Home

politics

By Ian C.

As we are in the midst of an intense political battle in the United States, I thought it was relevant to bring up politics in relation to Scientology. In no way do I mean to support any side, and Hubbard always intended the subject to be a non-political entity.

Yet there are also aspects of political ideology revealed in the tech. For example, those whom are “Communistic” are said to be 1.1 Covertly Hostile, and “Fascistic” are 1.5 Anger, as per the Tone Scale of Human Emotions in Self-Analysis. Neither is high toned, although Fascism would appear to be the (slightly) better of the two.

Also, in various lectures and writings, Hubbard knocks both the Gre-a-a-at Roosevelt and Republicans alike, usually as an aside or a joke. In my opinion, his politics probably most resembled a rather independent political view, likely more Libertarian leaning more than anything else (disclaimer: I am a Libertarian myself, although this was prior to my introduction into Scientology).

What got me thinking about this was during a recent conversation with my auditor, when I asked him how he could be OT 7 and a conservative, whereas his friend also on the same level can be a liberal OT 7. Surely one of these two cannot be a true OT 7? I assumed that one might have some false data and thus could be easily educated out of their false beliefs, and that the more true political viewpoint might emerge with processing.

He explained that as one loses more of their bank they do become more individualistic and be more open to all viewpoints as valid, as thetans are not cookie cutter beings but individuals. Therefore they can have different solutions to the same problem, and there’s also the aspect of playing a game (albeit a higher toned one).

While I can accept this, it still seems that at least some political leanings per the tech are not rational viewpoints – Communism (and likely Socialism) and Fascism, and thus by extension Statism and Totalitarianism.

I am curious if one can remain a Communist, a Socialist, or a Fascist and still be a true OT 7 once they have been educated on a number of other views and inspected the data for themselves using False Data Stripping, Word Clearing etc.?

Is there a general political leaning of an OT?

Things to ponder and thoughts welcome!

69 thoughts on “Is Scn entirely non-political?

  1. Thanks. Ian. A worthy poser.

    I’ve done a few reading of Ron’s essays which also give insight to all this. Link is here: https://goo.gl/hG1LrT

    The first time I read them (while in SO) I was actually shocked because they seemed so radical. In one case he even has some good things to say about Marx. And in the main, breaks down governments on the basis of whether it serves the general interest groups or special interest (hidden) groups.

    Also keep in mind that most of his work and lectures were done in an era that was heavily Left-leaning.

    But more to your point, processing isn’t training and I dare say there are a few OT7’s out there who could use a good workout with HC Lists.

    My 2¢

  2. Ian,
    For your study: CERTAINTY, Vol 11, No. 11, Scientology and Socialism in the 91 Tech Vols, Vol VII (7).

    As to OTs and their viewpoints political, I’d go along with your friend as you have expressed his view:

    “He explained that as one loses more of their bank they do become more individualistic and be more open to all viewpoints as valid, as thetans are not cookie cutter beings but individuals. Therefore they can have different solutions to the same problem, and there’s also the aspect of playing a game (albeit a higher toned one).”

  3. LRH had quite a bit to say about politics – What you feel about politics after you sort it out for yourself is what is true for you, what someone else feels about it that may be different does not make them wrong, and you right, and vice versa. I’m not the final word on politics because of all the work I’ve done in Scientology and neither is anyone else. There isn’t a standard about what politics should be for Clears, OT’s or OT 99999. Here’s a few places to look in what LRH wrote or said about politics and there are many more besides this. I tried to give the right flavor to what he generally said about it.

    See 6611C01 SHSBC 444 Government and Organization for some information about how LRH thought about government.

    From the book the Phoenix lectures – Chapter 4 – “Now as far as any politics would become a concern of
    Scientology, I would say off-hand that it would probably hew
    to a democratic line – not Democratic Party – but democratic
    principles – because of our datum of self-determinism, but that
    does not make Scientology necessarily possessed of a political
    opinion. A body of knowledge cannot have an opinion on something. It simply extends
    what is found to be true, wherever it is found to be true – into
    greater truths. That’s all. And if something is true, that’s all
    right. And if something is false – well, one simply recognizes that
    it is false. So far as political opinion is concerned, Scientology
    as such, could not have, and does not have one. It knows that
    certain types of government could be very disintegrative to a
    people. It knows, for instance that facism, military control
    of areas, and so forth, would result in a knockdown of
    communication lines, which would be very, very unhealthy for
    that particular area.
    But this is in the field of Scientology, not in the field of
    politics. And one should remember well that Scientology has no
    political opinions or allegiances. If one political practice works
    better than another one, according to Scientology, that’s fine, but
    what’s working is Scientology – not the political practice. Don’t
    ever get detoured on this one, because if you do – you get lost.
    Now the next one that comes up is – does Scientology have any
    religious conviction? Well, again we have the fact that a body of
    data does not have an opinion. I’ve known a lot of witch doctors
    who make more sense than a lot of priests. And I know a lot of
    priests who make more sense than a lot of preachers. I’ve seen
    the historical records and found that the Roman Empire didn’t
    kill many Christians. As a matter of fact in one year of that
    confusion Christians killed more Christians in the city of
    Alexandria than the Roman Empire executed during all its
    existence. One hundred thousand Christians were killed in one
    year by Christians in Alexandria. Well that’s because of a
    conviction – force without wisdom. There must have been
    some kind of a conviction running counter to some kind of a
    conviction, and – as far as having an opinion on this sod of
    thing is
    concerned, you can look at it on the basis of: this demonstrates
    that there must have been real bad ARC around there someplace!
    But beyond that it might be slightly amusing to you as a datum
    but it actually means nothing in relation to the body of data.
    So a Scientologist’s or anyone’s social, religious and political
    convictions would be those that he held to be true and that he
    had been oriented to. Trained to be democratic in his viewpoint,
    and trained to be a protestant, why then he’s certainly democratic
    in his viewpoint, and a protestant, unless he sees fit to alter
    his convictions to some degree because a greater wisdom seems to
    have penetrated those very convictions. What would he do in that
    case? He’d probably simply modify for the better his convictions.
    But one of the oldest things that was ever given into the
    training of wise men that I know of was simply this – the basic
    faith in which the individual has been trained and the basic
    political allegiance of the individual must not be tampered with
    by the Order training him. And it was the Order itself which laid
    that down. That’s an old, old one. They were training very wise men
    and that was the first thing that they made sure not to do. They
    did not tamper with these things. If the individual cared to alter
    these things himself nobody was going to tell him to or tell him
    not to. Nobody was even vaguely persuading him. It might be in
    the course of his study that he found certain things that men did
    laughable, or confusing, or he found certain things that men did
    remediable – but nobody was standing there trying to lead him
    into a higher religious or political conviction. And that is the
    case with Scientology.”

    From logic 24 – “LOGIC 24. THE RESOLUTION OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL, SCIENTIFIC AND HUMAN STUDIES (SUCH AS ECONOMICS, POLITICS, SOCIOLOGY, MEDICINE, CRIMINOLOGY, ETC. ) DEPENDS PRIMARILY UPON THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE HUMAN MIND.”

    Master Glossary: “Democrats and the Republicans: (politics) the two major political parties in
    the United States. American government functions almost entirely
    through the party system a voluntary organization of voters in which
    most registered voters in the US give their allegiance to one of these
    two major parties. The two-party system has the advantage of
    making for stability of government by preventing the formation of a
    variety of minority parties or factions, but its greatest disadvantage
    is that often there is no clear-cut line of demarcation between the
    ideals and objectives of the two parties. —Conquest of Chaos”

    From New Slant on life
    “Politics is called a science. There are natural laws about politics. They could be worked out if someone were to actually apply a scientific basis to political research.

    For instance, it is a foregone conclusion that if all communication lines are cut between the United States and Russia, Russia and the United States are going to understand each other
    less and less. Then, by demonstrating to everyone how the American way of life and the Russian way of life are different and by demonstrating it day after day, year after year, there is
    no alternative but a break of affinity. By stating flatly that Russia and the United States are not in agreement on any slightest political theory or conduct of man or nations, the job is practically
    complete. Both nations will go into anger tone and suddenly, there is war.

