*This article was provided to MS2 to address the growing political divide in the US — and was written to also communicate to both Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike – Administrator

by Bruce C

This writing began as a personal attempt to better understand the people who flock together in support of a demagogue, especially one that inspires hatred, violence, and death. Authoritarian, even despotic leaders throughout history have always had a strong appeal to certain individuals in our society, and the remainder of our society has always dealt with them with considerable difficulty.

Twists of truth and outright lies, denial or justification of even the most heinous crimes, vilification and character assassination of people of goodwill, uncivil behaviors and speech, war and general mayhem are the everyday milieu of the Unchanging Victims.

They champion revenge in every way; payback for what was done to them is their ultimate goal.

The utter craziness of their world is not easy to look at, and impossible to comprehend.

Opinion becomes truth becomes fact is information is a talking point is a talking head is rant. It’s a mish-mash of madness.

Worship of symbols is a must. Nationalism, Jingoism, and Rugged Individualism, even in their own tight circles becomes a constant game of one-upmanship. Who can wave the flag or spout patriotic bravado the loudest and best?

Humor, which in healthy minds is a “laughing off” of observable absurdities, is degraded into a gleeful joy of inflicting pain and humiliation in others.

A most notable characteristic of Unchanging Victims is they will always accuse others of the crimes that they themselves have already committed. (See second paragraph above)

But of course they are never the guilty. Not ever! They are the victims.

This is perhaps the most tell-telling description for detecting an Unchanging Victim: They cannot be wrong. While they constantly point the finger at all kinds of supposed wrongness everywhere around us, they themselves are totally incapable of accepting observable facts (reading or seeing) that would expose the fallacy of their claims of victimhood.

They themselves are completely guiltless; just ask them, they will tell you. And if cornered by facts and forced (they do “understand” force) to confess, their admissions will somehow be backwards, covertly blaming something or someone else for their own sins.

It’s interesting that the word, “victim” comes from the Latin word “victima” which means, “a beast for sacrifice.” That original meaning actually describes them the best.

But what is the mechanism that makes the Unchanging Victim fall down to their knees and worship unconditionally their bringer of death?

Psychologically their mental state is complex. There can be many reasons, both personal and shared as a symptom. Untold significances can be studied and written about.

But the central factor here is that such a person has problems dealing with their own misdeeds against others. They cannot simply accept or confess that they have done wrong. So they must invent a false past that explains it away. And that false explanation always makes them right; it proves that they were the real victims all along. Dedicated victims.

They have fully cast their own fate, given it to the responsibility of something and someone they deem greater than themselves, and with this act have become willing victims.

Being a basically good person, they must somehow cope with the wrongful things they have done. So they must constantly assert that they are the unwilling victim of others.

In short explanation, they are good people trying to prove they are good people.

If they did wrong it was only because they were an animal of unwilling sacrifice, a victim.

So when you attempt to show them facts, try and disprove their misguided rants, you are in essence (in their minds) attempting to prove that they are bad people.

It’s a sad, sad situation because essentially they are good; they are ethical and sane. And down, down and sometimes very deeply down in what’s left of their tortured souls they know this unequivocally and are desperately trying to hold onto that truth.

Then why do they flock in support of the petulant and treacherous demagogue?

In simple terms, the tyrant brings them some forceful direction that they lack for themselves. The tyrant, promising them some form of utopia, is their great hope of redemption in a future life. The tyrant is, in their minds, responsible for relieving their sins. The tyrant, in their thinking, will bring an end to their personal sufferings.

And if that end of suffering is the demise of all mankind they know for certain, at least they will have been right, and everybody else have been wrong.

Yes, it is insanity, so don’t get sucked into it. Just shake your head if you must and quietly acknowledge it for what it is. They are the victims, not you.

60 thoughts on “Forever victims

  1. Not from the US, but monitoring the elections closely. You don’t give names, but I assume you mean Trump. Since I participate in online campaigns for the Trump side since July 2015, let me answer.

    One major driver for the divide is that Rep and Dem don’t share common ground any longer. They don’t vote for each other’s proposed laws, the voters live in isolated bubbles. Can be measured, e.g., on Twitter or the reading lists on Amazon. It started in the 1960s, amplified in the 1990s. No exchange of ideas anymore. Much contempt and hostility for the other side.

