Tribalism within Scientology

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

View Users: View Users
  1. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    I read the first article in the series. I did find it interesting but I think there are some problems with the basic premise that Leninism is biological but maybe I’m just hung up on the use of the word “biological”. For example, the wave of immigrants that came to the US in the first decades of the last century were mostly peasants. The more affluent people by and large weren’t compelled to emigrate due to their harsh circumstances. Those immigrants did exceedingly well. I would also argue that the so called biologically superior class were incredibly stupid as evidenced by WWI so if anything, wealth and power seemed to result in far greater biological inferiority and destructive outcome than peasantry.

    This thread starts out by referencing The New Yorker’s Orwellian view of Nationalism in the age of Trump. There is a fundamental problem with this premise in that the kinds of nationalism that most of us perceive negatively was derived from historical nationalism derived from blood lines and territorial conflict in the old world. NAZI by definition was National Socialism, something socialists like The New Yorker and Antifa are so often eager to forget. America was not founded on those principles. American nationalism is based on the Constitution which defines individual freedom and property and limits government power. This isn’t to say that all aspects of old world nationalism are bad. If there is not sovereignty there can be no freedom. Utopianists might argue this point but the entirety of human history confirms it.

    There wasn’t a welfare state magnet in place to attract those early waves of immigrants. They were motivated to get away from oppression and to seek opportunity. Now that the welfare state is run amok and conditions in other countries remains grim, the motivations are heavily influenced by a desire to live off of someone else’s productivity.

    Older immigration waves served as a kind of self-qualifier. It was mostly the young, strong and entrepreneurial members of the peasantry that migrated. If the motivation is now welfare then that also serves as a kind of qualifier. Earlier waves were moderated to control the rate of assimilation in order to prevent social and civil unrest and to become citizens they were required to understand the language and civic responsibilities and there were restrictions on their ability to live on someone else’s productivity. To a great extent that is no longer the case for US immigration.

    I do think an argument can be made that humans have evolved traits that make them more inclined to produce within a group or subsist on other people’s production within a group. Maybe there is a biological factor to a proclivity toward Leninism or a natural aversion to it. The leftist intelligentsia have been madly trying to define the "Conservative Gene" as being individualistic, incompassionate, and yes, tribal, etc. to get out front on this debate for a long time. The flip side of that argument is there must be a "Leninist Gene" and I'd really like to think that isn't the case, or at least not 50% of the world's population. From just a casual observation of the state of the world it does appear that the division of core principles is genetically divided along these opposing lines. But many of the peasants who emigrated to the US were deliberately and very consciously escaping Leninism, by any other name. We see millions of peasants deliberately not choosing Leninism given the choice. The Polish people by all rights should be classic biological Leninists but a great many of them are fanatically anti-Leninists and pro-American. That isn’t biological stupidity. If anything that is biological intelligence and we find it in abundance amongst the class of people who are supposed to be natural adherence to biological Leninism.

    So we are back to nature vs nurture. Are Leninists Leninists because they are born that way or indoctrinated? The American experience, up until now, has been that where people understand their choices and are educated as to the real nature of Leninism they do not choose Leninism. And even where they do not understand Leninism, when they understand the freedoms of the US Constitution they evolve toward constitutional rights. The problem is, the majority of people in the world live under some form of Leninism or highly adulterated form of Capitalism and there is an endless supply of people who do not understand the constitution that can be tapped to replenish those who are evolving away from Leninism toward the constitution. If they can be brought into the US or Western Europe faster than they can be assimilated into western concepts of freedom then Leninism appears to be the most popular and successful model based on the assembly of groups of biological Leninists.

    So I think the idea of biological Leninism has more to do with taking advantage of a person’s personal situation in life than it does with actual hereditary traits but it could also be a combination. The debate rages on...
  2. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Here's what I think the article is trying to get at...the current politicization of one's race, gender and sexual orientation.

