Sex in the Sea Org and Scientology in general

[La La Lou Lou]

In those days Id have done anything for a stale pilchard sandwich, Im not so cheap now!

Id want a cold cup of coffee too!

 

[TalleyWhacker]

I mentioned this in another thread but it hasn't gotten a response since it's more a leaks thread than active discussion, maybe this is the better place for it.

Is it just me or does it seem the Sea Org ranks are dominated by women for the most part? When ever I see group pictures of Sea Org members in the last 10 years or so there seem to be far more women than men. Also, in much of the recruitment materials there seems to be an emphasis on a stern young woman as the "poster boy" as opposed to the dashing young male officers used in the real military's recruitment materials. I don't know who these stern young ladies are supposed to appeal to other than more indoctrinated, stern young women scientologists.

Think there is something about the submission required by the Sea Org that men aren't able to endure as well as women? The male ego is a very powerful thing and it probably doesn't hold up well under the constant debasement, face rips and pressure applied by the Sea Org. Not that women love it or anything but looking at the number of women who stay in abusive relationships - I can easily relate that to remaining in the Sea Org. (Obviously not psychologically healthy or good but there you have it. I think RVY was one of the first that compared Scieno to battered wife syndrome, and I def. think that's a fit and would explain women outnumbering the men in that abusive set up.)

Am I wrong about the women far outnumbering the men? It's the impression all the PR and photos that the cult releases about the Sea Org give. Even little Davey's famous photo in full fake navy uniform, with Marty, shows far more women than men - and that was in the early 1990's.

No, you're not wrong.
In any Socialist organization, there's only room for a few alpha males. Even if you saw more men, they'd be the beta male types.

 

[TalleyWhacker]

In those days Id have done anything for a stale pilchard sandwich, Im not so cheap now!

Id want a cold cup of coffee too!

Things either get better or they get worse, don't they?

 

[La La Lou Lou]

Yes Tally Whacker, my 'things' are a lot better now, thanks.

But I dont quite get what you say about DM and socialism, what's the cult got to do with socialism? It's fascist surely.

 

[Ted]

I mentioned this in another thread but it hasn't gotten a response since it's more a leaks thread than active discussion, maybe this is the better place for it.

Is it just me or does it seem the Sea Org ranks are dominated by women for the most part? When ever I see group pictures of Sea Org members in the last 10 years or so there seem to be far more women than men. Also, in much of the recruitment materials there seems to be an emphasis on a stern young woman as the "poster boy" as opposed to the dashing young male officers used in the real military's recruitment materials. I don't know who these stern young ladies are supposed to appeal to other than more indoctrinated, stern young women scientologists.

Think there is something about the submission required by the Sea Org that men aren't able to endure as well as women? The male ego is a very powerful thing and it probably doesn't hold up well under the constant debasement, face rips and pressure applied by the Sea Org. Not that women love it or anything but looking at the number of women who stay in abusive relationships - I can easily relate that to remaining in the Sea Org. (Obviously not psychologically healthy or good but there you have it. I think RVY was one of the first that compared Scieno to battered wife syndrome, and I def. think that's a fit and would explain women outnumbering the men in that abusive set up.)

Am I wrong about the women far outnumbering the men? It's the impression all the PR and photos that the cult releases about the Sea Org give. Even little Davey's famous photo in full fake navy uniform, with Marty, shows far more women than men - and that was in the early 1990's.

It appears that LRH fabricated his own bio using pieces from Ian Fleming's actual bio, Naval Intelligence, popular author, etc.

Female SO personnel are turned into males. "Yes, Sir!"

Some don't make a full transition. They turn into Rosa Klebb.

Rosa Klebb

 

[Enthetan]

Yes Tally Whacker, my 'things' are a lot better now, thanks.

But I dont quite get what you say about DM and socialism, what's the cult got to do with socialism? It's fascist surely.

Fascism is just another flavor of socialism. Remember that Nazi was just a contraction for the full name "National Socialist German Workers Party". And Mussolini started out as a Socialist.