    Then we have the corporate media that (intentionally mis-)interpret the candidates’ positions. There’s a difference between the public opinion and the published opinions. Both for the Rep and Dem sides.

    Why I support the Trump side: The transatlantic establishment does too many things I disagree with. Trump is certainly a self-centered entertainer and he does what he must to win the election (his provocative statements, small grammar mistakes, his outbursts etc. are all calculated). What he does once he has won will probably be different — he said himself he’ll be a completely boring POTUS and I’m willing to believe that. He gets things done in the business world and puts a deal over feelings. He knows the establishment and their rotten parts, so he can play them. Remember Ron: an org loses because it’s internally weak — same here.

    Trump’s foreign policies will, according to his statements, (hopefully) end the disastrous engagement in the MENA region, the questionable trade agreements, the hostility towards Russia and China.

    With Clinton I see more of the already existing. More conflicts, more Big Money interests getting their way. For Europe the transatlantic establishment is often a disaster: Ukraine conflict and anti-Russia policies, MENA on fire and an uncontrolled inflow of immigrants who are often on 1.1 and 1.5 tone level, hidden interference with the Eurozone monetary system (a system that looks like it was designed to be weak from the beginning with significant Goldman Sachs contribution), trade agreements with the potential to be outside democratic control or accountability, and several things more. Our own elites are weak or profit too much themselves from that. That is reinforced under Clinton and it makes improvements more difficult.

    What I think of Trump voters: from “losers” (too much change in too little time, economic disadvantages from a globalized world and a self-serving establishment) who perhaps harbor revenge feelings to people who are just fed up with the politics of the Western World. From stupid and failure to smart and successful, all there. And actually, even the “rednecks and hillbillies” and other “white losers” I’ve spoken with show pretty rational reasons why they vote for Trump. Only a small number were outright stupid, revengeful, religious zealots a.s.o. Most don’t think of themselves as right and the other as wrong (at least not in regard with politics) and are surprisingly tolerant — it’s more that they feel that there’s an agenda pushed down their throats and they push back. Their economic situation (or outlook) is bad, affirmative action is for other groups while they’re asked to “check their privilege”. The system doesn’t work in their favor. Legal immigrants often seem to see it similarly as they’re hard-working and contributing citizens and get a bad name. Do they vote for Trump because he appeals to their occasional 1.5 level? Or because he appears powerful and able to change the system at least a bit to their advantage? Both I guess.

    I can’t speak much about Clinton voters. From successful middle class academic and business professionals with a cosmopolitan self-image to “professional victims” (organized ethnic and sexual minorities with power hunger and revenge fantasies as well), all there. Sanders could attract disenfranchised young people (college debts, structurally unemployed), many of them seem to be overwhelmed and feel like victims (and to a certain extent, they are).

    As Ron observed in the 1970s, educational standards were lowered and people can’t properly think and communicate (duplicate and understand). The political system reduced civil liberties and people distrust each other.

    So I wouldn’t put neither side into the victim camp. Voting for Trump or Clinton (or Johnson) doesn’t make one an idiot or a victim (in the article’s sense). I’d say it’s the wrong Why. It doesn’t improve the situation. We can talk about the possible Whys to understand why people vote for Trump. But being a victim (making the other wrong to be right oneself, not confronting their overts and withholds) is not what we’re looking for I assume.

    P.S.: When you showed them facts, have you considered to check back what their facts are? How both your facts might collide? Have you asked what’s troubling them? Why they feel being wronged? Somehow you must have come to the conclusion that their souls are tortured.

    P.P.S.: Please excuse the lengthy reply. Perhaps I misunderstood the direction of your article. And yes, I might be stuck in a bubble myself.

    • From Bruce’s opening lines about demagogues who inspire hatred, my first impulse was to think of Clinton! But I think he’s really making an important point about politics in general, and not necessarily confined to our own century or planet.

      All down the track there have been good people trying to prove they are good, free people being enslaved by promises of freedom, people going wrong through trying to prove their rightness. LRH’s ‘The Story of a Static’ says a lot about this.