    I've posted about this before that, generally speaking, few people really became politically oriented in college until the present day where now one's body, gender, identity, sexual orientation are part of a political class. Now everyone is politically focused.

    I just posted an article on the Trump thread about the Jewish-German Brit discovering how he's white by coming to and being immersed in the current liberal progressive scene in Amerikkka.

    What it should be called is biological Marxism instead but, essentially what it does is to take the class warfare of Marxism of the worker and the owner and flip that around to the heterosexual and the non heterosexual...the man and the woman...the white and the black...etc.

    In short, that's the "biology" of the term.

    It's where people such as Monique Whittig make literary and philosophical and academic careers out of exploiting heterosexuality as a political regime.

    It's why the left is obsessed with genitalia, its color and how it's used. In the past this was immensely private. Now it is the crux of the political forum.

    Of course, the only reasons these things are issues is because people are making them issues.

    In the industries I've worked in there's been high concentrations of homosexuals. Many of these people are exhibitionists, have chips on their shoulders and really put their homosexuality out there. I've seen the same with some segments of minorities both racial and religious.

    It's these groups that are hypersensitive to nuances that 99% of the people aren't tuned into. They see, perceive and experience slights at the micro level - as in microaggressions. For instance, you just might not like someone from one of these groups...and you might not like them as an individual divorced from whatever race, religion, gender or sexual orientation that they have. But, because they're busy being what they have...which is to say that instead of having a gender, religion, sexual orientation or race they are busy being these things then they perceive your dislike as a racist, sexist, bigoted thing.

    Happens all of the time.

    A doesn't like B. B is a homosexual. B spins this to make A appear as being homophobic or anti gay when, truth be told, A just doesn't like B because B is an asshole.

    Turning this into a plight of the "oppressed" based on race, gender or sexual orientation is to make this individual plight become a broad political plight that encompasses anyone who has that race, gender or sexual orientation. That's making it biological.

    That's what I understand from the article.
  3. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Hamdia Ahmed is the perfect example.

    She's a Muslim activist who competed in Miss Maine.

    She has an altercation with a Starbucks and a month later she's embroiled in an altercation with Dunkin Donuts.

    In all of it, as you read these, she's front and center about being black, being a woman and being a Muslim.

    She comments about herself, for instance, she doesn't complement other contestants in the Miss Maine...she's all about how she "slayed with her hijab".

    In the Starbucks/Dunkin Donuts she talks about how she's so proud of herself, etc.

    My guess is that she's a grad A asshole with a chip on her shoulder, all incensed, and the minute you call her out on her being an asshole she throws it in your face that you're disrespecting her because of her religion, etc.

    I had a sibling that was like this. She was psycho suspicious of everybody and treated people like enemies. New people met wound up as her enemies because of how she treated them. This would then reinforce her distorted belief that people were enemies. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy but really she is just an asshole.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
  4. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    I think his point was, to ensure the loyalty of people you give power to, pick only people who would be of low status if not for your having picked them, and who would lose status if your group ever collapsed.

    Look at CMO (and apologies in advance if this upsets some people here): where else in the world would anybody give actual organizational power to adolescent girls? What would be the odds of such a person betraying LRH, if that meant they themselves would inevitably fall in status.

    Look at the Hole. I'm sure that people there could escape if they were really motivated to try. But where would people who had been in Scientology their whole lives go? And what would they be if they left? In the Hole, they still have status. They are Senior Executives of Scientology. Leave Int Base, and what would they be? Some old people who have spent their whole lives in Scientology, and have nothing to show for it. And so, what is the point of leaving? They can't even admit doubt on Scientology working, not even to themselves -- because then what would they be?
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  5. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    For a "beauty queen", I don't regard her as being spectacularly attractive. I see girls prettier than her working as cashiers in my local supermarket. I guess part of her having a huge chip on her shoulder is she's not getting the level of high-status-male attention as she feels entitled to, and it bothers her.
  6. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    I run across this biological think here on ESMB often.

