Tribalism within Scientology

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Mimsey Borogrove, Oct 13, 2018.

View Users: View Users
  1. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    The problem with tribal society is that it doesn't scale. Tribes are built around a few dozen families. A small enough group that everybody knows everyone else, and can feel an intimate emotional connection.

    The last three thousand years have been about how to create working societies which are too big for anyone to ever even meet all members in a lifetime.
  2. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    I don't necessarily disagree with you here, although your simplistic and biased characterization of conservative and liberal is silly, what I was referring to was this:
    That specific quote from you is a claim that your opinion is being suppressed. I found this confusing since you continue to post there, as do others. In fact, when you post something, it gets a lot of attention. That is the direct opposite of "suppression".

    You and "little david" are a highly visible component to that thread. Is your problem that, when you post some opinion, you think no one should disagree or debate your opinion at all?
  3. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I feel that many who share my, Little David's, and Emma's opinions do not post there. Why? There is relentless criticism of our opinions. There is not a balanced forum on that thread by any stretch of the imagination. There is a very prevalent use of ad hominem. How many times have I been called a useful idiot, a socialist, a SJW, etc. in a derogatory way? The problem lies in the fact that our opinions are viewed with contempt. There is little discussion of the values we espouse. It's mainly put downs.

    Granted it is an open forum, but where I am accused of having a closed mind, and not accepting of other posters ideas wholeheartedly, I see a certain hypocrisy, in that they are equally unwilling to brook my, or another's ideas.

    Next - as I try to point out frequently, I am reading a book called Tribe by Sebastian Junger and as I go through it, I find things interesting, that I think others might as well. So I post them in this thread. The concept of the two major parties paralleling two of the functions of a tribe is his, and it aligned with some points he was making about basic tribal structure, one of the premises of his book. I realize there is a vast spectrum of political persuasions, but they were not germane to his theme. Hence I didn't comment on them.

    It's really difficult to discuss book with people who haven't read it. Much like discussing the nuances of Scientology with a person who hasn't been involved with it. However that may be, I am trying to overcome those hurdles on this thread. If you are willing to read the book, Bill, I'll get it for you. Just PM me. Or watch the below video. It's a pretty clear explanation of the subject.


    Last edited: Nov 23, 2018
  4. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    OK, with that clarification, I can see your point. Where your opinions have been answered by insults, that is absolutely wrong. That has always disturbed me greatly. Those few posters who resort to ad hominem attacks can, indeed, make a whole thread unpleasant for all. You do have a good point.
  5. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    If you go to 59:37 in the above video - he discusses the political aspect of the two parties, the conservative and the liberals and how they relate to tribes, and really, any sized society. It's only a few moments long - worth the listen. I'd like to hear your comments on it.

  6. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    I've been accused of racism, anti-immigrant, a trustfund baby, not caring about women and children and elderly, etc.

    There's no reason for me to read the book because it misses. It is echoing your belief.

    I've posted before that people aren't different...that conservatives aren't racist bigots who don't care...that everyone wants prosperity and peace.

    This doesn't exist:

    The values of the conservative party, such as looking down on non-producers, is found to be a key to tribal society - you can't have moochers in a tribe parasitically consuming without producing. You also need their hawkish tendencies in times of war to defend the tribe.
    On the other hand you need the liberal healing caring nurturing side to help the tribe survive, to raise it's children, care for the elderly, nurse the wounded.​

    Except from the liberal perspective. That's where the contention is mocked up where it's all or nothing...meaning you're for help or against it. In reality, the conservatives are arguing for the same thing. They understand that government will compound the problem.

    The liberal sees zero solution except the nanny state government. Like I've stated before arguing for more bleeding on a sick person doesn't heal them. It kills them.

    Unfortunately, the reaction to this from the liberal perspective is that people don't want to heal the sick...that they want the sick to die, etc.