      • Right on, David. This is a game that’s been in restim for a very long time. It’s pretty well all on automatic right now. The “birth/death” cycle isn’t the only cycle that’s stuck in a groove; one only has to look at one’s past to see that. Time to end the game(s) and play a better one, as LRH envisioned. 🙂

  2. While most politicians are known to promise a beer in every hand and a chicken in every pot, hoping that a demagogue will come to a sudden sense of honesty and beneficence once in office has historically never worked out well for the naive.

  3. The mass media is probably the most unreliable source of fact or reliable information around. So finding out about a candidate requires some homework and sorting out of fact from fiction. I will admit to not doing enough of this but my opinion so far is this.

    With Clinton we will have more of the same, more war on “terror”, more sabre rattling with Russia and China with possible escalation, more protection for the big business or the oligarchy President Carter talked about.

    I must admit to a prejudice against Carter, it was her husband who cancelled the “Glass Stegal” act, thereby paving the way for the banks to speculate with investors money leading to the Global Financial Crises and the devastation that lead to.

    Trump, who knows. He says he can talk to Putin. Maybe he can rein in the military industrialists out to make more fortunes, while the bankers lend the money for it. Maybe he can figure out Wall Streets next big scam, namely the trading of Carbon Credits. Forget about sub prime mortgages, this is where the big money will really be, because everyone who buys any manufactured good will be freely contributing to it, because we will be “saving the planet”. The best way to make a slave, is to get them to agree to slavery.

    If Trump is genuine, he has got a big fight on his hands, and it wont be Russia or China.

    In the end talk is cheap, what are the past products of both?

  4. For a lot of LRH material on “victims” the best source is the 1st Melbourne ACC. He talks quite a bit about being the bigger victim, and the role of the weakest valence.


    • Thanks, Doc. I just listened to a couple of these lectures and found this quote which applies very specifically to my essay. “… the person who takes responsibility for everything, relieving everyone else, particularly themselves, for any responsibility for anything. And that is a sure way to build a criminal society.”

      I don’t know if you had other message to put forward, but I would love it if you would comment.


  5. Bruce C:

    Since your post deals in large generalities and does not connect anything to individuals, nor really provide any mass to attach to the significance, I cannot really determine what point you’re trying to make. It appears to make some point about the victim valence in which U.S. voters supposedly find themselves. Something like that. I think.

    Moreover, for what it’s worth, there’s really very little reference here to anything in Scientology. While we do provide some latitude in this blog for other subjects, the more posts fall in the vicinity of Scientology, the better.

    I would encourage both you and the moderators to forbear politics in this blog. In any other venue, I might engage you and attempt to straighten out your meaning, then probably argue against your position with facts, statistics and provable observations. But I do not believe this is the place for that kind of discourse. By the same token, I would ask for silence regarding politics in Europe, the UK, and Australia. While I’m quite versed in U.S. politics, what I know about foreign countries’ politics would fit in a thimble. And I suspect that’s true of most foreigners who argue about American politics.

    You are quite correct that the American electorate is very divided, and I appreciate your effort to make some sense of it. But I fear that you have not only failed in the effort but introduced elements which beg argument into a venue where such arguments are unwanted.

    But then, maybe it’s just me.


    • I agree with Paul.

      This is not an appropriate forum for this discussion. If you are going to bring Scientology and politics together and relate it to the current situation in the world, why not relate it to games, GPMs or even 3rd partying controlling things behind the scenes? Otherwise, seems unclear in purpose and trying to get people to vote one way rather than having a clear point in this post.

      • PID:

        Agreed. It is possible to introduce politics here in a limited way, as it relates to Scientology. Ron managed to dip his toe into it from time to time. But what the original poster here has done is not the same thing, as you pointed out.


    • “This is not an appropriate forum for this discussion”

      I disagree! We should be able to communicate about anything and everything that interests us, and if it does not interest another,or they disagree, so be it but lets not stifle anyones comm! I will let the poor overworked moderator sort out the inappropriate messages 🙂

      • For a forum and subject Scientology that is supposed to be non-political, then that would be inappropriate as it would go against the group goals. Obviously you can talk about politics but here isn’t really the place as it doesn’t serve any purpose to further the goals of this group. The article is without any real clear point, as Paul explained already, and seems like a thinly veiled attack on Trump as others have pointed out. (I’m not voting for him or Clinton but that’s besides the point) This is not a political endorsement site, and there’s plenty of that on social media if you really want to read it.