    Critical of Obama = it's because he's black = I'm racist.
    Critical of illegal immigration = I'm anti immigrant = I'm a bigot.
    Critical of Black Lives Matter = I don't think black lives have value = I'm racist.

    That's biological Leninism.
    • Love Love x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  7. Leland

    Leland Crusader

    a little humor...

    Important: Read the Comments after watching the video.

  8. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yeah, I think I get all that but don't we cover this idea of Bioleninism already under Cultural Marxism, Identity Politics and Postmodernism and now Tribalism?

    I guess I take umbrage with the idea that people are so stupid as to become Leninists simply because of some physical trait because for every example there can be found an opposite example but this has become so ingrained in identity politics now that it is a reality of Leninism and so apparently deserves it's own category.

    I expect we will be hearing more about this idea.
  9. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    Outstanding mapping of tribes, Scientology and relativism!

    Ergo, we have Scientologists' seemingly innocuous OT (Operating Trite) origination "I FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT".

    Beyond that blithely banal-appearing portal lies the madness, treachery and sadistically vengeful black ops of a sociopathic cult willing to do absolutely anything they think they can get away with in their quest to conquer the world.

    This, then, is the lovely moment when a Scientologist must look within his own mind, heart and soul when asked if he "feels good enough about it" to ATTEST to all manner of delusional states & paranormal powers, such as:

    Yes, I feel good about it (i.e. no doubts/reservations) and will attest to spiritual attainments such as:

    -- The erasure of my reactive mind; CLEAR and the "I feel good about" my new miraculous Homo Novis powers.

    -- The successful journey though the Wall of Fire; OT VII and "I feel good about" being Total Cause Over Life.1

    -- The paranormal power of EXTERIORIZATION; "Yes, "I feel good about" going to Venus on the 'Grand Tour' process."

    -- The euphorically ethical 4TH DYNAMIC WIN of "I feel good about" framing Paulette Cooper for felonious bomb threats so that she goes to federal prison, goes insane and kills herself--in order to create a world without criminality and insanity.


    1 Scientology Paradox # 1,307: The "final solution" offered by Scientology to cure mankind's slavery & suffering is the dismantling and destruction of the Wall Of Fire. However, in its place Hubbard installed/implanted a far more insidious Wall. The 1st wall was racist (other races than the human race)-- and was built to keep others out. More specifically, to capture & deport "illegal aliens". The 2nd (newer) wall is the application of Fair Game technology against Scientologists ("... tricked, sued or lied to, or destroyed") in order to keep them in. This explains why there is a zero-rate of unemployment amongst Hubbardites--they are all (case)"gain"(fully) employed in helping build their own personal (prison) walls.

    Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
  10. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Silver Meritorious Patron

    If you would...

    Can you tell us what industries?



    Interior design?

    Personal grooming?
  11. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Silver Meritorious Patron

    What do you think of the alleged discovery of a "God gene" responsible for people of faith?
  12. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    This 2nd (newer) does that fit in with Ron's statement as follows?

    I like to help others and count it as my greatest pleasure in life to see a person free himself of the shadows which darken his days.​

    These shadows look so thick to him and weigh him down so that when he finds they are shadows and that he can see through them, walk through them and be again in the sun, he is enormously delighted. And I am afraid I am just as delighted as he is.​

    Seriously,'ve got some issues going on here. What you're writing about seems to be in contradiction to Dr Hubbard's personal philosophy.

    Maybe you should heed your own advice and work out Ron's statement in clay. And the words "philanthropy" and "altruism" and "the work was free, keep it so".
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
  13. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    I tried clay but the gradient was too steep.

    I was sent to cramming for 4 years and finally we got the gradient cut back to the right level. Thus today---for the first time in 4 years--I got my first "PASS" on a clay demo.

    Every individual piece of clay on my clay table board, I gave an individual label that read "CLAY".

