Why Scientology and OTs are inherently fascist.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Yes Arnie, that is one aspect of survival. But I am saying the root cause is this urge, and it over whelms, it goes beyond mere eking out an existence, and becomes an all consuming urge. How many people's lives are being destroyed by the greed of Scientology? A billion and a half in SO reserves is pure greed. An exaggerated havingness if you will. Much like the richest few percent that own the bulk of our assets, and what do they do? They suborn the laws of the land to protect it from taxation, buy politicians, create soulless corporations to create more wealth. Scientology is no different. Try to get back your donos. Good luck with that. You know how the legal landscape is if anyone does.

I think it is some sort of basic mechanism in our makeup gone awry.

Mimsey

These qualities may or may not be lying dormant in all of us. I don't know.

There are people who are raised that way.

There are people who evolve that way.

But Scientologists are trained and processed to be that way.

This is the product of Scientology---fascist.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Great stuff, TAJ and all Y'all...absolutely great stuff!

I know this is overly simplistic but, for me, my walking away from the SO and ultimately Scn was very much to do with what I saw as Scns "Guiding Principle"...The end justifies the means.

BTW, when I walked away, my Post Stats were in long term "Affluence" and I was in a relatively autonomous position, in a higher than most position on the "Food Chain", with comparatively much better living conditions than most SO Members.

Face

 

[Balthasar]

--- snipped ---
Does it go back to a simple Hubbard precept "The goal is to survive"? And survival equals domination?

Mimsey

I would suggest "The ultimate goal is to create"

 

[Div6]

You could also argue that it is a pack mentality at work, the alphas being in charge and the rest becoming subservient to the alphas needs. This could have deep roots. But, putting that aside - I think it is both the philosophy and reality that reinforces this behavior. The Nazi's philosophy is based on the existence and sanctity of the uber race, in Scientology philosophical concept of eternal life and the inherent indestructibility of the thetan gives rise to the freedom to harm in the name for a better tomorrow.

The reality at work in both cases is the vast number of beings loose on a small planet makes the leaders feel there is no harm done if a few die or many die or are wasted in the over all effort for the goal.

What is interesting is the selfishness of the goals. The pursuit of extreme wealth - the lack of a conscience, the willingness to steal or sell harmful products, or unsafe products to gain money, to find exclusive ownership of essential products ( such as seeds, water, food, medicine etc), market control, monopolies, it amazing to me. How can these people not think of the harm they are wreaking to gain their ends? What is so important about being a multi millionaire, a billionaire? And why do they have to suborn attempts to unseat them?

Does it go back to a simple Hubbard precept "The goal is to survive"? And survival equals domination?

You could go so far as to see it as an extension of eating - one destroys what one eats.

Mimsey

The goal was to "survive" within the Dianetic mileau of the 4 dynamics. To hear Hubbard tell it in the 4th ACC London, since all a thetan can do is "survive" he gets bored, and changes it to succumb. Either by forgetting, or other forms of overwhelm, so that he can then later on "remember". All of this in the postulate realm whether manifested or not in the physical realm. Modern day Scientology immediately and abruptly DROPS any "PC" or "pre-ot" for "having succumb postulates", somehow forgetting that the "way out is the way through".

And so they then get overwhelmed with "unconfrontable charge" and crash, as their itsa lines are cut and no one is willing to "listen" to them, as they are now "ethics particles".

Polarization of groups is STANDARD TECH in most every group I have seen. Apart from a few (rare) meritocracies, they have all had their priesthood classes and ruler classes and peon classes. This is not unique to Scientology, but is magnified within it currently. Even if it was of the "non-virulent" strain, it would still have it's levels of achievement both in training and processing.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I know this is overly simplistic but, for me, my walking away from the SO and ultimately Scn was very much to do with what I saw as Scns "Guiding Principle"...The end justifies the means.

Once you get someone to believe that the fate of "every man, woman, and child" for the next endless trillions of years depends upon the success of Scientology, it's pretty easy to get them to buy into that Guiding Principle.....The end justifies the means.

Any crime can be justified using this guiding principle when you believe the stakes are so high. You can murder someone who is interfering with the operation of the CoS and from a Scientological perspective, that would be an ethical activity.

Excerpt from "Keeping Scientology Working" by Hubbard:
"We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or something to do for lack of something better.

The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.

This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance.

Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don't muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.