    The United States is a nation possessed of the greatest communications networks on the
    face of the earth, with an undreamed-of manufacturing potential. It has within its borders the
    best advertising men in the world. But instead of selling Europe an idea, it gives machine guns,
    planes and tanks for use in case Russia breaks out. The more threats imposed against a country
    in Russia’s tone level, the more dangerous that country will become. When people are asked
    what they would do about this grave question, they shrug and say something to the effect that
    “the politicians know best.” They hedge and rationalize by saying that, after all, there is the
    American way of life, and it must be protected.
    What is the American way of life? This is a question that will stop almost any
    American. What is the American way of life that is different from the human way of life? It has
    tried to gather together economic freedom for the individual, freedom of the press, and
    individual freedom, and define them as a strictly American way of life—why hasn’t it been
    called the Human Way of Life?”

    DMSMH talking about the reactive mind –

    “This is the mind which keeps war a thing of alarm, which makes
    politics irrational, which makes superior officers snarl, which makes
    children cry in fear of the dark. This is the mind which makes a
    man suppress his hopes, which holds his apathies, which gives him
    irresolution when he should act, and kills him before he has begun
    to live.”

    Science of Survival Column Q COMMAND OVER ENVIRONMENT

    “In view of the postulates laid down in this chapter, the column
    on the chart Is self-explanatory. Some comment, however, should be
    made on the political ramifications contained in this column. It will
    be seen that the democratic area, where one deals with Jeffersonian
    democracy, lies in the bands at 3.0 and above. This postulates a
    belIef in the goodness of men and the good sense of men in council.
    It postulates the belief that men should be free to decide things
    for themselves. It outlaws tyranny as undesirable and relegates
    government to the service of the group, rather than the group to the
    service of the government.”

    Fundamentals of thought –
    “SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS are not revolutionaries. They are evolutionaries. They do not stand for overthrow. They stand for the improvement of what we have.

    Scientology is not political. When the fires of ideology threaten
    to consume us all, it is time to forget politics and seek reason.
    The mission of Scientology is not conquest-it is civilization.
    It is a war upon stupidity, the stupidity which leads us toward
    the Last War of All.

    To a Scientologist, the real barbarism of Earth is stupidity.
    Only in the black muck of ignorance can the irrational conflicts
    of ideologies germinate.

    Government, to a Scientologist, is a thing of reason and all
    problems of government can be resolved by reason.”

    Problems of work –
    “Life is seven-tenths work, one-tenth familial, one-tenth political and one-tenth relaxation. Economics-the paycheck, struggle for-is seven-tenths of existence. Lose a man his income or his job and you find him in bad mental condition, usually.
    Ifwe’re going to find proofs of this anywhere, we’ll find them
    everywhere.”

    Way to Happiness –
    “SUPPORT A GOVERNMENT DESIGNED AND RUN
    FOR ALL THE PEOPLE.”

    All about Radiation Lecture four – Mans real enemies

    “The Real Danger

    The real danger is not radiation. The true danger is man’s uncivilized state. Unless something can come along and cure him of his barbarism he is not going to survive. He has many enemies if he really wants enemies. The locust of Africa, the various fevers of India and the hail storms of Kansas are enemies. Why focus on radiation? If man is to survive he must first be capable of facing his enemies?and those enemies aren’t man. He just thinks they are. Until man can be brought to face his true enemies on Earth, he cannot really be considered to be a civilized being, because he is fighting the wrong targets.

    The Worthwhile Projects Are Neglected Because of War

    How man, making such slow progress on every other frontier, can waste time to turn around and fight his brother is appalling. The Sahara Desert could be put under cultivation and that would straighten out some of the economic situations in that area. This would require far more effort than was put into the North African Campaigns but it could be done. It would have to be carefully planned. He already was making progress in this direction before World War II came into being and retarded the little progress he had already made.

    One cannot keep overrunning an area with the terror of war and its destruction and decide that anything is going to survive in that area. Man has a madness and that madness is called war. That madness hasn’t really anything to do with politics.

    Most people who go into a long chant about how one outlaws war are saying that we must suppress national governments. That is the last thing I would ever advise. The truth is very simple. A government becomes worried about its ability to control its populace and neighbors, and resorts to war as a means of compelling obedience at home as well as abroad.

    In actuality a weakness and insecurity of government causes war. If a government were very strong and felt secure it would employ the most peaceful quiet methods of granting beingness and getting co-operation from its potential enemies. It wouldn’t fight a war. One doesn’t find an educated secure man fighting with his neighbors. No, the person who fights his neighbors is a very insecure, not at all sane man.”

    “A government will always accept a helping hand but it is so scarce that it takes a government leader a long time to be convinced that it is being held out. So few people help the government that they don’t know what the hand is out for. Men use governments to feather their own nests and better their own ends, but there are sincere men in government who are trying to do what is right. If we wish to go any direction in the field of politics, let’s be sure we go in the direction of giving the existing government and the powers that be a hand in bringing about a higher level of civilization and a better understanding of life. If we strike at anything we should strike at these intermediate problems such as the atomic bomb, smallpox, whooping cough, bubonic plague and all the rest of the things that confront man as his enemies.

    What do we have in Scientology with which to help man and governments? We have something which assists man, not something that fights man’s enemies. Man will fight his real enemies which he isn’t Fighting now.

    Our job as Scientologists in this society is to bring man up to a level where he can confront his natural enemies and live at peace with his fellows, and if we can do that on a very broad level as we are doing in a smaller sphere, then we would have brought a better civilization to Earth?and that I think, is what we are trying to do. ”

    HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 FEBRUARY 1965 POLITICS
    read for yourself

    5301C21B SUP 8
    SOP 5 LONG FORM STEP IV – GITA (continued)
    Philadelphia Doctorate Course
    21 January 1953

    “Capitalism can exist only by spreading and utilizing the theory
    of scarcity. It moves on that basis, it’s its modus operandi. And
    that’s what your red hot finds wrong with capital. He doesn’t
    quite know what’s wrong with capital, but he — but he knows that
    every time capitalists go around, why, everything gets scarce.
    And he objects to that, rightly or wrongly. And so he gets down
    on capital. Capital always cuts its own throat, always. There
    will — inevitably in any society where capitalism takes hold,
    there will come a time when they’re mowed down in mounds, just as
    happened over here in Germany not too long ago. It did happen
    over there. The state, all of a sudden, became the only
    capitalist. They said, “This is an awfully good business. We’re
    going to create the only existing scarcity.”
    The effort of a state toward socialism is the effort of a state
    to cure itself of scarcities. And the only thing that defeats
    socialism is the perpetuation of a scarcity by a few. In order to
    do what? In order to control. If you can create a scarcity, you
    can control. Therefore, all socialistic principles are fought
    violently, with blood, by anybody who is trying hard to control,
    because they can only control by bringing about a scarcity.

    I don’t mean to turn this into a political rally or a Hyde Park
    talk. But when you see what the philosophy of scarcity can do to
    a preclear, I’m afraid your politics are going to do a sudden
    level-out. I won’t say they’ll level out at socialism or level
    out at communism or level out at anarchy or level out at
    capitalism or level out in any ideology that we have had before.

    They’re probably going to level out into good sense, and then we
    will have for the first time a workable political system. One
    doesn’t exist at this time, by the way. There’s no such thing as
    an even vaguely good, self-perpetuating political system. Every
    one of them contains enough flaws in terms of scarcity and
    control to spin itself in. There are some much better than
    others. And those which seek to get a people to provide for the
    people have a better chance of survival than those which seek, by
    a few amongst the people, to create a control of the people by
    creating a scarcity amongst the people — have a lower survival
    value.
    There are many levels of these things on the tone scale. And to
    start talking about politics and then go off into a description
    of existing ideologies would be very silly. But to start talking
    about the relative scarcity or abundance and the idea of scarcity
    or abundance held by a government will tell you immediately what
    the tone level of that country and what its future will be. You
    can guess. You know where it’s going to change, if you know these
    factors.
    Now that becomes important to you in a preclear, because your
    preclear is essentially a government of a very vast number of
    subjects. And when those subjects are out of line, they’re in bad
    shape and this preclear’s in bad shape and he doesn’t get free of
    these subjects; he is trapped by these subjects, these cells.”