        Also if you feel that strongly about freedom to communicate on all subjects, then you should also ask yourself why you’re on a group where no entheta/nattery talk is allowed either – reasons for this have been discussed ad nauseam in other posts. Just saying, learn the rules about the group where we are posting. I’m sure Lana will take a look at this, but I still think that a talk about politics with a thinly veiled attack on Trump that hardly relates to tech nor has a clear purpose otherwise should go elsewhere.

        • Scientology – nor LRH – were/are non-political. Read some of what Ron wrote about Nixon and the FDA, FBI (Hoover), etc. As to the point of the article, it was clear enough to me. Whether it should have been posted, Doesn’t matter to me. Gloss over it or ignore it if one doesn’t like it. It’s clear the blog admin decided to post it.

          • CB:

            Ron (and by extension, Scientology) were political only to the extent that government attacked us and raided our organizations. Otherwise, Ron kept politics out of it, except to occasionally make general commentary about how the Tech illuminated politics one way or another.


            • Maybe so, but he made frequent reference to government wrongs and “should-be’s.” And to personal (usually bank) buy-ins to different types of governments. And yeah, occasionally to partisan politics.

              I recall one tape quip (paraphrased) along the lines of (scornfully), How does one talk to a Democrat? Why, be a better Democrat, of course!

              • PZ:

                You are correct. My point is that there was never a “vote for Joe Bloggs” sort of statement or “vote Republican”. The exception was when we were attacked. At that point, Ron was more than happy to name names (e.g. Nixon, Kennedy). And in fact, if I’m not sorely mistaken one of our codes states flatly that we (Scientology) are a non-political entity. Naturally, as part of life, politics in general was susceptible to analysis in light of the tools of our Technology. I believe Science of Survival made the first mention of this type of thing (the parties and where they sat on the Tone Scale).


                • This is from HCO PL 14 JUNE 1965 “POLITICS, FREEDOM FROM”. It is on page 159 of Org Exec Course Volume 0. This is right next to Code Of A Scientologist which is on page 160.

                  “1. I hereby declare Scientology to be nonpolitical and nonideological.

                  Politics and ideology may be no part of any decision to train or process individuals, and any such interrogation shall cease to be part of any application for training, processing or membership.
                  This does not change any policy related to suppressive persons. It does delete any words in any form which seek to bring about a statement of political allegiance or antagonism.
                  Scientologists may be members of any political group on this planet without restraint only so long as these individuals or that group do not attempt to seize Scientology for their warlike ends and so make it unworkable or distastefull by invidious connection.
                  Scientology is for a free people and is itself on this date declared free of any political connection or allegiance of any kind whatever.”


                  • True. But note the second clause in that PL:

                    “1. I hereby declare Scientology to be nonpolitical and non-ideological.

                    Politics and ideology may be no part of any decision to train or process individuals, and any such interrogation shall cease to be part of any application for training, processing or membership.”

                    That certainly qualifies and reflects on his statement in the first sentence.

                    And while there’s this, from HCOB 24 April 1960, “Concerning The Campaign For Presidency” (Paul, take note),

                    “A person named Richard M. Nixon will enter his name this fall at a convention as a citizen aspiring to the Presidency of the United States. Many Scientologists think he is all right because I once quoted him. This is very far from the facts and I hasten to give you the real story why Richard M. Nixon must be prevented at all costs from becoming president. …

                    It’s my hope you’ll vote and make your friends vote. But please don’t vote for Nixon. Even his own Secret Service agents assure us he stands for nothing we do.”

                    clause 6 of the above PL does rescind it:

                    “6. All statements attacking any political entity or ideology are hereby withdrawn and cancelled in any lectures or literature.”

                    (As an aside, Ron was pretty astute and aware of what was really going on:

                    “5. The reason for this declaration is the consistent disaster visited upon her “allies” by the United States government….”)

                    (As a further aside, just some wild ramblings and maundering here, tongue-in-cheek, but if, as Ron has alluded, the US government is suppressive, then does that make Americans PTS? And must they now disconnect? And what about the PL Enrollment In Suppressive Groups? Do Americans now need to disband the US government before doing any OT Levels? LOL

                    “7. Scientologists may be members of any political group on this planet without restraint only so long as these individuals or that group do not attempt to seize Scientology for their own warlike ends and so make it unworkable or distasteful by invidious connection.”)