    The overall label (when turned right-side-up) also read "CLAY".

    The supervisor was freaked as I explained that the significance of each clay was that it was clay. And all of that clay was demonstrating clay.

    The supervisor got too keyed in and had to be sent to the medical officer for an assist. The Director of Training came in and studied my clay demo---then looked at me a very uncomfortably length of time with a very eerie smile---after which he gave me a pass.

    His name was Rod. I didn't catch his last name, but it was something like Starling or Sterling or Serling or something like that.
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
  14. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    Ah, how this all takes me back...

    obnosis (plural obnoses)
    (chiefly Scientology) Observing the obvious quotations ▼
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  15. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    If I recall correctly, one of the posters made the point that the concept of tribes was made/used to encourage welfare-ism amongst the vets etc., how ever that is not the focus of the book. He is saying that the PTSD sufferers don't recover quickly, which was not true of close societies, such as the Iroquois, the Israeli. Statistically those type societies have less PTSD and quicker recovery times, than our US warriors which have the most PTSD and the worst recovery statistics.

    He has 3 points, One is that the vet returns from a close knit society of his military and is thrown a society that is dis harmonious and stratified. Two - the returning vet is not appreciated. Yes they are given discounts at some stores, they are told platitudes of how great their service was, but they are not given jobs. They are not given the chance to contribute, ( I know some are physically and mentally un-fit for employment) where as in the above examples of the Iroquois and the Israeli, where the warriors go back to hunting, fishing, working on kibbutz etc. This reintegration helps them overcome the PTSD symptoms.

    The third point which runs contrary to the idea tribalism creates welfare-ism, is treating them as victims. They are trained to not be victims in boot camp etc. Any such self preservation desires are hammered out, so the soldier is a valued group member, and to be told they are victims of war etc. after their tour of duty, or release from the armed services, only extends the PTSD symptoms. Seen as, and treated as victims encourages the welfare-ism. So by not treating them as pitiful victims, getting them jobs so they can contribute etc. helps them heal.

    It's not the concept of tribalism that is the problem. Tribalism is not creating a welfare society. In a tribal society, people are expected to contribute, not mooch off the workers.

    Last edited: Nov 22, 2018
  16. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Well, I am almost done with the book and after discussing the prevalence shooting rampages, which have been going on since the 1930s, and perhaps why they predominantly occur in safe white neighborhoods, and the question of why many native American Indians join the armed services, Junger launches into politics.

    If you look into the basic aspects of tribal life, there are two necessary factions or functions that are needed for survival. These two translates into our two predominate political parties. 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.

    Both parties are outgrowths of basic tribal functions and both are needed. The problem with our current society is the two factions are at war with each other. We live in a fractured society, and in reality, such internal divisions are treasonous. If you look at a crime as petty as littering, it shows the contempt the litterer has for the rest of us. Likewise, those who would scam the welfare system are no different than the litterer or the banker wanting a bailout - they are all aspects of low morals, and these actions are in direct opposition of tribal instinctive behavior. Those actions of greed harm the survival of the whole, but worse, affect the moral fiber of the doer of those actions.

    In a few words - his view is this: both political sides of the coin are correct. On the ESMB members only thread about Trump, there is voluminous posting against any non-conservative posters. This is wrong headed, because the opposite political philosophy is needed in our society, but more than that - it is divisive. It is against our basic nature. It is against our tribal roots formed millions of years ago when we needed each other to survive, and we needed these two functions /factions which were essential for survival in a hostile world.


  17. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    You miss it again. You conflate the issue again. You factor you in and over the context again.

    It is is NOT an argument versus or against liberal healing.

    It is against unconstitutional growth of government.

    How can you be so shallow to consistently miss and argue this point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

    It's endless.

    Someone criticizes government welfare you jump to the erroneous conclusion that they're against helping children, etc.

    You're doing it again.

