africa was virgin
territory, and it was still possible to make a fortune and acquire
power by what Rhodes called 'philanthropy plus five percent',
or to dream of 'painting the map red' (to plant the British
flag) from the Cape of Good Hope to Cairo. He achieved the first and
made advances toward the second. By the time he died, however, the
second South African (Boer) War had already exposed the weaknesses
of imperialism. His notions of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon
race soon faded, and his real dreams were never fulfilled. His name
survives only in Rhodesia and the Rhodes Scholarships in Oxford.'
Encyclopedia Britannica,1974.
'Cecil John Rhodes (1853-1902) British politician. Went to South
Africa for health reasons and gained widespread influence on the
production in Kimberley. 1881 member of the parliament in the
1890-95 prime minister, founded, 1889, British South Africa Co.
most gold and diamond mines in South Africa and worked energetically
for the expansion of British rule in the continent. Had great visions
concerning the British empire. The large area, which was known as
Rhodesia until 1964, had been named after him (now Zambia and
Lademanns Encyclopedia, 1986, Denmark.
'Rhodes, Cecil (John), 1853-1902, British states man and capitalist.
Made fortune in South Africa by monopoly of Kimberley diamond
Persuaded Britain to annex Bechuanaland in 1881. Formed British South
Africa Co. to exploit mining concessions. Prime minister and virtual
dictator of Cape Colony 1890-96, he conspired to seize Transvaal;
forced to resign after raid of Sir Leander Jameson. Developed
Left fortune to public service, including Rhodes Scholarships (32
for U.S., others for German and British colonies).'The Columbia
Viking Desk Encyclopedia,l964.

A More Thorough Presentation.

These short presentations are, by and large, correct, but they are,
of course, not adequate for an understanding of him and they do not
pay him justice.
He was, in fact, a very great and strong person who had sky-high
about saving humanity. His conceived means for doing this was the
expansion of the British empire to become a universal, civilized rule,
which would bring the fruits of the Industrial Revolution plus the
other benefits - as he saw it - of the Anglo-Saxon culture
to the underfed and barbaric peoples of the earth. Also, this
rule was to gain so great a power, that wars would become impossible
in the future. He was, naturally, 'a child of his time' and
regarded the Anglo-Saxon race as the highest developed and best
suited to rule over the rest of the world. It was even, according
to the predominant thinking of the time, the solemn duty, 'White
Mans Burden'.
The first milestone in this project was to be the reunion of all
areas of the world, and especially reunion with the lost America.
The recently discovered lines of communication, telegraph and railroad
were the means to speed up the close knitting together of the whole
This was far from being a primitive or brutal greed for power.
Together with most other imperialists of the period, he saw as equally
important to grabbing countries, that the illiterate and poor lower
class of Britain itself was advancing, and he worked for a
empire, where countries would have their own way in local affairs.
The British empire grew to include, at its highest point, 1/5 of the
worlds land-areas and 1/4 of its entire population. So his dream in
fact proved to be quite realistic and came close to a success.
The question of how the British empire was destroyed as well as
the story of how Rhodes' plans for worldpeace and welfare were
used/abused, is yet another fascinating subject. I will not go any
further into this, apart from mentioning, that the entire financial
and political life of the 20th century up till now has been dominated
by the basic notion of a united world, where even the methods for
obtaining this and the initial financing of key personnel training
was taken from Rhodes' wills, including his 'Rhodes Scholarships'
in Oxford.
So he was not a Mr. Anybody, and had the British empire kept and
its size and power, there would, today, have been statues of him in
all parts of the world, and school children would know about his life
and regard him as a hero. The British empire, however, was broken
down, as is a well known fact, during the first half of this century,
and today it is not fashionable, but rather bad manners, to speak
well of any persons or ideas from that era. Communist propaganda
over the years and unfavourable, although unreal, associations to
Hitlers attempts to create 'the Millenium' are the main reasons
for this.

A 'Demonic' Idealist.