      • 4a:

        Incorrect. That’s why there are various forums around the web which specialize in their own subject matter. Ours is more or less Scientology. Politics is over there somewhere. Your right to free speech is “inalienable”, as they say in our Constitution. That doesn’t give you the right to say whatever you like wherever you like. That’s an entirely different matter.

        Moreover, you have no idea what hell on Earth you can rain down on a venue like this by opening the doors to a political discussion. Participants get out of hand (and they will) and the next thing you know, you have endless unpleasantness. I’ve seen it happen.

        It’s kind of like cursing and bad language. Among us chaps in the locker room and out in the field, I reserve the right to be as colorful with my language as possible. But in very public places with mixed company, it simply isn’t appropriate. Not to mention, it’s rude.


        • ” Participants get out of hand (and they will) and the next thing you know, you have endless unpleasantness.”

          I think this is being taken way too seriously. I dont necessarily agree with the post, but it opens up, for me, an interesting conversation. Also I would like to think we can discuss and learn, the only way unpleasantness will crop up,is if there is an obsession with being right, and I would like to think we are past that on this blog, as opposed to other blogs.

          Also I do not see how this post violates any of the policies of writing and commenting as outlined in the rules of MS2, in fact, it was put up by the admin.

          • 4a:

            “I think this is being taken way too seriously.” You think the well-informed American voter doesn’t take their politics very seriously indeed? Even the typically ill-informed American voter tends to take politics seriously.

            You give your fellow man and your fellow Scientologist too much credit, I’m sorry to say. We’ve had near fist fights on this blog for non-political subjects. Enough so that the moderator has had to place people in “time-outs” or ban them entirely. Start mixing actual politics in, and the result is liable to be in the kiloton range. Again, as a list administrator, I’ve seen it happen. And this was for a group which was normally civil to each other, as we are here.

            When I graduated from my Staff Statuses, I had an idea of how Scientologists ought to react as individuals and as a group. It took all of a week or so to thoroughly disabuse me of that idea. Nothing has happened in the last 40+ years to change my mind. In fact, it has gotten noticeably worse. And this isn’t based on opinion. This is by my actual observation.

            As for the “rules” here, those are needfully broad so as to allow wide-ranging discourse. And politics isn’t off limits, because there are times when a brief foray into politics in general as it relates to Scientology is appropriate. But what we’re talking about with this OP’s post colors pretty far outside the lines.

            Now, you and the moderator and the other subscribers are welcome to do as you like. And if I see that the moderator is comfortable with the idea of throwing the door open to politics, I’ll be glad to engage. I have quite a bit to say and too few venues in which to do so.


    • Another one very relevant (thank you) is 5911C23 1MACC 21 Responsibility for Zones of Creation.

      My mention of “Rugged Individualism” is also a subject and title of another LRH lecture. Very worthwhile. I do not recall the number and date, but maybe you do.

  6. To clarify for all — articles posted on MS2 are not necessarily my own personal views. I did not see Bruce’s article as an effort to persuade people on who you should vote for in the US. I saw it as a reflection on politics and government in a First World country today. I thought it would be of interest to readers and something they too may wish to contribute to.

    I also want to say that the purpose of the article was NOT to try and pitch Trump vs Clinton or Clinton vs Trump — but more to look at the ongoing scene as it is unfolding.

    Hope that helps quell the dissent.

    • “I also want to say that the purpose of the article was NOT to try and pitch Trump vs Clinton or Clinton vs Trump — but more to look at the ongoing scene as it is unfolding.”

      Exactly. Why is it that it’s assumed it’s solely about Trump and Clinton and American politics? Is it because Americans sometimes (possibly erroneously) think they’re the center of the universe? LOL While the USA seems to dramatize this much more than other nations, or the press seems to push it much more, this same game gets played out in many other countries as well. So I saw the article as a commentary upon the GPM of politics: “To win/to not win”, or “To dominate/to submit”. Interesting perspectives when it’s put up against LRH datums on existence in the MEST universe.

      And don’t forget there are many other people on here from around the globe, not just “Ahmeericah”!


