Six years prior to that, Hubbard was offering advice on creating a proper constitution for Kenya in a letter to a person named “Brian”:
http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/kenya.htm
That page is under construction but the complete text of the letter is there.

“There is only the problem of gradually bringing the black up to administering to the black without overburdening and enturbulating the white.”

Hi again Jessica. Thanks for answering.

Just a couple of points. 1st, you seem to think epithets of this kind have to be treated by normal people as literal statements just like “Jack is taller than Bill”. Almost always they aren’t unless they’re about some quantity where you can stick a number on it. Like richest or biggest or smallest or oldest. Even then people can argue them and some times they do.

When a guitarist is billed as “the best guitarist of all times” it’s not literal, it’s opinion. That’ll be argued forever. And people are still arguing about stuff like the best boxer, best drag racer, best football player and all that. Best, worst, most evil, most virtuous. Those are all words about qualities and they’re figures of speech. You can’t measure them and that means they aren’t literal.

That means you’re asking for something nobody can give you because it doesn’t exist. You wanted Atack to prove that Crowley was the wickedest man in the world? The world back then was full of people who would’ve said yes to this non-literal statement. And so you know there are people to this day who would say he wasn’t playing with the full deck even when he was reading Tarot cards. And some of them might even say he was wicked or even wickedest. But it’s not literal. It’s an expression of rejection of his actions and public persona he made for himself. You can’t put a quantity on wickedness because NOBODY agrees about how you measure it.

By the way your 3 alternative quotes are way way more biased in your direction than Atack’s comment was in any direction. Listen to it again. His actual words were just “Crowley was called the wickedest man in the world”. He said that without agreeing or disagreeing. The rest of what he did was report things about Crowley and let us decide what we think. You wanted Atack to say that the title was undeserved. Why? There’s no proof Crowley wasn’t “wicked”, whatever that means to different people. And there’s no reason for him to rewrite Crowley’s history. Crowley WAS called that. You want an explanation WHY he was called that? It’s in the rest of the video. Atack details things about Crowley that contributed to opinions about him. You want words like “defamed” and “vilified” and “sensationalism” to be stuck in there. But that’s just your opinion about whether it was deserved. There’s no proof those words are true. And even after Atack finished I don’t hear him saying Crowley deserved it OR he didn’t deserve it. That’s up to us listening to make up our own minds. You’ve made up yours. A good report of the history shouldn’t tell us what to think.

2nd, you just love calling people liars if they disagree with you don’t you? You do it without even thinking about it, like a reflex don’t you? You repeatedly call Atack a “liar” because he didn’t say what you wanted to hear. Now I’m a liar (your exact words are “The fact that you lie and say that I haven’t provided proof just goes to show how unwilling you are to look at the evidence”) because I don’t agree with you.

Jessica, you have a limited view of the world and although you won’t want to hear this, a childish one. You blame the world of Crowley’s time for having a narrow standard but your own standard is even more black and white than theirs. The standard you expressed here is that people either agree with you and are “right” or they disagree with you and aren’t just mistaken or wrong, they’re “bad”, they’re “liars” and “dishonest”.

You’re as narrow minded as the people that make you so angry. Maybe worse because you don’t see it and you won’t see it.

You claim you just use facts (sorry “FACTS”) but what facts are there to say Crowley WASN’T the wickedest man in the world? You say “the video is evidence that Atack intended to deceive. Why is it that you are ignoring all the evidence when it is staring you in the face?”

Jessica, the proof you say is in the video ISN’T THERE. You see it that way because the alternative is that somebody disagrees with you honestly and you don’t make any allowance for that possibility. The only thing I’m seeing evidence of right now is that you can’t stand it when somebody disagrees with you. So when somebody disagrees with you the only thing you can imagine is that they must be lying deceiving and dishonest and bad.

That’s what I see. And that way of evaluating people won’t get you far in the real world. For starters it won’t make people eager to talk to you or listen to you.

And now I’d better take my “lying” self back to breakfast. Any more conversation with you is pointless.

By the way just so you know, I don’t consider Crowley the wickedest man in the world. Never did. But he was on my Top 10 Most Boring list. I’ll probably move him to my top 3 Most Boring list after this talking with you.

Yes, the Bendix agitator washer is the choice for CSP time!

And with a $199 price, you just can’t go wrong!

Sugar, you’re right and your statement make sense.

You’re wrong and your argument doesn’t make sense..

If you take your Law from Crowley, whose orbit are you in?

I wanna watch Aleister and Oprah battle it out for the daytime talk show Emmy award. I’d tune in to watch “Aleister.” I’d even pick up the latest “A” magazine at the newsstand. Since he’s dead it would have to be Zombie Aleister… he’ll kill in the ratings!

No, I think you’re missing (or ignoring) an important point: it’s not the fact that this information is unflattering, it’s the fact that these things were not facts at all. That they are not substantiated with even a single shred of evidence, that it was laced with the author’s own prejudices which are as subtle as a velvet hammer. No, I am not saying that that statement is justifying that because you acknowledge the quote was made by people that have their own prejudices which are apparent in the quote, the quote itself shows that it is not reliable. Atack didn’t even point out any of those things when bringing up the quote. If he couldn’t find someway to do that in his 2 minutes, then he shouldn’t have even brought the epithet up to begin with. He could have said:

“He was defamed in the media in his time, with journalists calling him ‘The Wickedest Man in the World'”

“He was constantly vilified by the press of his time with the epithet of ‘The Wickedest Man in the World'”

“He was called ‘The Wickedest Man in the World’ by journalists wanting to stir up sensationalism.”

You see, I made three quotes which could have easily been said within that timeframe. The quote itself shows the prejudice in your case, but in the case of Crowley, he fails to explain WHY he was vilified as “The Wickedest Man in the World”.

Just because it was the standard of the time doesn’t make it right. The fact that you lie and say that I haven’t provided proof just goes to show how unwilling you are to look at the evidence. I’ve provided the evidence and the fact that you claim that I haven’t provided proof is very telling.

And no, it does not make the “pot calling the kettle black” for slamming Atack for being a prick. I am judging Atack for his words and his statements based on a thorough review of the FACTS. The John Bull article, on the other hand, used religious prejudice to come to it’s conclusion. The fact that you would even try to shoehorn that statement in some sort of Frankensteinian abortion of reality is really telling.

No, this isn’t about emotions. Atack was lying on camera and he was perpetuating dishonesty. That’s not my interpretation, that’s what happened and the proof is in the video, clear as crystal. The video is evidence that Atack intended to deceive. Why is it that you are ignoring all of the evidence, when it is staring you in the face?

It’s all about Atack per his dishonesty here. If he weren’t being dishonest, I would have no beef with him and I would still think highly of him based on his investigation of Scientology.

Oh my, a Bendix G-15 General Purpose Digital Computer with POGO compiler!

And when Sunday comes, Sea Ogres love to wash the uniform in a fully automatic Bendix Washer!
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/GoodHousekeeping/10-1954/bendix_washer.jpg