    EDUCATIONAL DIANETICS
    A lecture given on
    29 August 1950

    “Take a thoroughly reactive capitalist (an accidental pun, there) and try to talk to him about some idea which will abolish socialism.
    Reasonably he should be very interested. If you make the experiment you are liable to find that somewhere in the course of your dissertation he begins to grow unreasonable. If the capitalist cannot solve socialism, then the capitalist as a class is finished. But if he has engrams which make him a thoroughly standard cartoon
    capitalist, he cannot be sufficiently rational on the subject to make himself secure in capitalism. The socialist can happily get all tangled up with fifty other isms and still believe he is a socialist and have all manner of reaction against the capitalist.

    Reason itself lies somewhere between capitalism and socialism, not because Aristotle had a golden mean but because a government-owned nation is a flop and always has been, just as a
    robber-baron-owned nation has always fallen on its face eventually.

    The capitalist has the tenet that a man should be able to enjoy the rewards of his labors and if he labors harder he
    should get more reward. The socialist believes that the poor and downtrodden should not be victimized and should be cared for. Both capitalism and socialism in actual practice, managed
    by aberrees, shoot so wildly far of their marks that they both become unworkable. The reason for this is that the capitalist, reacting from stet data, cannot be educated gracefully into the
    needs of the land; and the socialist, reacting from stet data, cannot be educated gracefully into the economic freedom of the individual. Hence, we are confronted not with isms so much as
    education, for both capitalism and socialism have some remarkably workable tenets.

    This is not a discursion into politics but an example of what happens when stet data gets into the reactive mind. The struggle of man in the past has developed more and more into a
    struggle of push buttons against push buttons rather than reason against reason. Define freedom as something good to school children, then redefine it as state control when they are
    adults, and they still cheer for freedom although they may have slave-chain galls an inch deep around their ankles and spend their time blessing the very chains that gall them.”

    POLITICAL DIANETICS
    A lecture given on 5 September 1950
    read for yourself

    ARC AND THE DYNAMICS
    A lecture given on
    25 November 1950

    “You can talk to a fellow on the subject of politics and pick an agreement with him and straighten something out along this line, and he will actually become healthier in himself.
    People make the strange mistake of believing that there would be no physical repercussion on themselves just because there is an upset in politics, but actually this is not true. A physical
    repercussion in the individual is inevitably attendant upon a political upset. These things cannot be separated out that completely.”

  4. First, Ron advised to recognize the difference between Ron’s opinions – and the tech. As a man, Ron said he had his own opinions; but when it came to the tech, there were no opinions.

    Second, this is all a game and people can choose to play any terminal in that game; there is no “right” or “wrong” viewpoint in that game. See the Factors.

    Third, coming from number 2, is Axiom 31 – Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness, are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion.”

    And lastly, what Jim said re OTs and viewpoints.

  5. First and foremost, most people are politically naive at best. Never having been educated in true Civics, any political opinions they have are generally hand-me-downs from parents, family, friends, colleagues and folks who hang out at the same pub. Ask most people why they belong to a certain party or vote with a certain party, and you get the deer in the headlights look, and an explanation more or less in line with the above.

    My mom is Christian and was born here in the U.S. She and I were talking one day, and I told her that if she had been born in, say, Saudi Arabia, she would be Moslem, and consider that it was the most natural thing in the world. She was a little stunned by the realization and said she’d never thought of it that way before.

    Indeed, this is an example of the complete shallowness of most people’s political beliefs. Furthermore, most people prefer not to take responsibility for politics. After all they pay people to hang around Washington, D.C. and state capitols and deal with all that political crap so they don’t have to. Just like they pack kids off to schools so that schools can deal with the education of their kids and they don’t have to. If you don’t believe me about politics, just look at the low voter turn-out in most (particularly local) elections. No one who is taking responsibility for politics would vote in such low numbers.

    So when you look at two OTs and see entirely opposite political viewpoints, what you’re looking at is most likely as above. Going OT doesn’t suddenly make you politically curious and wanting to get an education in Civics and update your political views.

    Training is also a factor here. OTs who are untrained have very different responses than those who are trained. I won’t say that getting tech trained causes you to lean politically one way or another. But my experience has been that untrained OTs exhibit much more silly, hair-brained ideas than those who have been trained. In this way, I would say that training contributes to overall sanity.

    Paul

  6. Ian C.

    Though it is not particularly germane to Scientology, I believe you are correct when it comes to the personal political beliefs of LRH. I believe he was more or less libertarian. Though terms like this tend to have a slipperiness of definition which defies the imagination, and this characterization may have meant something different at the time of the U.S.’s founding and when LRH was running around. In fact, my experience says that most Americans lean this way, whether their party politics lean this way or not. With or without any education in Civics, most people natively want government out of their hair, and this is, broadly, the exclusive province of libertarians at this stage in the game. And you will probably find that as you approach the major population centers, people want more and more from the government, but eschew the regulation that goes along with it. Odd dichotomy. In my opinion, this dichotomy highlights a lack of understanding of how governments typically operate and what they do in the real world.

    Paul

  7. Hey all,

    Just wanted to say what fantastic responses and discourse your comments have been on this post. Thank you.

    I would like to add that I had originally posted this on Facebook in Scientology groups and so I was nervous about it being posted up here, as it got really ugly – people are very aggressive and territorial there, some still have the cult-indoctrination effect and others are simply antagonistic, and others are just loony out there who go off on non-sequitur ramblings. So thank you to all who were respectful in your responses & thoughts, you’ve given me a lot to think about and new material to view & review.

    Also, aside from reviewing bulletins & essays, I found that the key takeaway from this is stated in nearly all of the responses, which scatjappers just stated “Training is also a factor here.” Yes, it seems that people forget there are 2 sides to the bridge. Processing is great but without training they are less effective (actually of the two sides, I’d argue that training is more effective & inclusive I’d say as you also get some processing done).

    Much appreciated & thanks to all for your contributions.
    Ian C.

    • PID/Ian:

      I don’t know anything about Scientology groups on Facebook. (I have a Facebook profile, but I really can’t stand the place and don’t have time to deal with all the tedium there.) But I think your experience here versus there probably points up that this place is a couple to 20 tone levels higher than Facebook and the Internet in general. Plus, MS2 is populated (with some minor exceptions) by grown-ups, and we more or less consider each other family. Some minor bickering at times, but in general we treat each other with respect, courtesy and reasonable manners.

      As an aside, I’m always amused by how volatile things become, and what hostility arises when you veer into politics and religion in most places. I don’t think you’ll find anyone more “serious” and polarized than me politically. But it certainly doesn’t cause me to be rude, hostile or antagonistic toward people who disagree with me. When I sit down with someone to visit, I’m not concerned about their religion or their politics. Mostly, I’m just happy to see them again. Though I must say that I’m less than enthusiastic to see someone I consider dishonest, untrustworthy or unethical (and in general, those determinations are made from evidence I’ve witnessed; I couldn’t give a flying crap about what other people think or say about the people I know).

      Paul

    • Correction: “Three sides to the Bridge.” 3rd Dynamic tech – i.e., the admin and policy, the OEC/FEBC/Management Series – clarifies and runs out false data on 3rd dynamics, including politics. It’s also a must for anyone really wanting to unburden themselves from all the opinion and false data rampant in society and groups.

      • Hm, can one really move up the bridge via admin & policy? One can with Training & Processing, not sure there’s an equivalency in other parts of tech which are more for an Org Board.

        While extremely valuable, I’m not sure one can move up the Bridge using this any more than they can using the Data Series or Ethics Tech.

        I’d reckon that this is more of a “pillar” or “support” of the bridge than another side. For it to be a “side” it would have to complement Processing & Training, in which processing primarily deals with the 1st dynamic while training empowers one on their dynamics and others. (I see processing as ARC while training is more KRC, both essential to understanding and power/effectiveness in life).

        But hey if there’s a reference clarifying this, I’m happy to see it.

        • You also can’t move up the Bridge just through processing, or just through training. There are definitely three legs to truly get to the highest reaches of the Bridge. Third Dynamic tech is as vital and one will see this if one understands that he/she is not just a 1st Dynamic being. Training and auditing handle the 1st dynamic. What are you going to do about the others?

          “If we are doctors (by which might be meant ‘repairers’), then we are doctors on the third and fourth dynamics, the dynamics of groups and mankind as a whole, and we handle the first (self) and the second (sex and family) only to achieve better function on the third and fourth.” LRH (Scientology 0-8)

          • I never made the claim that one moves up just through processing or just through training. I wrote that one moves up doing both.

            Considering that OEC first came out came out in 1970 – 5 years after the debut of the bridge which had both training & processing in 1965 – and the others well after this also, I am dubious of that claim.