The essence of socialism/fascism is that the purpose of the individual is to serve the Group and to advance the goals of the Group, as such goals are articulated by the Management of the Group.

The opposite of fascism is not socialism, it is libertarianism (what used to be called liberalism in the US, before the term was taken over by the socialists), the idea that individuals have a right to their own goals, that the purpose of groups is to facilitate individuals' achieving of their goals, and that when a group falls away from its real purpose, it is the right of its members to ablish it and create a new group. Or as laid out in the US Declaration of Independence in 1776:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Hitler and Stalin agreed on a lot, ideologically. Their major point of difference was on who was to be in charge.

I see a lot of similarities between Stalin and DM. In Stalin's case, he was preceded by a charismatic leader (Lenin) who was able to put an organization together by his ability to charm and persuade people. Stalin had no charm, he obtained power by his ability to set his enemies against each other, and eliminate them one ofter the other. Same deal with DM as successor to LRH.

 

[TalleyWhacker]

Fascism is just another flavor of socialism. Remember that Nazi was just a contraction for the full name "National Socialist German Workers Party". And Mussolini started out as a Socialist.

The essence of socialism/fascism is that the purpose of the individual is to serve the Group and to advance the goals of the Group, as such goals are articulated by the Management of the Group.

The opposite of fascism is not socialism, it is libertarianism (what used to be called liberalism in the US, before the term was taken over by the socialists), the idea that individuals have a right to their own goals, that the purpose of groups is to facilitate individuals' achieving of their goals, and that when a group falls away from its real purpose, it is the right of its members to ablish it and create a new group. Or as laid out in the US Declaration of Independence in 1776:



Hitler and Stalin agreed on a lot, ideologically. Their major point of difference was on who was to be in charge.

I see a lot of similarities between Stalin and DM. In Stalin's case, he was preceded by a charismatic leader (Lenin) who was able to put an organization together by his ability to charm and persuade people. Stalin had no charm, he obtained power by his ability to set his enemies against each other, and eliminate them one ofter the other. Same deal with DM as successor to LRH.

I don't care what you say, that Enthetan is one smart sonnabitch!
Couldn't have said it better myself. Fact is, I think you did better.
And you saved me a long winded answer.

 

[TalleyWhacker]

(what used to be called liberalism in the US, before the term was taken over by the socialists),

Yes, and I'm quite sure that's the applicable definition (liberalism) used in the Chart of Human Evaluation.
And what cracks me up now is if you ask many people around an Org about their policial leanings, they will tell you Liberal, much in part no doubt because of the misunderstood of how the word has evolved but also their ignorant understanding of what the political system as it is, has become.

And of course, that they are Socialists by the very definition of the word: Group interests trump individual rights and liberty.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

I agree that Nazi had 'socialism' in its name, but it wasnt socialist. Socialist is the Kibbutz system in Israel. European Socialism care for the individuals in the society as well as the whole. It is not totalitarianist.

The cult founder hated Socialism, it validated down stats by giving education to all, heath care and benefits to people out of work, it cared for people. He prefered the Nazi idea of killing downstats, mentally impared, crippled people. Thats fascist.

 

[Gadfly]

The scale or panorama is NOT from communism (on the far left) to Fascism (on the far right), as many authors have claimed. It is from libertarianism (on the left) to totalitarianism (on the right).

Communism and Fascism are simply two different forms of totalitarianism. As is the official Church of Scientology organization. I do currently have the idea that forms of socialism can be beneficial and useful, primarily because Man generally is unable and unwilling to "care for his brothers". It takes a little "outside encouragement" for most to do so.

 

[TalleyWhacker]

"Outside encouragement"
*&*^&*%$#3!!!!!!!
Is that what having the government dictate your actions is now called?????

How healy-feely. I'm all warm and fuzzy.

 

[Gadfly]

"Outside encouragement"
*&*^&*%$#3!!!!!!!
Is that what having the government dictate your actions is now called?????