    Do you really believe that people don't care? That they "look down" on the sick and frail? That they are greedy and non charitable?
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2018
  7. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Is that what this thread is? A discussion of this book?
  8. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    The premise of the book is not about making a nanny state. I don't know where you got that from. If he has any solution at all - it is making for a more cohesive group. He discusses that late in the video.

    He is saying the opposite of promoting a nanny state - in the examples of people suffering from PTSD that get disability for years on end, haven't healed. He examines how different societies deal with PTSD - we are the worst - we treat them as victims - we perpetuate the disease, not cure it. He goes into how it is healed.

    Nowhere in the book have I found any promotion of a welfare type state. Quite the opposite - he says people who defraud the welfare system, while harming the system, and take away your and my tax money, and in the process demean themselves. They exhibit contempt for the rest of us. Whether they commit petty crimes from littering - on up to massive corporate government bail outs - they are morally bankrupt and criminal.

    Please take a few moments and listen to the section starting at: 59:37 It won't kill you, or turn you into a progressive, socialist or whatever political party you eschew. I think you will have a much better understanding of the concept he is discussing, about the essential relationship and need for both conservatives and liberals for a balanced society, that I don't seem to be able to get across to you, because I must not communicating it clearly enough.

    Then please let me know what you think. You study politics way more than I do - I'll bet you'd have an interesting perspective.


    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  9. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    OK, I watched it to 1:08 from 59:00. It's attempting a balanced view that both parties are afflicted with the same all out enemy stance in opposition to the other.

    The first thing I want you to know is that I am not a member of a party. I've always been a registered Independent from day 1. I've often considered party affiliation to be herd instinct - much like is suggested in this video where he states that people group up when there's a defined enemy and w/o that they disperse and do their individual thing. I have always been a Libertarian before I even knew what that was. I believe that drugs, gambling and prostitution should be legalized. I've always believed that gay marriage should be legalized. I truly believe that anything goes until you've injured the rights of others. I've agreed with virtually every aspect of the Constitution - I think we should have as few laws as possible. I believe in an extremely limited government, etc.

    That being said much of what these guys talk about is true in that there is today an extreme polarization to the parties like seldom seen in the recent past. However, I think if one viewed history this polarization has existed before. Some of the rhetoric in past ages is really vindictive compared to what we've experienced since the advent of television. Quite shocking if you read it.

    OK. This guy Rogen interviews, though, does go off the rails and that is this: there are people in the progressive left that are an extreme danger to democracy and are actively working to dismantle it today. They want to instill Socialism and they are 3rd wave feminists and they've been elected to Congress. Ocasio-Cortez is one of these people. Implementing Socialism is to radically alter the fundamental purpose of our government. Read up on Warren's proposal regarding corporations and government involvement. That's another example. These people want to swell government and government involvement right down into our genders and their roles.

    In addition, these people are dominated with identity politics where the issues aren't even addressed. That is to say that if you don't agree with a policy that the discussion doesn't involve the merits and results of a policy but that it immediately reduces to accusations regarding moral character. It goes like this: one doesn't agree with minimum wage laws...the opposition immediately accuses one of being racist, sexist bigoted and "marginalized class" phobic.

    The progressive left have rioted over legal election results. Violence, accusations, domestic's all there and it's from the progressive left. That means that this group is at fault. The idea that both parties are conducting this is not factual. I've watched the "white cis heterosexual male conservative Christian capitalist is the oppressor" mantra come rolling in. In fact, one of the first articles that alerted me to this warfare regarded a "diversity officer" (think "ethics officer") at a public college refusing to allow white males access.

    They are at war, they're attacking and the other side is reacting. Trump is a reaction...just like Hitler was. This group wants to strip conservatives of their Amendment Rights...the 1st Amendment...the 2nd, etc. They want to punish the "privileged" this instance that's whites and males and specifically white males. Look up the Sarah Jeong controversy...most of these articles attempt to state that hers is the reactionary action and that her Tweets exist in a vacuum when it's actually the other way around. Her Tweets were instigation derogatories Tweeted from an echo chamber that is extremely anti white and anti male.