            Assuming that you are correct though, isn’t there a gradient or sequence in moving up with OEC/FSBC/MS/Data/Ethics, etc? Otherwise how does one gauge where they are? What is the EP or its equivalent? Presumably one must train and process on these as well.

            • I know you didn’t make that claim, Ian; I just stated a point of view; in effect, I made that claim. If you read enough policy, you get what LRH’s view of it is. Training and processing will take one up the Bridge, but staying out requires a greater understanding of why you got there in the first place. IMO, it is a valid part of the Bridge, of going free and staying free. As well, Ron asks that eventually we distribute this tech (Div 6) to other areas in the universe; in effect, we will have to set it up on other planets. So one will definitely need to know this aspect of Scientology as well.

              • I’ll grant you that these courses are on the 2013 version of the Bridge to Total Freedom, and all are listed on the training side as “Additional training services that may be done at various points on The Bridge”
                Top left by Class XI & XII.

                As this is subtitled as “Third and Fourth Dynamic Training Courses” (which includes) OEC, FEBC, & 2 types of Data Series Courses), this would indicate that The Bridge and not the additional courses are solely first dynamic related.

                • It’s good that you’re working these things out for yourself, Ian. That’s a major plus 1. I look at things from multiple viewpoints and multiple dynamics and knowing as much of the tech as I do and also a good portion of the OEC, I see it as valuable. If I had to suggest any first courses in it, I’d say do OEC Vol. 0 and the Elementary Data Series Course. You’d be a powerhouse after just those two 3rd dynamic courses. But keep on putting it together. We’re all doing the same thing. 🙂

            • Hope you’re still seeing this. Start with “How to Live Though an Executive” as it is the foundation for all later admin tech. You’ll find many concepts in greater detail in the OEC, MS, and FEBC. But this book provides the first big picture.

              E.g., command line vs. communication line and what happens if one mixes them up, internal communication flow and quality/tone as measurement of a group’s health, the “time machine” and compliance reports and what occurs when one doesn’t keep track of what’s going on. It includes the “Essay on Management” with very basic considerations about groups, their success and downfall. Some of it applies to groups (i.e. societies too) in general, some are concrete tech to run an organization (a “set of terminals and lines” with a common purpose).

            • PID:

              My wife did through Exec Status III (all the admin stuff except the full DSEC course). The typical admin line-up in an org is more or less, Staff Statuses 0, 1, and 2, OEC Vol 0, the OEC Vol for your division, then the rest of the OEC in order, then the Management Series, then the EstO Series lectures and the FEBC. The DSEC was not in her line-up., but she did do a study of it as part of her line-up. It would be the final course.

              Naturally, if you don’t work in an org, you don’t have an OEC vol for your division. Thus, you’d just go ahead and progress with the rest of the OEC. Also, if you are not employed in an org, it’s questionable whether you would need to do the Staff Statuses. They are meant to be a short course orientation to staff. So if you’re not staff, you could probably just start with Vol 0.

              Also, just a personal piece of advice. In lieu of a checksheet, study everything in order. After each PL, stop and consider what are the most fundamental data from each issue, and how do those data fit in with other fundamental data? This is not “standard” study tech, but there’s no issue against it, and it could assist quite a bit in going forward. I believe there is a study tape which deals with this partially, which talks about what is and isn’t important when studying a subject.

              Paul

      • CB:

        While I agree with you on the need for 3D training, I don’t believe that advanced admin training by itself runs out false data on politics. In fact I’d posit that only False Data Stripping itself would do what you suggest. Otherwise I would agree with you.

        Paul

  8. I would like to add some points missing.

    a)

    The meaning of “conservative” and “liberal”, mentioned in the OP (original posting(, are variable depending on the country. Something considered conservative in one country may considered liberal in another country.

    Also, the meaning of “socialism” is variable depending on the country. Something considered socialism in one country may considered not socialism in another country.

    The above is worth considering since MS2 and Facebook, etc, are international sites.

    b)

    LRH advocates the “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” as the optimal solution. Obviously, this also applies to politics.

    It is worth studying some Optimization Theory to have a good understanding of the above.

    One basic concept of optimization is the “restrictions”. The restrictions are the available resources (money, time, people, materilas, etc.) and the limits of the undesarible side effects. So, for a different set of restrictions, the optimal solution may be different.

    Another basic concept is the accuracy of the estimation of all the data and functions, including restrictions, used for optimization. So, for different estimations, the optimal solution may be different. Also, people are making fuzzy estimations. Even with the same data, people don’t make the same fuzzy estimation.

    Another basic concept is the “suboptimization”. Basicasly, suboptimization occurs when maximizing the goal(s) of one subsystem, screws up another subsystem(s). LRH’s optimal solution explicitly advocates avoiding suboptimization (each dynamic is a subsystem). (A good example of suboptimization is the Co$’s misapplication of LRH’s optimal solution – they are suboptimizing a particular 3rd D – ).

    • I have been in a few countries in different continents, and I noticed that sometimes the best fit for “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” is a political ideology and sometimes it is another one.

    • MB:

      You are very correct about the “slippery” definitions of political terms. So for what it’s worth, when I, personally speak in these terms, I mean these terms in the sense they are used in the U.S. (though I must say that even in the U.S., these terms have conflicting and “slippery” definitions).

      And for the curious, while I’m quite educated in American politics, I’m not well educated at all in foreign politics. Parliaments mystify me. I can’t figure out why anyone would make or use such a political system. Proof of my ignorance.

      Paul

  9. True, one may consider something to be socialistic/conservative depending on their vantage point and/or their society, but it still doesn’t change the underlying definitions.

    (i.e. a classical liberal is a liberal to some extent, and thus one can argue that compared to other societies this is very liberal, but it also a classical one and in that society it is conservative/traditional).

    Otherwise this confuses associations and emotions around politics with the actual definitions of the terms, thus complicating what are otherwise a pretty simple set of definitions. (AKA HE&R and being reasonable with the bank).

    I won’t define them but links are below:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarianism

    • Ian, I’ve checked all those defs, and read many books, articles in my Britannica, on Wikipedia and elsewhere on these and related topics over the years, besides. It doesn’t make me learned, of course. The last people I’d want running a country is a committee of university professors, academics, experts and scholars, or God help us, authorities. People who know what they’re talking about have got us absolutely nowhere.

      Like philosophy and economics, political science will never be the finished article, it will always be modified as new thoughts and agreements come around the corner. New leaders and groupings will form as new situations arise. For instance in Britain, the Tories and Whigs of the 18th century bear no resemblance to the Conservatives and Socialists of today. Additionally, each political group will be significantly modified by its principal agendas, such as economic policy, trade policy, external pressures, domestic imperatives like law enforcement and social justice, and some kind of system of checks and balances, as well as a host other issues such as management of labour and productivity.

      The British monarchy, along with the world’s emperors, reactionaries, tyrants and dictators is a catalogue of bullies and nutters, with the most ruthless of all rising to the top.

      LRH makes clear in HCOPL 12Feb1967 The Responsibilities of Leaders (the Simon Bolivar essay), https://goo.gl/PhoHXc

      “Unless there is something to free men into, the act of freeing is simply a protest of slavery.”

      Julius Caesar also found this out to his cost.

      Unfortunately, all political systems will fail for the simple reason that they’re not going anywhere. Nobody can make a well and happy human being. Crises come thick and fast, the world lurches from one style of government to another. Tensions arise between political groups and wars result. None of the religions have been much help, and neither has lack of religion. Nor can any country prosper without an accord with the international community.

      It’s lunacy in Lilliput.

      LRH suggests a solution in the lecture, International City, SHSBC #375, 24 Mar 64 https://goo.gl/JL7LMy and in his pamphlet, Plan for World Peace 1964 https://goo.gl/dI7hvi

      Quite rightly, Chris mentions the admin side of the bridge, and that’s because the tech and training sides can’t go in without an org, irrespective of size. Particularly relevant is the Org Board and Livingness lecture 6504C06-06 https://goo.gl/81nbTW

      National governments on the other hand, institute plans with no objective for the individual beyond more comfortable coffins of society, Earth and MEST – they’re imposing a ridge, aesthetic and pleasing though it may be, but there’s no exit. All they’re doing is coping with the latest situation and becoming ever-more paranoid about the loose ends. There’s no ideal scene because there’s no product. It’s all very well to post a Declaration of Independence, a Bill of Rights, Amendments, a Declaration of Human Rights, and a body of law from here to the moon – a fat lot of good it’s done.