How healy-feely. I'm all warm and fuzzy.

I have a fairly extensive philosophy about this. The idea that each person produces on their own, only through personal hard-work and energy is BS. The early Colonial notion of the "hard-working Christian" as romanticized by Right Wing morons is BS. Luck, being at the right place at the right time, being born into a family with decent income, being brought up in a less-than-violent neighborhood, good fortune, and other factors well beyond the control of the individual are also very much involved. Most people ignore them and don't see these other factors as relevant.

I have read everything by Ayn Rand. I do like her attitude, BUT it is flawed because it is very one-sided, and omits other actualities and possibilities. The notion of the "rugged individual", which exists in Scn in its own version, is an extremely unrealistic viewpoint.

The truth is that if left to their own, far too many people would oppress the others. Law and government are necessary to counter-act the less than savory impulses of the human race. These impulses exist, whether you want to acknowledge them or not.

My brother makes a great deal of money as a CFO in a major US company. That's fine. I agree that anybody should be free to do whatever he or she likes as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But, he does not exist in a vacuum. All the "poorer folks" who purchase his company's products allow him to make the money that he does. In truth, he has been very lucky, regardless of his "hard work".

I used to be a card-carrying "conservative", with many libertarian tendencies, BUT I find the attitude to NOT be based on reality. Granted, just as with Scn, the incredible bureaucracy of government makes useful, socialist ideas difficult to implement. I think that the notion of "taking care of ones fellow man" somehow needs to be incorporated into government policies, plan and actions. I understand that doing so is no easy task, and that most "solutions" will upset somebody. I also understand that most people view themselves as seperate from everyone else, and are often unwilling to extend any help of any kind to anyone else.

For instance, Theosophy was a key force in bringing various socialist ideas to India. I am very familar with the whole NWO conspiracy view on things; that the "occult" forces are sabotaging the good and wonderful "Christian" capitalism, but I disagree. I agree with a free-market system. I do NOT agree with capitalism. The two are very different, though most writers in the area confuse the two (intentionally or unintentionally). I do agree with the NWO view that central bankers and the forces pushing for worldwide capitalism harbor some degree of oppression. Making "capitalism" equal to "the free market system", as an idea, is pushed by central bankers all over the world, and by the past and current leader of the Federal Reserve Bank. It is a complete lie. Oh, yeah, they sure do like "capitalism", because they loan governments all over the world money at an interest rate (the basic idea of capitalism is loaning money at an interest rate for profit).

Communism involves the notion that man should assist his brothers. To me, the failure in communism, in actual practice, is that it can only be enforced at the point of a gun. Why? Because the current state of Man involves a severe view of personal seperation from all other livng things, the "I am the only one" mentality, and severe personal concern and greed. Communism could only exist when a majority of Mankind existed at a different, and somewhat "higher" state of consciousness, especially regarding the REST of the human race. In other words, Communism could only exist when most people chose to enter into it freely. That is not possible at the current state of consciousness as exists for most people on planet Earth. And, forcing it upon people surely doesn't work.

But, to me, a little bit of sensible socialism can be useful and even productive.

 

[JimJam]

Fascism is just another flavor of socialism. Remember that Nazi was just a contraction for the full name "National Socialist German Workers Party". And Mussolini started out as a Socialist.

The essence of socialism/fascism is that the purpose of the individual is to serve the Group and to advance the goals of the Group, as such goals are articulated by the Management of the Group.

The opposite of fascism is not socialism, it is libertarianism (what used to be called liberalism in the US, before the term was taken over by the socialists), the idea that individuals have a right to their own goals, that the purpose of groups is to facilitate individuals' achieving of their goals, and that when a group falls away from its real purpose, it is the right of its members to ablish it and create a new group. Or as laid out in the US Declaration of Independence in 1776:



Hitler and Stalin agreed on a lot, ideologically. Their major point of difference was on who was to be in charge.