Do them and we'll win."
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?Itemid=240&id=1466&option=com_content&task=view

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

You see that in Islam as well, lying (Taqiyya and Kitman) as justified in spreading the word of Allah, in Wall Street advertising, bait and switch, false promises etc. In Scientology there is a plethora of exaggerated promises, false promises (IAS $ handling psychs etc,) ponzi schemes on and on - from the "most honest of religions" no less.

The ends justify a lack of honesty and decency seems to be more than prevelant in our civilization. It is a wonder our society has gotten as far as it has and isn't a complete anarchy.

Mimsey

 

[Enthetan]

I used fascism because there is a consistant strain of thinking between fascism and OTs. That is, that soome are better than others.

In communism, there is the belileve in equality, but within Leninism there was the historical component so the end justified the means and people were expendable.

But with fascist and OTs, the idea isthat they are better and superior than others and therefore should dominate.

Their Will or Postulates are more important than other beings.

Some may ask, "How do I know OTs think like this?" Because it is a corollary to the idea of being an OT.

It is implied in the definition.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I think the main difference between Fascists and Communists is that the Fascists are more honest and open about what they think and plan to do. The Communists are in a con game where the "Vanguard of the Proletariat" makes noises about equality, but the Elites (the "articulate class") privately have contempt for the actual "working class", and consider them to be cattle to be harvested as needed.

Robert Heinlein once said

"Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surely curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbours than the other sort."
​

Put another way, there is a spectrum with one end holding that the Individual should be considered the property of the Group, to be used as the Group's leadership sees fit.

The other end of the spectrum considers that individuals are free and independent beings with the right to pursue their own goals. To accomplish their goals, individuals may form groups and give their support to such groups, but retain the right to withdraw from the group if it betrays the goal for which the individual joined.

 

[Enthetan]

Once you get someone to believe that the fate of "every man, woman, and child" for the next endless trillions of years depends upon the success of Scientology, it's pretty easy to get them to buy into that Guiding Principle.....The end justifies the means.

Any crime can be justified using this guiding principle when you believe the stakes are so high. You can murder someone who is interfering with the operation of the CoS and from a Scientological perspective, that would be an ethical activity.

That was pretty explicit in HCOPL "Responsibilities of leaders" (alias "Simon Bolivar policy"). When I was in the SO, it was considered senior policy: do anything, hurt anyone to support your senior, as long as you do not allow any blame for it to fall on the senior. Your senior will grab you out of the mess later if you have proved yourself to be a valuable minion.

Seniors who really knew how to play the game would ensure that an expendable junior of a junior was used to perform any act that might blow up in somebody's face. The biggest example would be the CMO -- a group which allowed Hubbard to run things with verbal orders, with plausible deniability by Hubbard.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

That was pretty explicit in HCOPL "Responsibilities of leaders" (alias "Simon Bolivar policy"). When I was in the SO, it was considered senior policy: do anything, hurt anyone to support your senior, as long as you do not allow any blame for it to fall on the senior. Your senior will grab you out of the mess later if you have proved yourself to be a valuable minion.

Seniors who really knew how to play the game would ensure that an expendable junior of a junior was used to perform any act that might blow up in somebody's face. The biggest example would be the CMO -- a group which allowed Hubbard to run things with verbal orders, with plausible deniability by Hubbard.

That hands off deniability, is used extensively with the OSA - Lawyers - PI's - dirty tricks meme, with the added cloaking of A) religiosity and B) attorney / client privilege. Such fiendish, conniving avoidance of culpability.
Mimsey

 

[Veda]

Hubbard's "philosophy," later called "Scientology," appeared, not during the "cold war" of the 1950s, as is fashionable to say these days, but during the 1930s, during the time of Mussolini and Hitler.

'Jefferson and/or Mussolini' by Ezra Pound, 1935: http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/pound_ezra/jeffmuss.html


___________________________


Living is a pretty grim joke, but a joke just the same.

The entire function of man is to survive. Not for 'what' but just to survive. [Not for what, but just to survive? as in have an impact for the sake of having an impact. "I am not interested in 'wog' morality... I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday school teacher." L. Ron Hubbard, 1969]

...

I turned the thing up [The Dynamic principle of Existence: Survive!] so it's up to me to survive in a big way.

Personal immortality is only to be gained through the printed word, barred note or painted canvas or hard granite. [Or stainless steel, or titanium, or by having 'L. Ron Hubbard' identified with people's 'survival!']

Foolishly perhaps, but determined nonetheless, I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form even if all the books are destroyed.

That goal is the real goal as far as I am concerned.