      From HCOPL 22Sep1970 Hats:
      “IF YOU REMAIN IN COPE, THE DEMAND TO COPE INCREASES.” https://goo.gl/7dKYK9

      From HCOPL 10Jan1968 Politics, Freedom from
      “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.” https://goo.gl/WwVsKo

      From HCOPL 13Feb1965 Politics
      “Now and then you hear me speak derisively of governments and ideologies – including democracy. If, by seeing I criticize an ideology, anyone seeks to believe I embrace its opposite, he has failed to get the point. What political system could work amongst very aberrated people?” https://goo.gl/GpEXkW

      Thetans aren’t made of MEST and don’t lean any particular way except maybe towards anarchy. LRH was a pragmatist, and I think he was expecting us to be the same.

        • CB:

          I’d disagree. (And not respectfully, so you needn’t worry about that. 😉 ) Anarchy describes a situation where there is no government, and thus, generally, no one in charge. However the 3D tech you advocate for (me too) necessitates “someone in charge”. Fact is, any group of thetans must have a whole admin scale (stated or not), a management entity (one or more thetans, preferably organized), etc.

          Just sayin’.

          Paul

      • P13C:

        “Unfortunately, all political systems will fail for the simple reason that they’re not going anywhere. Nobody can make a well and happy human being.”

        I would disagree with that statement. “Failure” depends largely on how such a thing is defined in political terms. And for each political system, I imagine such is defined differently. Theoretically, I imagine that a carefully thought out Ideal Scene, such as is dreamed up for a proper Data Series eval, would be the answer. But I’ve found that in politics everyone’s conception of an Ideal Scene contains a great deal of “opinion”. And I would never expect a political system to “make well and happy human beings”.

        My only real clue on this is what LRH says on the tape “Org Board and Livingness”, where he points out that one civilization lasted millions of years based on the org board he presents, and that they ultimately failed only by omitting a division or two. But I’m damned if I can figure out what the government of that place might have looked like or how it actually was structured. Again, it seems to depend on what it is you expect a government to do.

        Until recently, I would have said that “capitalism” was the ideal system. It certainly has made the U.S. a model place to be in many respects. However, it seems there is a fundamental weakness in capitalism: it appears to foster an ever-widening distance between the haves and have nots. That is, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (though “poor” in the U.S. is vastly better than “poor” in most other systems). This appears to be a built-in side effect in capitalism which is unacceptable. And I don’t have a good solution to that problem. All the other solutions (political systems) I know of suck more, in different ways.

        For example, do you want the government to own and operate the primary comm lines of a society (the roads, railroads, ocean routes, airways, telephone lines, radio frequencies, satellite networks, Internet), or do you want them simply to act as guardians of them? History indicates that government build-outs of such networks generally costs more than industry build-outs, and yields an inferior quality product. And government tends to over-regulate them, and regulate them in ways designed to protect itself and advantage the major players who use those networks, disregarding the needs of the smaller players and individuals. And governments, if left to their own devices, tend to censor comm lines, particularly when they appear to represent threats to the existence or shape of government. We’ve seen clearly that government regulatory agencies ultimately get in bed with the entities they are supposed to regulate. So perhaps ownership is a bad idea. Yet if the government has no role in owning, operating and regulating such networks, industry then tends to misuse those networks and use them to victimize the smaller players and individuals as well. Witness the break-up of the American phone system (AT&T) a few decades ago into regional agencies, seemingly made necessary by the abuses of AT&T, its primary owner. And how much of this is simply due to the greed of those in charge (human frailty) and how much is due to a flaw in the system which controls a network? Maybe human frailty has a lot more to do with it than we think.

        Thorny problems, these.

        Paul

        • Paul, your ranting poser reminds me that mankind is that species which cuts down birdhouses in order to make birdhouses.

          As far as the failure rate of the different political systems it would seem LRH covered this well in his scale of political ISMs. And the survival value of each thoroughly covered in the book, Science of Survival.

          He has also mentioned that socialism is what enters in after capitalism has failed (presumably as a “solution” rather than actually finding and corrected some failed capitalism). In many cases the function has been primary, as in the USPS, who despite some complainers who must always complain, generally does a pretty good job.

          As as to assumptions, yours that government “build-outs” are generally inferior is much lacking in citation. For sure cases could be found to prove your point, but they can also be as easily found to counter. Public run prisons versus corporate-owned prison systems comes easily to mind.

          I suggest at least a cursory study of the Charter of the Forest, which is the second part of what we know as the Magna Carta, and addresses the question of who owns the collective resources of this planet; the waterways, airways, byways, etc.

          Still, a well-regulated capitalism seems to be our best system. As far as it leading to a rico-pobre society, I can certainly agree. But too, in one of the Study Tapes Ron gives its root cause as illiteracy.

          So yeah, it’s complicated. Thanks for posting your piñata! 😉

          • PZ:

            After a re-study of SOS, I see some casual mentions of some philosophies (capitalism NOT being one of them placed on the scale anywhere in particular) but no thorough treatment of anything except classical liberalism, Jeffersonian democracy, fascism, monarchy and communism. Otherwise, one is left to one’s own study of political systems and where they might stand in relation to the Tone Scale. You mention the successor to “failure” of capitalism being socialism. This is precisely what is happening in the U.S. Long a capitalist country, it slides each year closer and closer downward into the web of socialism. I’m not sure what the “success” (versus failure) of capitalism would look like, since it appears that, by its very nature it is doomed to failure. (Notice I did not say “free market and the rule of law”, which are not the same as “capitalism”.)

            The USPS (United States Postal Service) does anything but a good job. If your only criterion is “delivers the mail reliably”, then you’re correct. However, this is an extremely wanting definition of a “good job”. For years, I worked very closely with the Post Office and am fairly familiar with its internal operation, and its external financial record is known to be atrocious. One friend of mine at the Post Office told me one time that he’d never met a more unhappy group of individuals in his life. Another friend of mine whose wife worked at a very high level in the Post Office has regaled me with numerous stories (from his wife) of the kinds of insanity routinely encountered there. Though it may reliably deliver the mail, it does not do so efficiently or economically. It is well known that it loses vast amounts of money each quarter and each year. It is badly managed and badly financed. It is, in this way, much like every other face of the U.S. government. It’s often been pointed out that the Social Security Administration is another aspect of the federal government which does a great job, primarily because everyone gets their checks every month (more or less pension checks, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with our government). But I guarantee that putting this same activity in the hands of a private entity (“industry” versus government) would prove the SSA, like the rest of the government, is badly run, badly managed, inefficient and not economical.

            I don’t cite examples of government shortcoming because they are too many to count. But one example, as I recall: the New York subway system. When first built, it was built by government at great expense. Then at some point, part of the line was built out by a private company. This part of the line was built for much less and cost the consumer far less to ride. And it made a profit for its owner. Later, that part of the line was subsumed into the overall subway system as it expanded. And again, the line became expensive to operate and more expensive for the consumer, at whom the subway system was targeted. Amtrak is another example of a governmentally subsidized rail failure. In fact, almost everywhere “inner city” rail is concerned (and almost inevitably run by the government) the result is a financial loss.

            How about military aircraft? The F-15 is a perfect example of a cheap, very serviceable fighter aircraft. Yet the DOD (Department of Defense) wants to replace it with the F-35, three times as expensive to build and operate. The A-10 is probably the most serviceable close air support aircraft ever built. And the federal government wants to retire this aircraft (study the specs on it; there isn’t another aircraft in the world cheaper to build and more suited to the role of close air support).

            How about the space shuttle? This abomination was a lie from the beginning. It did vastly less than expected for a price that was vastly more than originally quoted. And most of this was due to NASA mismanagement.

            Examples of government mismanagement and waste are rife. I’ve never seen any activity where industry and government costs could be compared for the same activity, and the government cost was less. It should never be necessary to “prove” government inefficiency, unprofitability and waste. There are simply too many examples to hand.

            I know almost nothing about public versus private prisons, so I can’t comment on that. Though I suspect that when you really dig down, you find that, in fact private enterprise can do it better.