I see a lot of similarities between Stalin and DM. In Stalin's case, he was preceded by a charismatic leader (Lenin) who was able to put an organization together by his ability to charm and persuade people. Stalin had no charm, he obtained power by his ability to set his enemies against each other, and eliminate them one ofter the other. Same deal with DM as successor to LRH.

But I will remember this when I next visit all the socialist (I mean fascist) hell holes in Europe.

What Stalin and Hitler most had in common was Authoritarianism. DM would indeed fight right at home with the both of them.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

Jimmy, which hell holes exactly?

 

[Gadfly]

But I will remember this when I next visit all the socialist (I mean fascist) hell holes in Europe.

What Stalin and Hitler most had in common was Authoritarianism. DM would indeed fight right at home with the both of them.

Equating socialism with Fascism involves an extremely poor thought process. Various Scandinavian countries, which as far as I know are VERY socialist in nature, routinely get high votes for the "best places to live in the world".

Stalin and Hitler were totalitarian brutes. THAT is NOT socialism, and they were NOT socialists (any stream of logic to the contrary).

Sorry to go off topic here. I understand that discussing the politics of various "isms" is nowhere as titillating as "sex in the Sea Org". My bad.

But, I do agree that Miscavige would feel right at home with both Stalin and Hitler. Birds of a feather . . . . .

 

[Enthetan]

Communism involves the notion that man should assist his brothers. To me, the failure in communism, in actual practice, is that it can only be enforced at the point of a gun. Why? Because the current state of Man involves a severe view of personal seperation from all other livng things, the "I am the only one" mentality, and severe personal concern and greed. Communism could only exist when a majority of Mankind existed at a different, and somewhat "higher" state of consciousness, especially regarding the REST of the human race. In other words, Communism could only exist when most people chose to enter into it freely. That is not possible at the current state of consciousness as exists for most people on planet Earth. And, forcing it upon people surely doesn't work.

The theory of Communism contains the notion that man should assist his brothers. The factual implementation of communism involves mass killings of anybody who disputes the authority of the current management. And that is true EVERYWHERE it is tried.

The attractiveness of Communism for many comes from the desire to grab some of the assets of those who have more than them. It gives license to the desire for robbery. It can only work when the more productive are prevented from leaving, hence the early requirement for closing off all avenues of escape, from the old USSR to North Korea, to Cuba, etc.

Similarly, the Sea Org, as a Communist enterprise, works hard to prevent people being able to escape

 

[Gadfly]

The theory of Communism contains the notion that man should assist his brothers. The factual implementation of communism involves mass killings of anybody who disputes the authority of the current management. And that is true EVERYWHERE it is tried.

The attractiveness of Communism for many comes from the desire to grab some of the assets of those who have more than them. It gives license to the desire for robbery. It can only work when the more productive are prevented from leaving, hence the early requirement for closing off all avenues of escape, from the old USSR to North Korea, to Cuba, etc.

Similarly, the Sea Org, as a Communist enterprise, works hard to prevent people being able to escape

Very good points. Communism cannot work on planet Earth. It always devolves to brutal oppression. Many "isms" cannot work on planet Earth without some degree of force (capitalism included), though the amount and type of force necessary differs very much. Try not paying your income taxes in a capitalist or socialist system. In the USA the IRS collects the taxes, largely to pay the mammoth debt to the Federal Reserve Bank. See what happens if you don't pay. But, again, that is NOT the same as lining up dissenters and shooting them in communist or fascist regimes.

 

[Enthetan]

Equating socialism with Fascism involves an extremely poor thought process. Various Scandinavian countries, which as far as I know are VERY socialist in nature, routinely get high votes for the "best places to live in the world".

Take a drive through the Muslim immigrant sections of Malmo, Sweden at some point.

A socialist state MUST become racist at some point, or it will fall under the stream of unproductive immigrants from all over the rest of the world, as they try to get in to get the free goodies. It also must become totalitarian and prevent the exit of its productive people, who will try to leave for places that allow them to keep more of their earnings.