    I think you're a conscious idiot. You have a worldview that consumes any ability of thought.

    The point is that government makes WORSE the problem to be solved. How can you not read or understand what has been posted on hundreds of pages?

    Why is it that you equate government with healing or helping?

    Where does this come from?

    It has been demonstrably proven over and over and over...throughout history, etc., the complete disaster of government "solving" social issues, of "managing" resources, of "providing" care.

    If you want to educate people you have to separate, remove and prevent government and especially federal top-down government.

    If you want to feed people...provide and all virtues it is the same.

    You consistently destroy your social cause by resorting to government each and every time.

    When people tell you "No, no, Mimsey. That doesn't work...wrong solution." You, like a psycho, attack "the rich", accuse people of lacking the ability to nurture or care for others. Now it's lack of healing, etc.

    You're the one who lacks empathy, compassion, understanding, etc. You're the one who is in opposition...just like the SJW liberals.

    You attack, accuse and argue non existent positions.

    The wrong-headed divisiveness is your complete inability to transcend and comprehend what is being stated, written and posted.

    You have proven this time and time again when you immediately equate a non government endorsement or application as a lack of caring or outright callousness.

    I see it all of the time from you and your ilk where a tax break is equivalent to theft in your ideology.

    It is you who are polarized, opp term, versus, attacking, accusing, assuming and divisive.

    It's symbolic of a weak mind that's focused on things other than ideas.

    It's equivalent to taking a trip and when there's a fork in the road you want to go left and people tell you it's the wrong road to take you accuse them of not wanting to go the destination or something just as weird. You want to build a house with dynamite and people tell you that that won't work so you immediately attack them and accuse them of wanting to deny shelter to the weak and innocent.

    It's that stupid.
  18. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    I'm a bit confused by this part of your posting. Are you saying that no one should disagree with you? Or is it no one should disagree with the "correct" opinion? How do you envision the "correct" opinion should be determined by "society" without conflicting opinions?

    You seem to believe some opinions are being suppressed but what is actually happening is debate -- which is the opposite.

    Please clarify.
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2018
  19. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Bill, what I am saying is that society has evolved from a tribal society that has existed for millions of years, into a dysfunctional one, that we currently live in. That we have basic instincts of co-survival actions that can be easily observed, that are at odds with our current society.

    Aren't there 4 basic functions every living organism must have? Finding food? Reproduction? Defense? Healing?

    Those same 4 functions, in a group (or tribe) have to exist for the group to survive. The group has to have warriors for defense, they need nurturers to heal harmed members of the group, in addition to the hunting and gathering, and family life.

    The point is that these functions are farmed out in our society - our warriors are the cops, the armed forces, the firemen etc. These functions that were part of every tribe are now specialized functions separated out, and while necessary, are demeaned. There is infighting between the warrior class (conservatives) and the nurturing class ( liberals /progressives ), that our society is stratified, lacks compassion, is divided, and by and large - dysfunctional. These internecine wars are destructive of society and breed discord, contempt and a loss of respect for each other.

    When solders are sent out to do battle in wars, they become part of a tribe. A tribe that is a tight close knit unit that is fighting for what?

    When they return to a dysfunctional society in which they are NOT rewarded for defending our country in a meaningful way. Hence our high statistics of PTSD and the large amount of money spent on their disability. Hence the re-up of their tours of duty.

    I am not saying there is an easy answer. I am saying there is a situation. One that our dysfunctional society isn't capable of solving, or worse, doesn't care to.

    Whether or not you agree with that concept is up to you. However, it is fairly self evident that is the case.

    Last edited: Nov 23, 2018
  20. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    How bout you stop with the petty ad hominin? It's really fucking annoying. I don't say that shit about you. Hummm?

    If you want to contribute to the conversation on a meaningful way, how bout you read the book? If you PM me I will pay for a copy and have it sent to you, and you can post your review of it. Deal?

    Last edited: Nov 23, 2018