            A “cursory” study of the Charter of the Forest showed me that the king still owned the land, but access to it by the commoner was freed up. But a “forest” (or other land, as covered in the Charter) does not require an “operator” or “maintainer” the way the things I mentioned do. Even roadways require someone to monitor activity on the road, handle collisions as they occur, perhaps regulate speeds, repair the roads etc. That role is the one in question– government or industry.

            I do not know the term “rico-pobre”, nor can I find a satisfactory definition. However, it just occurred to me from looking at the possible roots of the words, you must mean “rich versus poor”. And yes of course, it’s well known that capitalism aggravates if not causes such a situation. But if LRH says the root “cause” of capitalism is illiteracy, I’d sure like to see the quote and examine the logic in context. Sounds improbable or taken out of context.

            Yes, complicated. Ron could probably have resolved it in short order. But I don’t know of a single place where Ron tackled the subject of government/politics to its end point. Kind of like nutrition. Ron knew a helluva lot more about nutrition and body chemistry than most doctors, but the most he ever really did with it was just the Purif and some other scattered bulletins. (Not that I blame him. Most of the time, the body is the wrong target for treatment.)

            Paul

            • Like I said, “the USPS, who despite some complainers who must always complain, generally does a pretty good job.” Sorry your friends are wont to natter.

              And it’s not like I am totally disagreeing with your piñata. Despite my hitting it with a big stick, some good things fell out.

              • PZ:

                Careful, my friend. Passing on negative but truthful incidents is not the equivalent of natter. It depends on tone level and a variety of other indicators. I’ll stand by my evaluation of the USPS. In fact, I used to get quarterly newsletters from the PO because of my constant use of their services. I used to laugh at every issue. All of this hoo-hah about how good a job they were doing, and then the last page or two devoted to how much money they were losing. A better example of contrary data you couldn’t ask for.

                Paul

                • Every time I used the USPS, I was always impressed by their speed and handling of the parcels or mail. That’s my viewpoint.

                • My best example of contrary facts is: “The USPS (United States Postal Service) does anything but a good job. If your only criterion is “delivers the mail reliably”, then you’re correct.”

                  • PZ:

                    Extending this logic, then it doesn’t matter how much money the Post Office costs or how badly it’s managed, as long as it delivers the mail reliably, it is “doing a good job”.

                    You’re hereby elected as Postmaster General. I can just hear the conversation with Congress. “Mr. Pazooter, please explain why you lost $5 billion dollars last year, and have consistently done so for the last decade or two.” “No, no, Congress Dude, you’re lookin’ at this all wrong. See, we deliver the mail everywhere, pretty much on time. That’s the way you gotta look at this deal, Dude.” “Oh well, then, if you put it that way, never mind. Meeting adjourned!”

                    Paul

                    • Clearly, “The USPS (United States Postal Service) does anything but a good job. If your only criterion is “delivers the mail reliably”, then you’re correct.” is a statement of contrary facts.

                      All else you said were twists of what I actually said, further unsubstantiated assumptions and invective.

                      Empty piñata.

                    • PZ:

                      “The USPS (United States Postal Service) does anything but a good job.” This is a statement based on known facts, some of which are published by the Post Office itself. It is predicated on a specific Ideal Scene, which is more or less, “Delivers the mail just about everywhere, on time and reliably, at a profit or at worst, breaking even.” This more or less encompasses its management, since a badly managed PO will lose money.

                      “If your only criterion is ‘delivers the mail reliably’, then you’re correct (about the Post Office doing a good job).” This is a statement indicating a half-thought-out Ideal Scene. Reference the Org Series and Data Series on how an Ideal Scene for a productive activity is worked through and finalized.

                      And again, let me point out that, in their own monthly or quarterly newsletters (before they made them all electronic, which is itself humorously ironic), the Post Office would spend 3/4 of the available space explaining what a great job they were doing, and in the last quarter of the space explain they had (again) lost so many millions or billions that quarter (as they have for years). This is not an “assumption” or anything of the sort. It is known and published fact, undisputed by the Post Office. Apparently, they don’t understand what their Ideal Scene should be, either. Which may be part of the key to why they can’t seem to produce it.

                      Invective? No, there wasn’t any of that anywhere in what I wrote. There was bit of fun poked at you with the “conversation in Congress”.

                      Paul

                    • To keep it short and sweet (and dismiss several other outpoints), where did you come up with “…your only criterion is ‘delivers the mail reliably’”?

                      I never once said or even assumed that. You just flew off with it as an attack on my comment.

                    • PZ:

                      “[T]he USPS, who despite some complainers who must always complain, generally does a pretty good job.”

                      This was your original statement on this subject. My response was more or less that, the only way anyone holding this opinion could possibly believe it was true is if they believed that the Ideal Scene for the Post Office was “delivers the mail nearly everywhere and reliably so”, which is clearly an incomplete Ideal Scene.

                      Paul

                    • I probably should let this go, but…. Okay, very possibly: “Generally doing a pretty good job at delivering all the mail in a timely manner” is not a perfect Ideal Scene. Even though they do that.

                      You want to attack them, go ahead. That’s on you. As long as I reliably get my mail in a timely manner, I’m good.

                    • PZ:

                      In thinking about this overnight, it occurred to me that you may not be well informed about the US Post Office, and may not be aware of their shortcomings. That hadn’t occurred to me before. I took it for granted that everyone is aware of the Post Office’s problems. But if one wasn’t aware of the PO’s problems, or unaware that the US government (like most, I imagine) is incredibly mismanaged and corrupt, one might simply think that if a bureau or government entity does what is technically billed as its job, then it’s okay. If that’s the case here, then my apologies. Due to my long study of this government and its activities, I take it for granted that every single thing it does involves mismanagement, waste, corruption and excessive expense. I also imagine that all other governments are likewise afflicted. Wherever in government I’ve looked for such things, I’ve never been disappointed. In fact, I accidentally found another example last night, where the state of Texas has forbidden the sale of Elon Musk’s electric cars in the state, due to special interests there.

                      Anyway…

                      Paul

                    • Paul, here’s where we are and it’s off topic. You seem bent on doing battle with some straw man saying things I never said or even believe.

                      So I am going to attempt to drag this back on subject. Again.

                      You can poke all the holes in the USPS you want, I’m sure they abound. But it is also a working installation (familiar term?) which can and does get its product. But here’s the upshot; you can poke holes in ANY big business, private or public and claim it’s all bad. But why, unless it’s an attempt to some agenda?

                      You can compare the USPS with UPS and FedEx and rave on about how they can make a profit and the USPS cannot. And it’s all true! But if you look a little deeper (and without a hidden agenda) you’ll find that the real difference is that the USPS has a mandate to serve the general interest of all Americans, sometimes having to do so where it’s not financially viable. I have a stepson who lives in Galena, Alaska, far into the interior. It has no roads in or out, and yet the mail, including parcels, are delivered by small plane, even in winter when it’s -50° F. UPS and FedEx don’t go there; no profit in it.

                      Furthermore, what UPS and FedEx has done in establishing their successful business models is to adopt what was the most profitable part of the USPS, parcel delivery. That’s fine; they do not have the USPS mandate and can do that. But we’re looking at billion-dollar industries lost by the USPS and you don’t have to be an actuary know that it had to have a heavy impact on USPS income.

                      And since I’ve acceded to being off topic, I’ll cherry pick another example. I live in a county which has the cheapest electrical rates in the country; possibly the cheapest non-subsidized rates on the planet. It’s a public utility, (PUD), a non-profit publicly-owned facility that has its own dam on the Columbia River. It’s run very efficiently and serves those who live here rather than corporate shareholders. They have also laid in fiber optic Internet, available at a very reasonable price. It’s not an ENRON.

                      You might mistake all what I’m saying here as an attempt to claim that socialism is better than capitalism, but I’m, not, because it isn’t. All I’m saying is that you can’t really spout off a couple examples and then claim that is an elephant is like a snake, or a rope, or a tree trunk. But then I guess many people do, if they have a fixed ideology they want to prove.

                      pazooter

                    • PZ:

                      Not sure why you think there’s a battle going on. I’m not particularly engaged in one, but never mind.

                      You are correct about the USPS having a mandate to deliver mail everywhere (or just about). And this works to their disadvantage and to the advantage of entities like Fedex, UPS and DHL, which have a narrower focus. Moreover, delivering the same or similar items as the USPS does (specifically letters) costs much more on the package services than it does for USPS, probably for the reason you cite (or did you? I don’t recall): the USPS must subsidize its least profitable routes from its most profitable routes. And in implementing one-price-per-ounce pricing (don’t know if anyone mandates that for the USPS), the USPS charges an order of magnitude less than the package shipment entities. So the USPS does a big, hard job.