    • The article was introduced as “to address the growing political divide in the US”. It didn’t give names, events, useful examples. One intention was “to also communicate to both Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike”, perhaps that’s why the tech was only implicitly stated without terminology or references, but I’m quite unhappy about it (perhaps because I’m used to higher standards on MS2). Plus I disagree with that claimed major cause (Unchanging Victims) being (primarily) responsible for the divide. We have tools available to analyze a society and its political landscape. We should name them.

      I’ll just list ad hoc what I found useful so far (some of it is implicitly mentioned in the article).

      Tone scale: take some indicators (e.g. the flows and theta quality of communication and the corresponding group health, see also “How to Live Though an Executive”) and find its position. Check how accurate the rest of the tone scale position describes the scene. Where it significantly deviates, we have areas that are either unaffected, loosely coupled (tailing or heading societal dynamics), or doing their own things (being in opposition). Some political attitudes are explicitly noted on the tone scale too (column Q – Command Over Environment), but keep in mind that they’re given from a 1950s US perspective.

      Check for societal group engrams (if necessary for each relevant subgroup), overts, GPMs (question @ all: can I subsume engrams and overts under GPMs?).

      Use the Data Series, surveys, and statistics to find out what’s going on (interest groups, events and the people involved, socioeconomic situation, peoples’ attitudes etc.). Don’t forget to check for third parties while you’re at it.

      Check for chaos merchants that muddy the waters. Where on the tone scale are journalists, politicians, opinion leaders, industry spokesmen and leaders a.s.o.? A very handy tool for a quick assessment is the list of attributes of the antisocial and the social personality — esp. bullet point 6 of the antisocial personality (habitually selecting the wrong target) is useful to find out whether a group (often a government branch or an NGO) is really interested in solving a problem; if not they either try to reap in profits or they push a hidden agenda.

      We’re limited by our capacities and willingness to conduct extensive work, hence we won’t solve the world’s problems on this blog. But we can focus on specific things or aspects and use Scn tech to make sense of it, perhaps develop ideas for improvement.

      • SA:

        In addition to all the Tech mentioned in your comment, it might be useful to become fully informed on what exactly has been going on behind the scenes and in public on the American political scene.

        The Founding Fathers of this country, scholars of Greek, Roman and other empires, sought to knit together a group of colonies who, at the time, had more or less solidified their own internal politics and cultures. Think Europe before the Eurozone. They wanted to build a national government which was immune to the failures and pernicious tendencies of government which had always plagued prior governments, particularly those present at the time in Europe and England. There were long debates over whether such a government should subsume colonial governments or act with a light touch with regard to the colonies (see the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers).

        Finally a compromise was struck between the different sides. The result was our Constitution and its first ten amendments. The government envisioned was one where the colonies (later to be called “states”) and future territories could govern themselves internally as they saw fit (a doctrine referred to as “States’ Rights”). On a national level, the government would be minimalist. There would be no standing army. The power to make international agreements was reserved to the Federal government, rather than the colonies/states. The rights of the citizens would be considered a priori, with amendments added to the Constitution to protect those rights from infringement by the Federal government. Rights like free speech, freedom of religion and the right to defend oneself and ones property became sacrosanct and off limits when it came to the Federal government. They were not granted by government, but God-given and part of the birthright of each citizen. The Federal government would be allowed to step in where disputes arose among the individual states, but had no power in matters strictly internal to a given state. Income tax was expressly forbidden, and the government would be funded by various mechanism, including tariffs. The Federal government was expected to protect the citizens with their cooperation; no standing army meant that our self-defense would have to be handled by our militias, state by state. The Founders had no concept of involving the united states in foreign wars. By and large, the existence of a “Federal” government on this land was expected to be more or less incidental in the minds of Americans. They would probably never have any direct contact with it. Serving in the government was not meant to be a career, but a temporary duty taken on by those who felt the need to contribute to the society in this way.

        This was the Ideal Scene and expected scene of these united states. From the moment it was solidified, it was attacked from every direction and by every faction to come down the pike. In addition, there have been external forces at work to destroy the U.S. and its government.

        The history of the political parties in the U.S. is something I’ll avoid at the moment for the sake of brevity. Each has gone through at least one cycle of “what you resist you become” since their inception. Incidentally, political parties were another evil the Founders wished to avoid.