He was a lone wolf his entire life, and opinions for and against him
were strong. His opponents accused him of using bribery to reach his
goals, and they accused him of feathering his own nest rather than
being philanthropic or furthering the ends of the empire. After he
died, at the time when his will was disclosed, those who had been
foremost in detraction admitted the purity of his motives, he was
fully rehabilitated, and his reputation immediately rose to new
In an old edition of Encyclopedia Britannica is the following
of his personality, based on the authors personal knowledge of Rhodes
and interviews with contemporaries:
'Rhodes' impetuosity and impatience in act and speech gave in
his lifetime an impression of him which was misleading. Like all
he accepted the conditions of life as he found them, having much
to do and little time, as he knew from his malady, to do it in. By
nature he had the shy, sensitive, kindness of a boy. But while his
nameless benefactions were many, he affected brutality and hardness,
making it his principle to subordinate friendship and all individual
claims to his schemes. Yet he was not in truth a hard man. Except
in finance, where he was out distanced by Alfred Beit, his mere
aptitudes were not remarkable; in conventional accomplishments he
was not well equipped. He had few ideas, but these he had worked
for, testing their value by his life's experience, and wore them,
so to say, next to his skin. The ideas and dexterities which most
cultivated men of affairs have about them, as it were ready made,
were not his. His temperament was unequal, almost incalculable,
extreme naivete and simplicity with strokes of amazing and unexpected
shrewdness. His work in its entire detail seemed to be done by others.
While he apparently dreamed, they really and on their own initiative
drafted letters, designed meetings and conjunctions, supported or
opposed policies, and drew up as it were programmes, which in a little
he roused himself to act upon. Yet there was no end to the qualities
he held in reserve. He seemed to muse, yet was suddenly alert with
the perception of clairvoyance, revealing a grasp of detail in
where he had been rashly supposed ignorant. He talked anyhow; yet
his felicity of phrase after columns of commonplace was uncanny. The
subordinates who did so much of his work, were lost without him. He
was there, and the rest followed; he was not there, and nothing was
done. In a word he was 'demonic' and the impression of greatness
which he had on his subordinates is reflected in the view now taken
of him by his countrymen. His life, however rightly or wrongly
in detail, is seen to have been steadily devoted to impersonal and
public service and a cause which was really the greater friendliness
of mankind.'


Wealth was to him not a purpose in itself. His purpose was above all
'to paint the map red' and 'to be useful to my country'.
He became one of the wealthiest men of that time, yet he had always
overdrawn his account, primarily to pay for his two pet projects:
a telegraph-line and a railroad all the way from the tip of South
Africa to Cairo in Egypt. Those were enormous enterprises, considering
the tools of the time. He succeeded in building the telegraph line
but not the railroad. It was too much for his private purse, big as
it might be, and there were insurmountable problems in getting the
line through Sudan and German East Africa. A long stretch, however,
was built. His third major project was to bring together the english
population and the dutch (Boers) in South Africa, and to unite the
provinces of the area under the British throne.
He used his great wealth to further these goals, and the main reason
why the British government let him do as he pleased in many ways,
was just this: that he was about to serve the entire African continent
to them on a silver platter, wholly financed by himself.
Apart from this he had a phenomenal ability to handle and be liked
by both the english and the dutch. Also the black workers and
(the Matabele people) liked him or respected him. These personal
made him indispensable in South African politics.
He preferred to deal with opponents rather than fight them, which
he called 'to square' (buy out), and he believed that every
man had a price. This policy, which he deemed necessary to obtain
his goals, was mainly what lay behind the accusations for bribery
as a working method.


The turning point in his career came in l896, when he - while
he was the prime minister of the Cape-province - took part in
a conspiracy aimed at overthrowing the boer-president Paul Kruger
and conquer the province of Transvaal. Paul Kruger and his motto of
'Africa for Afrikaners' (dutch) was in the way of Rhodes'
and British expansion to the north. The conspiracy failed and Rhodes
was forced to resign for his part in it.
He could actually have publicly repudiated the failed rebellion/raid,
and thus have saved his own neck, as did the Colonial minister,
and the High Commissioner, Robinson, although they both knew of -
and approved of the attack. He didn't want to do this, as he would
have had to betray his friend for 20 years, Dr. Jameson, who headed
the force of 500 men, which had raided 'a friendly neighbour'
and was now prisoners in Transvaal.
Rhodes tried to stop Jameson by telegraph, when he learned that the
insurrection, that had been planned to take place concurrent with
the attack, from within Johannesburg, was not going to take place
after all. But Jameson continued in spite of this message, and the
attack failed.
Rhodes had to resign as director of the British South Africa Co. as
well, but he didn't whimper. He paid all the fines levied by the Boers
and concentrated from now on his energy on the development of the
North (Rhodesia), particularly the railroad and telegraph line, and
he became interested in experimental farming, among other things.
He had lost the possibility to carry to completion his great scheme
in its entirety. His power had been curtailed, he lost the support
of the Boers and also his own government, with a new High
distrusted him from then on. He became a symbol of the scheming
His will, which was changed several times, left his fortune for
Scholarships' - to educate young promising students from the
colonies and elsewhere - chosen in accordance with elaborate
criteria laid down by Rhodes, - in furtherance of the old goal
of expanding the empire. But his last years held many disappointments,
and toward the end he became autocratic and imperious, and was
by sycophants.