                      Now, I don’t recall originally mentioning the USPS. I think that was your origination. The only point I was trying to make was that, as part of the government (and they really are, regardless of what the law says and what they claim), they are badly managed, inefficient, and more costly than they should be. This is the general rule as far as I’ve been able to observe about government(s). Your mileage may vary. I cite “a couple” of examples of this because there shouldn’t be any reason to really cite examples in the first place, but it seemed in this case to be necessary to make the point. It’s well known, well publicized and easily observed. Just a fact, as far as I’ve been able to determine. And for reasons which are easy to work out. (My wife works for a mega-corporation which has many of the same or similar problems, and for similar reasons. Large bureaucracies tend to have similar problems.)

                      If I have any “agenda” it is that a lot of people, when looking at something they want, will elect the government to provide it for them. I think (based on what I know about government) this is an extraordinarily bad choice. And where I see it, I try to discourage it for that reason.

                      ‘Nuff said.

                      Paul

  10. Paul, that’s a pretty good analysis. I agree with you on every point.

    Yes, I’ve been fascinated too, by that long-duration civilization: was it a slave one? People want freedom, and as far as I understand it, governments can only guarantee freedom by withdrawing rights. That would be all well and good if everyone was sane. As you know, in The Free Being lecture (6307C09, for which I don’t have a link or a transcript) Ron says how societies can get a grudge against free beings.

    There is obviously a great deal to discuss, and I’m sure we could spend many an happy hour debating these issues in the light of what we’ve learned in Scientology. LRH’s fresh look at everything changes the game of MEST universe for its inhabitants.

    The primary task for any sane government would be to de-abberate its people. I don’t remember during which lecture, Ron remarks that, it’s not a wonder that things go wrong in the world, it’s a wonder that anything ever gets done. He says it as a joke, but the nature of MEST demands that it’s citizens’ ownership and responsibility rights be handed over to it. MEST is in charge of the Havingness. The rich get richer because of their desperation for havingness. Factions fight each other all around the world for havingness, even for the havingness of an afterlife.

    We’re at a bleak era on Earth, it’s been that way a long time. We got rid of the Romans, only for the Dark Ages to ensue. But there are some fabulously gifted and talented people in the USA, the cause for freedom is far from lost.

    In another wonderful lecture on politics, Ron explains that:

    “Well, the soil in which a tyranny is sown, of course, is not when everybody is in want. That is the soil in which revolution grows.

    “Tyranny is sown in times of plenty, when people exchange their rights for some material gain – they think. Tyrannies are sown at times when nobody is very watchful; where everybody has a full stomach; where everything is calm; nothing much appears on the surface, and then tyrannies show up and become very obvious when individuals, growing a little hungrier, a little less possessed of production, suddenly notice that there is somebody saying they mustn’t talk, somebody saying
    they mustn’t have opinions.

    “And when people notice this they begin to get very restless. And if after that they get very hungry, there is a total fatality as far as the tyranny is concerned. That total fatality will ensue.

    “Now, it may take years for people to find these things out. But we’re in such a period today – a period artificially imposed.”

    He also says in the lecture:

    “They’re trying to use “science,” the new religion of this century, as a means by which to impose a tyranny upon the world – but it is just another tyranny. That’s all it is. It’s just another tyranny.

    “I don’t care what kind of clothes it’s wearing, it is just another effort to do more or less the same thing – deny people their right to speak to whom they wish about what they want to speak about.”

    Postulate Out of a Golden Age 6 December 1956. https://goo.gl/exEj5P

    Thorny problems, indeed, yet we have hope:

    “Now many, many, many, many people out in the society are only too glad to have us, are only too glad to help, and who will happily shove forward. That the malady from which they suffer is actually designed to stop or impede such a movement as ours is not of any great major consideration. We have already mastered those things necessary to bring off the ultimate win.” RJ67

    So I remain positive. It’s my world and I can bring change to it 🙂

    Richard

    • P13C:

      Wow, terrific quotes. I’m in the middle of an extremely long post for my blog which makes the case that we are at the end of our civilization, and these quotes follow right along. That post may or may not appear on MS2. I don’t know yet. It’s a little depressing.

      Of course those many happy hours discussing it would be in Lana’s Pub, while playing darts and partaking of a good meal and drink.

      I would disagree with you on this: “The primary task for any sane government would be to de-abberate its people.” I would not consider this a governmental, but a religious function. Or whatever might replace psychology in a relatively sane society. But that, too, is a complicated discussion.

      Thanks for the quotes.

      Paul

      • Problem with this analogy is that the pub is virtual and there’s no real darts nor brew to take the edge off depressing news or viewpoints.

          • I can imagine quite well, Paul. I do it often. But the reality is, even if one imagines all they want, this blog is not a night out at the Fox & Hound and so I’d rather any “depressing” fodder be kept out of the joint. Just my opinion. 😉

            • CB:

              Oh I see what you’re talking about now. You’re talking about the post for my blog which might be depressing, and the idea that it might appear here on MS2 as well.

              Your vote has hereby been registered.

              IF I believe it’s too depressing for MS2, I won’t offer it. And IF I offer it to MS2, and Lana believes it is too depressing, or doesn’t fit what SHE believes should be here, I’ll welcome her rejection of it. I have no must have on it whatsoever.

              So as long as Lana and I agree with you, your corner booth at the Fox & Hound is safe.

              Paul

    • “People want freedom, and as far as I understand it, governments can only guarantee freedom by withdrawing rights.”

      What’s interesting is that I happen to be reading a book about the underclass/lower class that discusses this – as I’m trying to see what separates the rich from the poor, as has been brought up in these posts about “rico-pobre” and “The rich get richer because of their desperation for havingness.” etc. Anyway as others have wondered that it’s a problem with capitalism.

      The book I’m reading (and may review later) is called “Life at The Bottom: The Worldview That Makes The Underclass” by Theodore Dalrymple, a British psychiatrist who seems pretty conservative and mainly uses the old school talk therapy, etc. In any case, as I’m noticing with poor vs. rich (and middle class has their own view too) it seems to be an attitude & mentality difference more than anything else. Main message in every article/essay so far = poor & underclass people continually avoid responsibility and play victim vs. trying to better themselves (i.e. addict language, often passive tense, etc) , and this has actually crept into society due to political correctness which traps them there. It’s complex but a really fascinating work, and I’d agree.

      Opening paragraph of the book hit me, as it seems to challenge a held belief about freedoms being wanted by men:

      “It is a mistake to suppose that all men, or at least all Englishmen, want to be free. On the contrary, if freedom entails responsibility, many of them want none of it. They would happily exchange their liberty for a modest (if illusory) security. Even those who claim to cherish their freedom are rather less enthusiastic about taking the consequences of their actions. The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.”

      • PID:

        It sounds as though this guy is trying to make the case that the “rich versus poor” problem with capitalism is being somehow blamed on the poor. I’ve never fully examined why capitalism produces this divide, because it’s well established that it does so, for whatever reasons. But I’m fairly certain it doesn’t rest with the poor. A full examination of capitalism and why it produces this effect is probably worthy of a doctorate award, as the subject is so broad and complex. But it has to do with how wealth is produced and increased, and how it is distributed. The psychology of the poor, which does, I’m sure, play a role, is only a minor piece of the puzzle. The folks who control the “levers” in capitalism are the ultimate winners and are the ones who control how much richer the rich get and how much poorer the poor get.

        Paul

        • Paul,

          Haven’t finished the book yet, though he certainly lays the blame largely at the feet of the wealthy & middle class in regards to their theories of relativism and meaninglessness as being their playthings which they experiment with and affects the poor. It’s a bit difficult to sum up in a post but I recommend reading it before judging. I think to me the major takeaway is an attitude and outlook upon life that is prevalent in the culture as per his patients, etc. which explains why they are where they are and don’t rise above.