        One interesting point about our Constitution is that it reserved the power to make laws specific for our Congress, and the enforcement of them for our Executive Branch (president and various cabinet departments). The Supreme Court (the third and last aspect of our government) was to decide various points of law as they came up, particularly where these involved conflicts between the states. It was illegal for any entity other than Congress to make laws, and it was up to Congress to defend this right.

        In the intervening 250 years, Congress has worked in various ways to shirk this responsibility and delegate it to bureaucrats. The Supreme Court has stepped in numerous times to make de facto laws, and the Executive has, when it deems Congress has not acted in its favor, sought to enact laws simply by fiat.

        Remember what I said about the Ideal Scene of the U.S. and its national government. From this, it is relatively simple to evaluate how far down the United States has departed from its original postulates. I could go on for pages detailing the exact movements and forces which have distorted this country’s government. Count as part of these the folks who exert the greatest part of control over the civilization of this planet (same guys who show up in Ron’s Journal 67). Factor in the overwhelming presence in our government of criminals, SPs and the like.

        Chris was correct when he mentioned that the dramatizations which have sought to bring down the U.S. are nothing new. They are as old as governments themselves. They’ve done an admirable job, since the U.S. only vaguely resembles the place the Founders established at the end of the 18th century.

        The idea of victims, of any type, being a major part of the current discord in the U.S. is a minor aspect of what’s really going on. In fact what’s going on now more or less echos the U.S. at the time of our Civil War. At the time, the major forces involved were the North and South. Now you have similar factions (and enmities) between the large cities and the rest of the countryside. No one has quite caught on to this, but the shape of the conflict is nearly identical.


        • Paul, I love your phrase, ‘The rights of the citizens would be considered a priori.’ In one lecture somewhere, Ron mentions that anarchy would be the ideal, except that everyone would have to Clear, or something along those line. As I value your learning, may I please ask your opinion: by the very act of drawing up a Constitution, would that not automatically corrupt the idea of a priori?

          • P13C:

            First, let me urge you to consider me just a guy here who comments a lot. My self importance button is in a box somewhere, and I’ve forgotten which one. (That said, I do demand the respect one might accord any random person. And unless you give me a compelling reason to do otherwise, I will treat you with the same respect.)

            As for your question, assuming the rights of people are a priori or “inalienable”, the Constitution simply makes a pointed observation about a situation that is. And then proceeds to make rules about the federal government’s relationship to those rights. It would be like if a log fell down in the forest, and you came along with a fellow camper and made the observation that a log had fallen over. The fallen log is more or less a priori because it was there before you arrived. Your verbal observation about it doesn’t affect the fact that, no matter what, it was there before you arrived.

            This type of arrangement is relatively unique when it comes to governments on Earth. For a lot of governments, the government grants you the right of free speech (or whatever), but can, as a result, limit it or take it away.

            Also of note, the Constitution is clear about the fact that, simply because it doesn’t mention a specific right, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and that all such unmentioned rights belong to the individual, not the government. The specific rights mentioned in the Constitution are simply those most often trampled by governments.

            And as always, it’s wise to remember that the right to free speech is dependent on the venue. The founder(s) of a venue get to set the rules of that venue with regard to speech. This may, in turn, limit your freedom to speak in that venue. Note, they do not infringe on your right of free speech in general. This is just pure common sense.


    • LM:

      I suspected the OP didn’t intend to target one side or the other. However, you can see how it was received. This is the virus of politics on forums, blogs and email lists.


  7. First I have to congratulate everyone for keeping the discourse civil.
    I’m a fan of neither candidate and it’s a fact that the best that both parties could present are candidates that have the most unfavorable rating with the general public ever. I think it indicates we have a really broken system and as LRH says any form of government run by incompetent people will fail.

    Another way to look at it is from a management point of view. For example, the US is pretty low in the world on education. One could take a more ideal scene (Finland for example who is very very high if not #1) and compare and correct. Our justice system is an abomination and has been turned over to profiteers! The name should be changed to the Dept of Incarceration for Profit from Dept of Corrections. Some countries actually rehabilitate those who have gone off the rails and most in prison are not psychos.