Did I then find any basis for an assumption that Ron had in fact been
this person? - Yes, I think I found a great deal of 'evidence'.
The more I read from detailed biographies, the easier I found it to
say LRH = CJR. This experience will definitely be stronger if you
read such biographies yourself. I'll recommend Cecil Rhodes -
the Anatomy of Empire by J.Marlowe, l972 (the latest I know of).
In the following, however, I will try to indicate some of the
between the two men, taken primarily from this biography, abbreviated
AE, and from several editions of Encyclopedia Britannica,
abbreviated EB:

Goals in life.

Primarily we have Rhodes' all-engrossing goal: to save humanity. The
way he planned to do it - which was the possibility of his time
and what he called his 'patent' - was to weld together
all English-speaking areas under British rule etc.
L. Ron Hubbard wanted to do the same by disseminating his auditing
techniques and thereby 'Clearing the Planet'.
They were equally strong and persistent in their attempts to reach the

Life cycles.

The life cycles of the two men have strong similarities.
They both worked their way up from modest living conditions to great
wealth, and this wealth didn't mean much, by itself, to either of
them. They were both convinced, that the money provided the necessary
power to reach their goals.
They were both practical men, self-taught to a large extent, in so
far as theoretical knowledge was concerned. They didn't have much
patience to follow a long, tedious study schedule without deviations.
They were both strongly interested in philosophy, but not in a diffuse
manner. Only in so far as their personal plan for action was enhanced.
They both stressed the use of communication-lines as their most
tool. L. Ron Hubbard did this with auditing, Rhodes in the use of
telegraph and railroads.
They both had controversial, questionable operating policies. Rhodes
'bribed' or bought his opponents. Hubbard used intelligence
and PR-techniques and court cases (for harassment) against his
They were both impatient about achieving their goals, Rhodes because
he suffered from a weak heart and didn't expect to live long, Hubbard
because he expected an atomic war any day, unless....., and
this impatience, in its turn, led both men to further exaggerate their
questionable methods of dealing with opponents.
Rhodes attempted to overthrow a 'friendly neighbour' through
a conspiracy and armed attack. Hubbards exaggeration came when he
stole government documents through his Guardian office to get an edge
on his opponents. This led to raids on three of his headquarters by
the FBI (the biggest raid in the history of the FBI) and it was, at
least in part, the reason why he had to live in hiding during the
last 9 years of his life.
The last years was a down trip for both men, full of disappointments,
where their past and questionable methods caught up with them, as
nemesis (Rhodes' reputation for scheming and bribing etc., Hubbards
guardian-techniques, including PR-lies about his own achievements).
They both ended their lives, seriously stopped in their plans, largely
stripped of the power they used to have, surrounded by boot-lickers.
They both became imperious, autocratic and irritable in their old
days, and finally both died from heart attack, according to available