Things which stand too consistently in my way make me nervous. It's a pretty big job. In a hundred years Roosevelt will have been forgotten - which gives some idea of the magnitude of my attempt. And all this boils and froths inside my head.

...

Psychiatrists, reaching the high of the dusty desk, tell us that Alexander, Genghis Khan and Napoleon were madmen. I know they're maligning some very intelligent gentlemen.

...I can make Napoleon look like a punk...

From L. Ron Hubbard's 'Excalibur' letter, August 1938​

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

That hands off deniability, is used extensively with the OSA - Lawyers - PI's - dirty tricks meme, with the added cloaking of A) religiosity and B) attorney / client privilege. Such fiendish, conniving avoidance of culpability.
Mimsey

I was wondering much later, after the edit time had run out, if this A) B) cloaking can be pierced? On another thread on ESMB or perhaps it was one of Tony O's commenters, I forget exactly where, someone said the trend is to avoid the religious issues by attacking the practice & methods of Scientology, not the philosophy. So these shields - especially using the client /attorney privilage to cloak illegal activity, can they be pierced? Could one sue /prosecute Moxon et. al for concealing illegal activity?

Mimsey

 

[Panda Termint]

Seriously, though. I should qualify this by saying in Scientology power has several contexts. But the OT power promoted and sold is a higher quality of being than us mere mortals.

A person may be looking for something else, but if they are, they should realize real soon that they are looking in the wrong place.

<snip for brevity...>

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thanks for answering, TAJ.

Yes, you are quite right about looking for a thing in the wrong place and I probably should have seen that sooner. For me, it took getting all the way to OT8 to fully realise that.

I never bought the PR about OT States by Hubbard/the CofS and never had the unreal expectations of some as regards OT Levels. I've written here on ESMB about the moment where I saw this clearly in my first year of participation in scientology.

(here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...In-Scientology&p=553007&viewfull=1#post553007 )


I was searching for something other than power or "altitude" (what a strange idea that seems now) over others. As I've said before, the moment I found what I was seeking was also the moment I realised that scientology didn't have a clue about it.

I have a theory about why it is so and why I "stayed the course". Part of it is that I was able to create my own illusory version of how scientology worked for me and thereby benefit from that thing, that self-created illusion. My theory is not fully formed but if we were to imagine any Auditor I ever had saying to me, The PC, "Create an illusion which adequately explains _(whatever)_ " we might be onto something. LOL

 

[Anonycat]

... the moment I found what I was seeking was also the moment I realised that scientology didn't have a clue about it.

 

[Enthetan]

Hubbard's "philosophy," later called "Scientology," appeared, not during the "cold war" of the 1950s, as is fashionable to say these days, but during the 1930s, during the time of Mussolini and Hitler.

During the 1930's, the Left loved Mussolini and Hitler. Particularly in the period of the Hitler/Stalin Pact. Mussolini started as a Socialist and saw Fascism as a way to make Socialism workable. The term "nazi" is just a contraction of Nationalsozialistische (National Socialist). The official name of the German Nazi party was "National Socialist German Workers Party"

The attraction for statists was the philosphy of the necessity of a strong government, able to run things "correctly"

 

[Enthetan]

I was wondering much later, after the edit time had run out, if this A) B) cloaking can be pierced? On another thread on ESMB or perhaps it was one of Tony O's commenters, I forget exactly where, someone said the trend is to avoid the religious issues by attacking the practice & methods of Scientology, not the philosophy. So these shields - especially using the client /attorney privilage to cloak illegal activity, can they be pierced? Could one sue /prosecute Moxon et. al for concealing illegal activity?

Mimsey

It would be hard to prove. If it's done intelligently, there will be no record, either written or electronic, of any order to perform any illegal activity. In fact the PI's will have signed contracts stipulating that they are forbidden to engage in any illegal activity.

Paraphrasing "Mission Impossible": "If any of you are caught, the COB will disavow any knowledge of your existence".

When illegal acts were committed by GO staff or "Guardian Activities Scientologists"(GAS), it was harder to plausibly deny that they were operating under orders. There's lots of case law that an organization is to be held civilly responsible for the actions of its employees who operate in the course of their official duties. PI's acting as independent contractors under the orders of attorneys is a little more murky.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

During the 1930's, the Left loved Mussolini and Hitler. Particularly in the period of the Hitler/Stalin Pact. Mussolini started as a Socialist and saw Fascism as a way to make Socialism workable. The term "nazi" is just a contraction of Nationalsozialistische (National Socialist). The official name of the German Nazi party was "National Socialist German Workers Party"

The attraction for statists was the philosphy of the necessity of a strong government, able to run things "correctly"

The Nazis weren't socialist.