    They are at war and trained revolutionaries. There is no discourse. There is no compromise. There is no negotiation. The sooner people realize that the better.

    For instance, look at all the civil unrest on today's campuses. Who are these "warriors" fighting? Conservative "oppressors"? That's odd because all you have to do is Google something about the lack of conservative college professors and titles like this leap out at you:

    39% of colleges have 0 Republican professors

    That means that there is no "enemy" and yet these kids are rioting and protesting and going ballistic. Who is instigating this shit? Conservative "enemies"?

    Regarding the Nanny State that's what the progressive liberals want. If you don't act a certain way they scream for "diversity training" and government intervention. The Nanny State provides for everything. If you want healthcare...the government provides it. If you want education...the government provides it. You want a house...the government provides it. You want an income...the government provides it.

    I've seen this in you where if there's a perceived social issue you immediately expect the government to be used to solve it. This is an abuse of government and will result in the worst solution EVERY SINGLE TIME!! The government should always be the last solution...not the first...and should be replaced as a solution as soon as possible - IF ONE TRULY WANTED TO HELP AND HAVE A SOLUTION TO BEGIN WITH!!


    That's quandrant 4 every time.
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  10. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Wow. I certainly didn't get that from what they were saying. I didn't see 3/4 of what you're saying. I missed the part where he, Rogan was a progressive and wants to install socialism. Maybe I can't read between the lines and pick that up. It certainly went over my head.

    Ok then.

    Well, thanks - I hope your time wasn't wasted. Best, Mimsey
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  11. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    I'm a libertarian too. As such, I get hit from both the Left and Right.

    I get hit from the Right over my beliefs that people should be allowed to make their own decisions about how to live their lives, even if those decisions are self-destructive.

    I get hit from the Left over my beliefs that people should not be compelled to fix the bad life decisions of others. I also believe that business owners are people too, and should have the right to make their own decisions about who they want working for them, and who they feel like having as customers.
  12. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    I'm not saying that at all.

    Rogen is interviewing this guy. The discussion covers how both political parties are casting light on the other party as an enemy of democracy. The discussion is saying that they are both guilty and just as guilty in this portrayal. This suggests that both parties want a free democracy.

    What I'm saying is that this premise is not true. The progressives don't want a free democracy. The progressives are at war.

    Socialism has never been introduced into any society truthfully. It has always been done with lies, coercion and duplicity. It is done by treachery. Only recently have democrats come out as being outright socialists. This has been masked and disguised for decades.

    It is the democratic party and democrats that have come out and stated that the Constitution is an antiquated document - implying that it is not applicable...that it's outdated. It is the democrats and the democratic party that want to do away with the Electoral College - claiming it is outdated. W/o looking at the various suffrages my guess is that it was the democrats and the democratic party that opened various elections to the popular vote...that pushed for and did away with allowing only those who paid taxes the vote. Today, we have something like 44.4% of tax filers who pay no income taxes. That's 44.4% of the people who shouldn't have any vote. It is the democrats and democratic party that is complicit in all the illegal voting - dead voters voting, illegals voting, voters voting multiple times - this is done while they simultaneously scream the loudest about stolen elections and foreign influence. If you were concerned about foreign influence would you allow illegal foreign aliens the right to vote? It is the democrats and the democratic party that wants to expand government and have expanded government - FDR, LBJ, Carter, Obama. Virtually every nanny state bureaucracy alphabet soup that I can think of was instigated and championed by democrats - EPA, FDA, CFPB, IRS. The list goes on.

    Like I posted before they are at war and they project the utmost evil upon conservatives and accuse conservatives of being threats to democracy while they ceaselessly work to eliminate democracy.

    That's what I mean.

    Listening to these guys one may think that all we need to do is to understand the other side and to communicate and kumbaya or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. The progressives are at war. They are implementing a revolution and at its core it is a revolution against heterosexuality spearheaded by 3rd wave feminism.