If you go into detail in order to get a clearer impression of their
character and behaviour in everyday living, there are even more
similarities, especially their 'demoniac' characteristic,
with an ability to keep an audience spell-bound, an ability to obtain
total dedication and loyalty, also from great personalities, ability
to get solutions to problems through their mere presence, and the
apparent carelessness with which they delegated work.
It is interesting also, that they apparently both had advanced
abilities. Rhodes communicated telepathically with his friend, Dr.
Jameson (Something of Myself by Rudyard Kipling, l937), although
this ability seemed to betray him when he most needed it. Many stories
and statements about Hubbard tend to prove, that he had advanced
abilities, including clairvoyance and telepathic communication.
I take it for granted now, that all readers of this magazine know
from first hand experience, how Hubbard impressed people. So I will
go on to give some examples of Rhodes' character and the way he
impressed people he met:
'He impressed his hearers as 'a good type of English country
gentleman' -
nervous, ungainly, but of a most effective frankness. As a speaker
he seemed to think, or rather dream, out loud. His vocabulary was
poor, although he hit sometimes on a telling phrase; he had moments
of discursive obscurity. Yet men who had listened to the famous
orators of the world found themselves strangely impressed by his
A strong persuasiveness and candour, helped by his appearance,
held any audience. But 'fundamental brainwork' had been done
before he rose, and when trimmed of excrescences the ordered clearness
of his sequences was perfect.'(EB)
'...the force of his personality having impressed the High
Sir Hercules Robinson...' (so he had his way with him). (EB)
'...he went straight to the house of the Boer commandant, Van
Niekirk, who had refused to acknowledge Mackenzie as resident. He
informed Rhodes that 'blood must flow'. Rhodes replied 'Give
me my breakfast and let us see to that afterwards'. Having dismounted,
he stayed with Van Niekirk six weeks, and became godfather to his
'Everything he undertook was on a massive scale. 'I like the
big and simple - barbaric if you like,' he would say. Men
found him both harsh and generous but always pertinacious and
'Though unimpressive as a speaker and contemptuous of parliamentary
procedure, he earned respect by his original views.'(EB)
'Though Rhodes was no orator, he expressed his large ideas in
popular phrases, many of which - 'British dominion from Cape
to Cairo', 'painting the map red', 'the imperial factor',
'philanthropy plus 5%' - gained common usage. He combined
an almost visionary zeal for British expansion with a frank belief
that money was power and that one could always deal rather than
with an opponent. He gained the fervent loyalty and friendship of
some of his most outstanding contemporaries, but toward the end he
became autocratic, imperious, and was surrounded by sycophants.'
'He was as inarticulate as a schoolboy of fifteen. Jameson and
he, as I perceived later, communicated by telepathy .... Rhodes had
a habit of jerking out sudden questions as disconcerting as those
of a child - or the Roman emperor he so much resembled. He said
to me a propos of nothing in particular: 'What's your dream?'
I answered that he was part of it....' (Something of Myself
by Rudyard Kipling, 1937, p.149)
'In the Legislative Assembly and in his cabinet he established
almost as complete a mastery as he had in the board rooms of de Beers
and the Chartered Company.' (AE, p.l97)
'He had at his beck and call some of the ablest and most dedicated
men, as well as some of the biggest scoundrels of the British empire.'
(AE, p.212)
'But the scholarships remain. They have indeed been shorn of their
imperial significance, and they contribute nothing to the ideals which
Rhodes made the basis of his life. But they provide opportunities
for useful careers for ordinary, decent men of the type of Pickering,
Jourdan and Grimmer whom Rhodes, in his inner heart probably preferred
to the brilliant and usually unscrupulous adventurers who were the
indispensable accomplices of his vast and grandiose schemes.... It
seems not to have entered his mind that he himself could never have
won a Rhodes Scholarship.' (AE, p.293)
And finally there are numerous accounts, varying a bit in the details,
of his courage and cleverness at the time when he prevented a war
with the Matabele-people. Accompanied by only a few interpreters
and scouts he went to the Matopo Hills near Bulawayo to negotiate
peace with them. In doing this he defied the advice of the military
and others. He succeeded. He is reported to have said, that it was
'one of those moments in life that make it worth living' -
referring in particular to the moment, when he was suddenly surrounded
by 20-30 Matabele warriors who did not attack but instead started
preliminary negotiations with him. He chose the place where it
for his burial place, and called it 'View of the World'.
I found several more resemblances between the two men, and many more
could be found through a more detailed study of biographies,
by people who knew Ron personally. It must be said, also, that I found
apparent differences, but these are outnumbered by at least 10 to
1, and have therefore been left out.

A Key to Understanding.

Whether L. Ron Hubbard was, in fact, Cecil Rhodes in an earlier life
or whether he just believed so himself, I think that we can gain
valuable understanding of him through the study of Rhodes. In the
first case this is self evident. In the latter case it is due to the
fact, that his conviction then seems to have been so strong that he
took the valence of Rhodes or at least copied him to a large extent.
Rhodes, then, is a key to understanding Hubbard (aided by the fact
that many biographies of Rhodes exist and that the historical distance
to him is greater than to Hubbard). And it is obvious that
Hubbard is a key to understanding Scientology.