That was the name of the party when Hitler joined. It had about 30 members at the time.

After that it became his party and his agenda.

The Left that loved Hitler after the Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact was the Comintern, and this was done on direct orders from Stalin.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The Nazis weren't socialist. ...

TAJ, you have some very eccentric and idiosyncratic views concerning the subject of fascism. Frankly the word 'fascist', like 'socialism', isn't just a dirty word of denigration which is to be applied freely to those of whom you may not approve. It has genuine meaning in the sphere of politico-economics. Your attempts to draw parallels between the church and fascism are, putting it mildly, very far off base.

Yes, the church is a destructive cult and the people leading the church routinely act out in a tyrannical and irrational fashion. That is not however the definition of 'fascist' and it is an inadequate basis for denoting such individuals or institutions as 'fascist'. Many not terribly nice people and institutions have nonetheless not been 'fascist'. Such is the church and its leadership.

And yes, The Nazis were socialist. They just weren't particularly motivated by the spirit of liberalism. But then, contrary to popular belief, that is not actually a requisite of socialist thought.

Frankly, several of the arguments you have posed in this thread, though clearly well intentioned, have been straining credulity. I personally don't see much point in attempting to fit scientology into a political economic framework, but given the extremist libertarian attitudes frequently expressed by hubbard and many of the scientologists I've known who appeared to be parroting hubbard, I'd be more inclined to make an argument along such lines were I so motivated.


Mark A. Baker

 

[wigee1]

DAVE, Grant here , up to ot *8 !!! now muso to muso, If one wants an amazing band , do you get the best musos together or ones that get on well together regardless, How come the rOLLINGstones have kept together all these years. but the 1st two chords you know= KEITH RICHARDS, NOW MOST PEOPLE WOULD KNOW he anit OT*8 Tom cruise would not even come near ,why , keith is create ,create, create, cruise is this is what i,m paid to do,
big difference whos the natural ot. When i came back to Auckland , i decided, to do book 1 auditing, not go up the bridge to class 220. but book one
well I could audit ,pissed , half asleep , in the most unusal situations possible i got good , Neil Liversledge Auckland book 1 er couldnt figure out how I was so succesfull, simple, stay with the p c, get a Ep no matter what. I did ,.simple, Ive realized that the biggest barrier to scientology has been is Book 1, gets in the way. they got a problem It stops people if they have a win ) people go clear on Book one, I love book one,but not many people really work it

I realize this is rambling but i have to do it,

 

[Panda Termint]

Lol!!! Hiya Grant, nice to see you here!
When it comes to Rock and Roll and creativity, I'll take Keef every day of the week!

 

[Sindy]

TAJ, you have some very eccentric and idiosyncratic views concerning the subject of fascism. Frankly the word 'fascist', like 'socialism', isn't just a dirty word of denigration which is to be applied freely to those of whom you may not approve. It has genuine meaning in the sphere of politico-economics. Your attempts to draw parallels between the church and fascism are, putting it mildly, very far off base.

Yes, the church is a destructive cult and the people leading the church routinely act out in a tyrannical and irrational fashion. That is not however the definition of 'fascist' and it is an inadequate basis for denoting such individuals or institutions as 'fascist'. Many not terribly nice people and institutions have nonetheless not been 'fascist'. Such is the church and its leadership.

And yes, The Nazis were socialist. They just weren't particularly motivated by the spirit of liberalism. But then, contrary to popular belief, that is not actually a requisite of socialist thought.

Frankly, several of the arguments you have posed in this thread, though clearly well intentioned, have been straining credulity. I personally don't see much point in attempting to fit scientology into a political economic framework, but given the extremist libertarian attitudes frequently expressed by hubbard and many of the scientologists I've known who appeared to be parroting hubbard, I'd be more inclined to make an argument along such lines were I so motivated.


Mark A. Baker

Some of what you say above, I agree with but are you not mistaking Scientology's stated aims with its actual actions? I wish you would be so motivated as to make the argument that Scientology is more along the lines of Libertarianism. I would love to hear that argument.

I am not stating my political bent here but would be curious to know what libertarian views you find extreme.

It would have been more accurate if TAJ had said that Scientologists behaved like fascists rather than that they actually were fascists but isn't that splitting hairs? At the beginning of the OP he stated that he was over simplifying a more complex idea for the sake of discussion. Me, I can allow for less than a complete literal application of the ideas expressed and can relate.