    That's where identity politics originates - hence, Affirmative Action, LGBQTIA rights, rape culture, systemic institutionalized racism, etc., etc.
  13. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    "What I'm saying is that this premise is not true. The progressives don't want a free democracy. The progressives are at war."

    Well maybe I don't understand progressives then:

    favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
    a progressive mayor.
    making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
    a progressive community.
    characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
    ( initial capital letter ) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.

    Ok, lets look further:

    "A progressive is someone who wants to see more economic and social equality - and hopes to see more gains in feminism and gay rights. They're also supportive of social programmes directed by the state - and they'd like social movements have more power in the US.
    Within the realm of progressive, however, there are different, warring factions, explains David Greenberg, the author of a book called Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency.
    One group is dominated by activists from social movements such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, he says, and the other is led by those who belong to the left wing of the Democratic Party (and aren't part of a social movement or cause).
    Pretty much all of these progressives "view politics as a bottom-up progress", says Julian Zelizer, an historian at Princeton, and they support the fight for social change. (Though not everybody is on the streets, clamouring for it.)
    They also believe that the government can help people, and they look back fondly at Roosevelt's New Deal jobs programs, which relieved suffering in the 1930s.
    For these reasons they see the world and its problems in a similar way, but they often have different ideas about how to fix them. Nearly all progressives agree that banks should be regulated, for example, though they argue about how it should be done. Some believe the regulation should be aggressive - and dramatically change things."

    What about the liberals?

    "I often get asked what the difference between a “liberal” and a “progressive” is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, “Isn’t ‘progressive’ just another name for ‘liberal’ that people want to use because ‘liberal’ has become a bad word?”
    The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional “liberals” in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A “progressive” are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.
    To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more “progressive” solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry’s profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

    Ok - I can see the difference, though I don't see the at war aspect you posit. Are you saying that the conservative position is unbridled ability to conduct business, and they are at war with progressives that want them to play by the rules, protect the environment etc?

    But why is playing by the rules a bad thing? Is it wrong to want clean air, un-polluted rivers, environmentally sound treatment of toxic waste? Or in the focus of the book, to want vets who suffer PTSD to have proper care, that is focused away from treating them as victims, but as valued warriors who stood up for our nation, and getting them meaningful work etc. so they can reassimilate into our society?

    If what you posit is unbridled business is good for our nation - let me ask you, for example - would you want no rules being enforced in the building industry? How many houses / buildings etc. would collapse without them?

    Without rules we have anarchy - is that what you want? I doubt that is the case, but as an independent - don't you want some sort system of laws? You rail against the alphabet agencies, yet many of them serve needed functions. They restrain unbridled business practices. Some are not needed I grant, but take the AEC for instance - it is a vast department - but it controls nuclear waste - defunding them could be a hazard of biblical proportions if there were a major spillage. Chernobyl is a waste land. Fukushima is another. The nuke waste stored in Washington is leaking - what if it goes into an aquafer or the Columbia river?


    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  14. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    I am flabbergasted. Literally.

    I'm not talking about the book, them, some freak position of unbridled ability.

    They (Rogen and interviewee) posited a premise.

    It's false.

    W/o splitting hairs over progressive/liberal and wiki definitions that progressives and liberals have written I am telling you that the progressive left is AT WAR with the United States of America. This has been stated in their choice of words, in their political platforms, in their actions and in their goals lists and self identifying definitions. To this group, specifically, conservatives are the enemy as in factually being defined as fascists and Nazis and thieves, murderers, tyrannical oppressors. Conservatives are not at war with anyone or thing. Conservatives don't wish to undermine the government or the democratic process.

    You have read nothing that I've written, ever. You don't read links.

    I'm done, I'm out, bye bye.
  15. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    The problem with your whole post is this:
    You use the definition of "Progressive" as written and believed by progressives.
    You use the definition of "Liberal" as written and believed by liberals.
    You use the definition of "Conservative" as written and believed by progressives.