 

[Gadfly]

Take a drive through the Muslim immigrant sections of Malmo, Sweden at some point.

A socialist state MUST become racist at some point, or it will fall under the stream of unproductive immigrants from all over the rest of the world, as they try to get in to get the free goodies. It also must become totalitarian and prevent the exit of its productive people, who will try to leave for places that allow them to keep more of their earnings.

Good point. I hadn't thought about that.

One point is that Hubbard was also very much against "welfare states" and all forms of socialism. That may or may not mean anything of significance.

I do not agree though that it must become "racist". Yes, socialism must address and handle the problem of the inflow of people wanting freebies. That may "appear" to be "racism", but it is not. It is a legitimate problem that appears in socialist systems, and needs to be addressed. Sure, common people will often dramatize this problem in a racist manner.

There are no easy answers. Brutal capitalism and rugged individualism also don't "work". As I see it, humanity is involved in many numerous "social experiments". Things are always changing and evolving. Political structures are just one of these continuing experiments. It would be nice if intelligent people could benefit by their experiences, and try new and better systems. I don't have much faith in that, but it sure would be nice.

Part of the problem is due to "nationalism". The truth, to me, is that ALL barriers are artificial. It is ONE WORLD. There are limited resources. Do the diamonds of South Africa really belong to the people who happened to develop there? Sure, THAT is much better than the European interests taking and controlling the diamond trade, basically cutting the local people out of the loop. Does the oil of the Middle East really "belong" to the indiginous peoples of the area? And, so on for all natural resources. The view of seperation, from one country or people or ethnicity, from all others is artificial. We are slowly moving towards THAT larger awareness of "one world" and "one people" with similar interests and desires. It will involve growing pains, severe growing pains, and this gradual evolution seems to inevitably involve pain and suffering for someone. It sucks. But, I don't see how it can be any other way.

Possibly it will take a scenario like in the movie "Independence Day", an alien invasion of a sort (or at least a staged one), to get the peoples of Earth to ignore their many differences and to "unite as one" from a larger commonly-shared view, and finally come to view themselves as the "people of Earth". But, I wouldn't hold my breath, since there are so many differences along religious, political, economic and nationalistic lines. And, so many powerful people have personal, power and financial interests in maintaining those artificial differences just as they are.

It is interesting to study the history and motivations of Masonry (subject of many conspiracy theorists and especially Christian conspiracy theorists). It is part of their philosophy that ALL concepts of Church and State, that encourage division and seperation, must be eradicated. There are some who have the opinion that Masons, along with various other "secret societies", have been orchestrating the "evolution of societies" all across the world for many centuries now. I used to think that they were the "bad guys". I am no longer quite so sure. The aim is to bring about an awareness of "one world" in Mankind. I don't any longer feel that THAT is necessarily a "bad thing".

Do "secret societies" and largely hidden "centers of influence and power" manipulate historical events within a framework of the Hegelian dialectic? Possibly so.

Is this good or bad? That is for you to decide.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb970219.htm

 

[lkwdblds]

Hi Guys! Its Lakey!!

Hey, What a pleasant surprise to see this thread which I started reviviifying without me. A lot of things are going good for me on ESMB and now this. I am speechless. I gave this thread up for dead on November 29, Post 110 back on Page 12. I checked in for nearly two weeks and there was no activity. What a surprise to see that Page 16 is nearly done. Heidrun Beer cut her teeth on my other website and she was so knowledgeable that a lot of people encouraged her to start her own thread. And to Heidrun who I like to practice German with I say to you, "Ich danke ihnen vielmals fur das neues leben was Sie hat auf meinie alte thread gebracht." Its supposed to mean, "I thank you big time, for the new life which you brought to my old thread." I'm sure there are lots of mistakes.

I'll have to read up on the missing pages and start posting again. I see that Gadfly is here no less. He and Heidrun are an interesting mix and those two exchanging posts should lead to some very lively discussions.

Lakey