Other Lives

Ron has furthermore claimed to have been Buddha (Siddharta
Gautama) around 500 B.C., the Duke of Medici in 16th century
Italy, when he wrote the famous/notorious 'The Prince' (which
Ron claims was stolen and published posthumously by Machiavelli)
and Robespierre, the famous/notorious revolution leader during
the french revolution in the 18th century. Ron has mentioned other
incarnations, but these are either unknown persons or persons living
so far back in time (and even in non-Earth societies), that no
informations exist. Quite a bit of information exist, however, about
the above three historical persons, particularly the Duke of
and Robespierre. But even though all informations about Buddha are
legends, the study of all three is well worth while for gaining
an understanding of Hubbard.
The claim that Hubbard was Buddha, is stated publicly in the book
'Hymn of Asia' by Hubbard. The claims of having been the other
two come from private conversations (see Corydon and Miller).
It is no wonder that Ron has been rather quiet as far as those two
are concerned, for they are very controversial and despised by many
(not the Duke of Medici but Machiavelli).
The very fact that Ron, himself, thinks he was them, and the fact
that he tells about it gives us important information about him,
when coordinated with the known facts from the lives of both Rhodes
and Hubbard.
For he seems to have acted in accordance with the thoughts and the
behaviour of all of these persons.
I have only made a rather superficial study of these three persons.
More should be done, but I consider that I have done enough to be
able to draw some conclusions.


Siddharta Gautama lived around 500 B.C. We only have legends about
him, but many of these. He is only remembered for the good he did,
and he has had an enormous influence on the later spiritual
in the world. There are 500 million buddhists today. His only 'known'
negative act was to leave his young wife and newly born son at the
age of 29-30. One may assume that they were not happy about that.
He was the son of a king and it had been prophesied that he would
either become a ruler of the world or, if he left his house, a Buddha
(Bodhi, enlightened person). His choice is well known. He became a
Buddha and refrained from becoming a ruler of men. His goal was to
discover the natural laws of life and to help all human beings find
the true happiness.
L. Ron Hubbards technology and his stated aims were of the same
in the written materials and in its effects. But L. Ron Hubbard didn't
choose between 'playing' Buddha and ruler of men. He used
means that originated with each of the models. Why?

The Duke of Medici - Machiavelli.

Niccolo Machiavelli (l469-1527) is thought to have written The
Prince in 1513. It was not published till 1532. He is, above
all, known as the author of this work. It was a textbook on politics.
Machiavellis goal was the liberation of Italy, and in the book he
claims, that all means are permitted for a prince, who wants to
his own, or more importantly, the state power. A clever prince should
be unscrupulous.
It is one of the most hated and attacked writings of history, because
of its total cynicism.
Machiavelli had, himself, seen how noblemen would be proclaimed rulers
of Italian cities and principalities one year, only to be forced into
exile or die through assassination or in battle the next year.
It therefore became a central problem how a 'new prince' could
keep his power. Through his virtue, braveness and generosity the
would win the loyalty of his subjects - at least he had to give
the impression that he possessed these qualities. 'Numerous
modern examples' showed that a prince often had to break promises
and agreements and had to use intrigues, treachery and violence
in this evil world. To survive the vicissitudes of life you had to
combine the strength of the lion with the cunning of the fox, the
human with the bestial.
Already in the 16th century Machiavelli had come to symbolise the
falsities, immoralities and cynicisms in the world of politics.
the Great and Voltaire wrote anti-Machiavelli books.
At the same time many politicians have voiced great admiration for
the cleverness and insights of Machiavelli. Among these are Emperor
Karl the 5th., the French Queen Catharina de Medici and Cardinal
Modern dictators, such as Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler have claimed
to have further developed the principles set out in The Prince.
The work is the most influential in the western world alongside 'Das
Kapital' by Karl Marx.
It is written in a clear and beautiful italian, and Machiavelli became
to italian prose what Dante became to italian poetry. The
today, of Machiavelli, has become more realistic. He is now seen as
a 'a child of his age', who was simply more frank and honest
than his contemporaries.

A Recurring Theme.

Whether L. Ron Hubbard, then, was Machiavelli, or, as he claims,
the Duke of Medici, it is this work: The Prince, that he claims
was his. He has mentioned it more than once, apparently (see Corydon
and Miller), and it seems to have been on his mind more than
In his alleged life as Cecil Rhodes he apparently used this
as one guide, but held in check, it seems, by the way of the Buddha
as the opposite guideline. He probably remained doubtful as to which
one was the right. Both had given him trouble. You might call it
but on the other hand, a label doesn't add much to the understanding.
In the life of L. Ron Hubbard this 'schizophrenia'
is seen again - the mixing in the same person of the opposed
and Machiavelli-methods as a recurring theme.
Ron didn't choose between them but used both simultaneously.
This was - once again - the case with this last incarnation,
that I'm going to present:


'Maximilien de Robespierre (1758-94) French lawyer and
revolution leader. R., who was an ardent adherent of the ideas of
Rousseau, became a member of the National Assembly 1789 and joined
the far left. Eloquent and known as incorruptible, he soon gained
influence and became one of the leaders of the Jacobins. After the
elimination of the kingdom in 1792 he became the leader of the Paris
Commune, and together with Danton he made the Welfare Committee of
the Convention into the actual government, supported by the armed
gangs of the countrys lower class. As the most powerful person in
the Welfare Committee after the death of Danton, R. became responsible
for the Reign of Terror, which, according to his plans was going to
lead to a radical economic reform to benefit the poor. Overthrown
and executed 1794.'(Gyldendals Encyclopedia, Denmark)
The following are some interesting excerpts from Salomonsens
Encyclopedia, danish equivalent to Encyclopedia Britannica,
given to describe his personality:
'He studied law and became a lawyer in Arras. In Paris
he had become acquainted with the ideas of Rousseau, at home he acted
as a proponent of the ideas of freedom and equality, and he
took on several trials as counsel for the defence, through which he
gained a reputation for defending the little and poor people.'
'..he probably had no part in the staging of the September-murders,
but politically he used the results of them.'
'...however, he didn't share the militant attitudes of
the Jacobins, and he feared a triumphant general; but by speaking
against the war he received attention, and through his touching
speeches about virtue he became the womens favourite priest.'
'During the debate concerning the trial of the King, his
proposal of 3. december to kill the King immediately was hindered
by them, for a while, but the death of the King was a triumph for
'...being an adherent of Rousseaus deism he would not
tolerate their worshipping of Reason, and in march 1794 they were
'The Welfare Committee now became an obedient tool for
R.... The police and the courts were placed under R..... and with
the support of the armed gangs of Paris, under Henriot, he headed
the Reign of Terror from then on. First he attempted to create the
state religion of Rousseau. On May 7. he made the Convention pass
a law which proclaimed that the French people acknowledged the
faith in the Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul, then
the Celebration of The Supreme Being on June 8.......'
'....when the Reign of Terror worsened, and 1366 executions
were carried out between june 10 and july 27 (1794), the enemies of
R. in the Convention formed a conspiracy against the 'Tyrant'...'.
'....R. was not a pioneer in the revolution, in the same
way as Mirabeau and Danton. He didn't possess the strong passions
of the blood and flesh, to stir up the masses, and he lacked the power
of will needed for great actions. But in his over-particular vanity
and his envy he was indefatigable in the striving for power. And after
the overthrow of the aristocracy, when the lower class citizens
palmy days, he became their ideal; he was, more than anyone else,
an embodiment of everything which is fussy in the french national
character. Meticulous in the way he dressed, always perfectly powdered
and formal, he knew how to impress, and through his sentimentality
he won the women, first of all. With his anxious prudence and touchy
vanity he became the one to drive the Reign of Terror into the
But the ideas of Rousseau, which he tried to carry out, remained with
him barren doctrines. His virtual dictatorship paved the way for
He is the direct source of such opposite subjects as state
socialism (communism as practised in this century) and The Declaration
of The Rights of Man. Definitely a very controversial and complex
personality. Schizophrenic comes to mind again.


At the end of the much quoted Armstrong trial the judge said
in his verdict: ' ....The organization clearly is schizophrenic
and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection
of its founder etc....'
Yes, that is true. - Especially after my examination of
Rons alleged past lives it has become my understanding - so far,
that it was really this unhandled part of his case which led
to his tragedy and to that of his church. Had he been 'cured',
there would have been far more emphasis on tech and auditing and far
less policy, control and abuse. More 'Buddha' and less 'Machiavelli'.
This was the sort of thing that OT 3 was supposed to take care of.
I still don't know, of course, if Ron really lived these lives,
but I find no good reason to doubt it. In many ways his last life
was more fantastic and colourful than the lives of Buddha,
of Medici, Robespierre or Cecil Rhodes.
His personality was as strong as theirs. And I consider that
I have found many significant resemblances in characters, goals and
behaviour. Ron could probably have found some more decent heroes
if he only wanted to look good and make PR. And remember - he
only claimed the 'Buddha' life publicly.

(1)This article appeared
in the November 1989 issue of the Scandinavian free scientology
Uafh'ngige Synspunkter (Independent Viewpoints - edited
by Antony Phillips. Address: P.O.Box 78, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark). I
hope to hear from people who may have done similar research or from
anyone who wants to comment on the subject - especially old-timers,
who knew Ron. Write to the author to above address.