    Therefore, your "conclusions" are already determined before you even start. It cannot be debated when you've "stacked the deck" like that. Unfortunately, you don't even realize that this is being done to you. This is unfortunate as it puts logical thinking out of reach.

    (Yes, this biased definition game is done by every belief system, including conservatives but my comment is about your various descriptions.)
  16. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    Wow, sounds like a killer deal!

    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  17. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    Outstanding post!

    Reminds me of the "humanitarian" and "ethical" re-defining of words, sponsored by a generous grant from the IASSW (International Association of Standard Scientology Wordclearers).

    In all "progressive" SJW cults (e.g. Social Justice Warrior, Scientology Justice Warrior, et al) the very first word their new dictionary to suffer the eviscerating process of re-definition is the name of the cult itself.

    Ergo, a Scientologist (even after being assisted by 10 word-clearers, 10 dictionaries and 10 pounds of clay) will not have any slightest clue what the definition of Scientology is--because Hubbard's dictionary doesn't allow Scientologists to clear the RESULTS of Scientology, only allows them to read definitions that abstractly describe its GOALS (i.e. "A World Without Insanity & Criminality", rather than "A Destitute Declared Disconnected DB").

    Likewise, progressive cult members do not allow themselves to read entheta racist/nazi definitions of the word "progressive", especially when they can spend time far more productively receiving statusy humanitarian admiration particles from themselves.

    Cult members---they always have total certainty that YOU are in a dangerous cult. LOL
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  18. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    HELPFUL TIP: Stop using re-defined words. Try the actual word, like "group" instead of "tribe". This will begin to help handle your case heal your thinking and key-out your reactive propaganda mind.
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  19. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    You know ideas are but possessions? They are not you, any more than your choice to drive a ford or a chevy. I am trying to understand GL's ideas, to grok what in hell he is saying. Is he correct? Preaching to the choir? Trying to improve his standing in the ESMB group by making me look like an idiot? Flat out or partially wrong? So I look the words up. To what result? Derision?

    Bill, what exactly is the problem with the definitions I looked up? I try to come to a better understanding of the comments Guanno is espousing by looking the words up, yet...

    I look up definitions and you find fault with them. If you do, why then are you not posting the "correct" definitions? Or links to them. I am perfectly willing to look at them. You berated me on my lack of knowledge on the constitution. Did I make you wrong? No. I read the damn thing.

    It's a form of a put down, or elitism, when you chide me but fail to provide some sort of basis for your position.

    I run into this in my business a lot - someone will be discussing some aspect of project that is off base. I don't say you have the wrong idea, and leave it at that. I take the time to explain what is going on so they can understand the situation.

    Frankly I don't know what is wrong with the definitions I found. It must be obvious to you, but not to me.

    How about this one:

    Progressivism has always been a transgressive force. It explicitly opposes tradition, elitism and inherited privilege. Even as it has occupied cultural institutions, and as social mores have been revolutionised, it has maintained its “outsider” credibility. There are two reasons why this has been the case. First, the institutions it opposed have not been destroyed but defanged. One can seem transgressive when opposing the royalty, for example, even when doing so incurs no risks. Second, progressives extend the boundaries of their demands. What would have been radical in 1966 is considered reactionary in 2016.

    Is that any better? I ran across it when I was looking up vice signaling - a term I have never heard before. It and it's opposite virtue signaling.

    HH Re: "Try the actual word like "group" instead of "tribe"." They ain't the same animal. They have different conations. You, a wordsmith, a writer, a former Scientologist, should know that. How many time has Hubbard drummed that into your head? He ain't wrong on that point, not by a long shot. If you insist they are the same, or tribe isn't a real word, well, I can't help you with that.

    Last edited: Nov 24, 2018
  20. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    ANSWER: The problem exactly? It's that you cannot see your own blind spots. That's why they are called blind spots. There is an ancient cure that someone once invented for that, called thinking. In modern times another miraculous cure was discovered, called education.

    It makes me extremely happy that you are not "helping" me with that. LOL