          Producer In Development

          • PID:

            One thing I know you’ll find is that people in this society (of all stripes and income levels) are uniquely obsessed with their own conditions, and disinterested in the conditions of others (obviously, there are exceptions). That is, most people are narrowly focused on themselves and their immediate families or groups. Which makes them relatively numb to the plights of others. And those who proclaim to be concerned are often completely disingenuous in their efforts. All this aggravates the problem of inequitable wealth distribution. (I’m not saying that purely equal distribution of wealth is a good or desirable thing. Only that the consistent and relatively high span between the poor and the rich is undesirable.)

            Fortunately, unlike the doomsayers of fiction, people in disastrous circumstances don’t generally elect everyone else as their enemies. Rather, disasters tend to pull people together to act charitably. Ron was right; Man is basically good.

            Paul

            Paul

  11. I look forward to your post Paul, on the blog that is probably the most erudite on the subject of Scientology on the internet.

    Yessiree, in Lana’s pub, the hostess with the mostest. It’ll be on me.

    I see the government working to an org board, and making sure ethics goes in before tech can go in. Div 4 tech would include a proper education that includes decent word-clearing as well as the other study aids. How can we expect our kids to know their subjects, otherwise? Just imagine a society full of word clears – they’d be talking about the same thing, for a change. With a proper Div 3 and Div 5 and the rest, that government could achieve miracles.

    I don’t believe it’s pie in the sky, either. Past models have failed. We’ve depended far too much on inspirational leaders appearing from nowhere. As you may recall, Ron recounts in a Grade 0 lecture how societies have struggled to find OT’s to man the units. An equitable government, like a good org, would ensure no-one is left behind. We have the tech to help literally everyone, that’s the beauty of Scientology. OK, some in the interim may refuse the help, but there are robust safeguards in the admin tech to prevent the org from falling over because of them.

    As Lana says, there’s no magic pill, but a government could not help but to recognise a product of Scientology: an in-ethics, high-toned and trained individual, someone who knows you can be right. That can’t be said of CoS products or of our governmental institutions.

    In Britain, there used to be a tradition of loyalty in public service. Unfortunately, we lacked tech, and now much of the government’s work is outsourced. This has fostered a short-termism mentality. It’s only significant events which can pull the public to the common cause of survival on the third dynamic, because the every-day world is a fog of self-interest. That’s the government’s fault – not having a common cause.

    The common cause could be something like Liberty, Fraternity, Equality; just about anyone would agree to that – I would. There’s sufficient LRH admin tech to bring that about, but only to the degree that the auditing tech was permitted to go in. Then people could realise their dreams and ambitions within an orderly society where everyone could win, and depend on their brothers and sisters also winning.

    The elite rich of the Earth’s population would be distraught to be surrounded by a disabled society unable to attend them. What good would it be to go out on a shit golf course with stupid clubs because no-one could make them anymore? Or to go out on the golf course and have no-one of a sufficient skill to give you a game? Or having riches beyond our wildest dreams, or having a regular job, and a good enough home, when our family, our neighbours, our friends are so sick you can’t enjoy it?

    As much as LRH lectured on these things, so did many others, and I can think of no other better example than Dylan’s Chimes of Freedom.

    • P13C:

      Based on what you’re saying, one of the products of government would be education. Not sure I’d agree (not sure I’d disagree, either). In fact, one of my problems is being unable to determine precisely the products of government.

      A national government like that envisioned by our Founders appears to me to be ideal. It protects the states from foreign powers as needed. It mediates in disputes between states as needed. It represents to the world the aggregate wishes of the several states when it comes to treaties and such. It protects the member states from unfair foreign commerce and competition, to some extent. It may regulate assets (roads, phone systems, etc.) which span the states, though I don’t know that it would actually own them.

      Beyond this, I don’t know that a national government would or should do much, leaving the bulk of government to the states themselves or localities. The best government is that which is the closest to those governed, meaning that the states, counties and cities would have the most influence on individual citizens.

      In my opinion, one of the best functions of a national government would be an “advice” function. I’ll give you an example. In the field of electrical work (your house electricity, for example), there is a building code wherever you are, which controls what kinds of wire and wiring methods are used, how they are grounded (or “earthed” as the Brits say), etc. Virtually every aspect of the electrician’s work is governed by this code. And it is more or less the same code throughout this country. Why? Because every few years, a group of senior fire fighters and electricians get together to update what is called the “National Electrical Code” or NEC. This is the bible when it comes to electrical work. Once the periodic updates are done (perhaps taking into account new materials or new methods of executing electrical installations), the code is published in a book. But here’s the key. The federal government does not mandate this code, and normally neither do the states. But localities like counties and cities usually simply mandate that this code be followed. In other words, here is a set of rules which demonstrably produce safe, workable electrical installations in homes, shops and factories, passed on by a group of people who know the subject intimately. Cities and counties don’t have to know all about the subject, which can get very technical. All they have to do is vote on adopting these rules in this book every few years. Sometimes localities adopt additional minor rules, but the bulk of the regulations regarding electrical work are in this book. And all counties and cities have to do is adopt whatever year’s version of it they prefer.

      How do I know this? Because I used to be an electrician in Southern California years ago. It’s a great system, where people who govern are simply following the advice of a group of people who know far more about safe electrical installations than they ever will or want to.

      There are similar, related instances. For example, for lamps, motors, and other electrical devices, we have Underwriters Laboratories (UL). They are a company which tests and determines the relative safety of electrical devices in this country (and elsewhere). You buy something which is not stamped with a UL approval at your own risk here.

      Now imagine a system where, on any given subject, there is a pile of advice. And as a state, county or city, you can simply adopt this advice, without knowing a lot about the subject. And the advice provides for a workable, economical product if followed properly.

      There used to be (may still be) something vaguely like this, operated by the federal government and based in Boulder, Colorado. It was a place where you could write for a pamphlet on any number of subjects, and the government would send it to you free of charge.

      Such a system might be like the ancient library at Alexandria, where all kinds of sage (and tested) learning exists, and the government administers it for the good of the country. They don’t mandate you follow any of the advice. They simply provide it. It could even get as crazy as best advice on what firearms to buy, given a certain purpose. For example, ridding your farm of varmints (rodents, etc.), big game hunting, self-protection on a farm (“station” for Aussies) or in the city.

      In an ideal world such advice would cover any mental or emotional condition and its treatment, and would advise an auditor be consulted, regardless of the fact that Scientology is just one source for such treatment (though the only workable one). Got an admin problem? See the OEC. Or contact a Scientology trained administrator with a reasonable track record.

      Anyway, just a thought.

      Paul

  12. Well, well, Paul, we have something else in common – I was an electrician, too  In Britain, have virtually the same electrical regulation system as yourselves. Our Wiring Regulations are published by the Institute of Electrical Engineers; it is a Code of Practice that is not law, but is backed by the government as a British Standard. I loved every single minute of my job, though won’t be doing it next time around, there’s easier ways of making a living, lol!

    Your idea about the advices, especially in regard to mental health is excellent. The default supplier of ‘knowledge’ in this field is psychiatry, with its tick-box approach as if they were dealing with an engineering problem. Religion failed earlier with its cloying ‘kindness.’

    Ah, if only our government extended this hands-off style to other aspects of our lives. I share your sentiments about what exactly is the purpose of government. There’s an unfortunate tendency with some people of no talent to scrape a living as middle-men, and end up in government. There are others who are a liability on the shop floor and get ‘bumped upstairs,’ such as military personnel who eventually become generals and admirals because no-one wanted them in their division. In these instances, whole industries can collapse because the management lost sight of its core purpose, like making cars or supplying food.

    For example, most advanced nations make vast amounts of money producing arms for export. The Middle East is at war using weapons made everywhere. Suppliers probably issue these with instruction manuals written in 50 languages. It’s a huge source of national revenue that taints the domestic public it is intended to benefit. I can just see our politicians clinking their champagne glasses when British Aerospace (BAE) lands a big order – more pennies in the treasury. BAE’s ‘solutions’ generated £18b last year. The cost of looking after refugees and providing aid and support to the war areas probably exceeds that.

    This is chickenfeed compared to the financial market in the City of London, where debt futures traded overnight could buy everyone in Britain a house.

    Estimates based on the Panama Papers of money held in private off-shore accounts tallies roughly with world debt.

    Middle-men are first against the wall when the revolution comes 😉

    Marx’s solution to all this was Communism, but that only resulted in a sweeping withdrawal of citizens’ rights.

    As someone who has just arrived here from Mars, it seems to me that the only real solution is Scientology, and that is to help individuals regain their sphere of influence, one at a time.

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