    Any sector can be similarly dealt with. The vested interests however that keep these abominations in place prevent any reform and so a serious ethics address on this is needed.

    Most people know this which is why there is such a clamor for a candidate outside of the system.

    Some say the President in the US has little influence and is only allowed to mess around with social issues – like gay rights and such. He can’t touch the military-industrial-congressional complex and other elements of the establishment.

    And lastly, how much of it is dramatization? I’m going to estimate about 90%. And of course the real long-term solution is to make sane individuals using Scn.

  8. Bruce, you make many interesting points, and I can see you feel passionately on this subject. I also understand why you’ve been reluctant to be more specific on the political side of things.

    There are also other sides to this problem, as pointed out by our erudite commenters on this thread. There’s for another example, the havingness aspect. I’m sure most readers here will have heard of the Panama Papers, and the estimated $21 trillion-plus held in off-shore tax havens. And most here will probably have heard of the Federal Reserve’s estimate that 46% of US Americans have less than $400.

    There’s a lot that could be done to modify the structure of society; alas, I doubt it would do much good, because I go along with Ron in believing that it’s function that needs to be addressed. I believe it’s a 4th Dynamic engram problem. Soon, everything will be in yesterday, but the engram will remain in place.

    The articles you compiled (After the Fall, 25 Jun 2016) are a great introduction to this subject. Ron had plenty to say on many subjects, but I think the most relevant here would be from Ron’s Journal 67:

    “From here on the world will change; but if it changes at all, and if it recovers, it will be because of the Scientologist, it will be because of the auditor and his technical skill, it will be because of the organization and the organization staff member and his dedication. In all the broad universe, there is no other hope for man than ourselves. This is a tremendous responsibility.”

    It’s also a fantastically interesting and absorbing game. For me, Scientology reduces the noise and narrows the focus wonderfully. Actually for me, it’s a relief that Scientology is here, a big blow-down.

    The beauty of Scientology is that we deal with the individual in front of us, we don’t deal with the masses and their common denominator, the bank. The individual is someone we can do something about right now, here in the present.

    • Richard (and others), Thank you.

      The poser of, “a personal attempt to better understand the people who flock together in support of a demagogue” is very specific. The essay further on does state, “Psychologically their mental state is complex. There can be many reasons, both personal and shared as a symptom. Untold significances can be studied and written about.”

      Also, the word demagogue has a very specific meaning and refers to actual actions and individuals that do exist in fact.

      I hear you loud and clear about Scientology ultimately is about handling the individual. But there are other zones of responsibility that we as Scientologist must confront. An excellent reference on this is “5911C23 1MACC 21 Responsibility for Zones of Creation”

      I can send you the mp3 if need or want.


      • Cheers Bruce, I’d love to hear it. I’m at poet13c@hushmail.com.

        And incidentally, I agree with 4a that we should talk on subjects that interest us. The state of the world is an inescapable part of our lives, for instance, the lack of ideas and leadership in Europe is causing no end of problems.

    • P13C:

      Thanks for that quote from my second favorite lecture in Scientology. I believe it continues (this is from memory) “I have borne it too long alone. You share it with me now.” A truly inspirational quote and lecture.


  9. MT:

    Very true. Our system of government has been near wrecked beyond all recognition compared to what it started out to be. But even a beat-up system like ours could be properly operated, if by honest men. Thus, again, it isn’t so much the system as the evil and criminal men and their fellow travelers who run the system, which are the problem. Individual fixes could be variously applied, but those operating the system still must be honest and trustworthy for the system to work.


  10. From Pan-Determinism (24 DEC 54, 9th American ACC):

    “Pan-Determinism actually goes into a desire for a game, which immediately and by postulate cuts out fifty percent of those present. Blues and the Greens. The Dodgers and the Giants. You get the fifty percent. And here, by the way, in the latter days — I think the Byzantium Empire more than the Roman Empire. Although they had it in the Roman Empire. The Blues and the Greens were looked upon not as racing teams but as political parties. And a lot of their political stuff was settled in the arena between the chariot races and discus pitches of the Blues and the Greens. Several near revolutions occurred immediately resulting from the result of games — played by the Blues and the Greens. So about fifty percent of the population was all out for the Blues and fifty percent of the population was all out for the Greens.”

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s