Cults as a social vehicle

[Karakorum]

I bumped into this idea at a C.Shelton vid. If you click it below, it should take you to the specific timestamp:

For those who don't want to watch the short segment, let me give the key quote Chris: "Cults are primarily a social vehicle. It is not about the belief set, it is about the social dynamics of the group that make it so culty. And of course the abuse that gets piled on and the isolation and control. But that's not as easily executed and carried out if you are not buying into the group as a social thing."

So my question to you guys - was it really like this for you? Did it make it easier or harder for you to leave scn?


In my own case, well, I'm a pretty asocial person. I can happily go on for weeks without talking to anyone unless I get bored. That was also true inside and I even got some praise for it "Oh you are so Sea Org proper, down-to-business, none of this chit-chat jibber-jabber nonsense" type of comments. In some ways that's what the SO says it wants people to be.

But they of course say one thing and do the other. They don't want people to be all businesslike. They actively want people to engage in groupthink and "us vs them" and the "we are all in this together", "you are part of the elite, the best of the best chosen few" team-building crap. The same thing spec ops and militarizes around the world do.

So in some sense, my stand-offish-ness made it easier to leave the cult not just because I did not have much respect for the management, but also because I had very few close ties that I was afraid to sever.
And yet after all else was done the very last thing that was on my mind when I was about to defect was: "Damn, my team is gonna take a hit. I don't like the idea of making my guys suffer because I left".

That "we are all in this together" espirit de corps? Worked on me and even when I was leaving.

 

[Enthetan]

When I was a young single guy, I did like the social aspects of it.

 

[Dark]

a trust and a crusade. most people worked to be nice, we were trying to save the planet together after all, and thought we were on the correct path.

 

[Dotey OT]

I have been thinking about this and I have a hard time thinking with the statement "cults are primarily a social vehicle."

It certainly takes rigging to get people to agree on the stringent and often kooky principles that keep a cult together and working, for sure. But without the desire to coerce a group and to bend the reality of individuals to create the agreement that then becomes the cult, like for example all the ideas that go into the closed group "bubble" aspect, there isn't a destructive cult.

I think that you could say that all groups are social, inherently. Duh.

Further on what @Karakorum said, I didn't have that many close ties to sever, after moving around a bit. I also didn't have the camaraderie, having been in a new staff commitment, also with so many people that I did not know. It might have been harder to leave back when I was on CLV org staff before.

Really what happened was the purpose was gone for me. It had been long been squeezed out with the FPRD crap. It became more of a survival thing for me, getting out.

It really feels like it's just a social group that was rigged with a trap. Or that the not so visible trap was there waiting in the group. The group was so rigged with this element: The group pushed hard that it was a group that ran off of the group ethic. So in that way it did require that the group be vigilant to what the group was doing, right or especially wrong.

At any rate, I am still trying to think with this.

 

[He-man]

Not really, I mean, I can see how a cult needs social aspects to it, but I don't see it as the central part of it, that will always be the "dogma" and the "end goal" for me. Bending the social rules as to make people conform and live in whatever chosen reality always seems to be what happens as a solution to critical thinking, but in every cult I read about, or what I saw in scientology, it seems to come "after the fact". If you then add in that non invasive/dangerous groups can have the same social aspects(love bombing, isolation towards the outer world, etc) - I don't see how that is the core of the cult issue.

For me, what makes a cult a cult, lies in that they refuse to share the same "reality" as the rest of us.

EDIT:
Scientology is not a cult because people go to events to clap a picture of Ron and due to the massive love bombing of newbies, it's a cult because they fleece people off monies, enforced slave labour and a core belief that the world is out to get them because of... space aliens from Markab(and other crazy stories).

Aum Shinrikyo wasn't a cult because they hang out sitting in weird positions talking about the good old days, they were a cult because they believed in the end of the world, and the need to trigger it by poisoning as many as possible with Sarin gas.

The Peoiples Temple wasn't a cult because they loved meeting and building new societies, they were a cult because they believed mass murder was a great idea.

And so on, and so forth.

 

[Enthetan]

Not really, I mean, I can see how a cult needs social aspects to it, but I don't see it as the central part of it, that will always be the "dogma" and the "end goal" for me. Bending the social rules as to make people conform and live in whatever chosen reality always seems to be what happens as a solution to critical thinking, but in every cult I read about, or what I saw in scientology, it seems to come "after the fact". If you then add in that non invasive/dangerous groups can have the same social aspects(love bombing, isolation towards the outer world, etc) - I don't see how that is the core of the cult issue.

For me, what makes a cult a cult, lies in that they refuse to share the same "reality" as the rest of us.

EDIT:
Scientology is not a cult because people go to events to clap a picture of Ron and due to the massive love bombing of newbies, it's a cult because they fleece people off monies, enforced slave labour and a core belief that the world is out to get them because of... space aliens from Markab(and other crazy stories).

Aum Shinrikyo wasn't a cult because they hang out sitting in weird positions talking about the good old days, they were a cult because they believed in the end of the world, and the need to trigger it by poisoning as many as possible with Sarin gas.

The Peoiples Temple wasn't a cult because they loved meeting and building new societies, they were a cult because they believed mass murder was a great idea.

And so on, and so forth.

If enslaving people and believing in mass murder indicates cult membership, does that mean that Communists are cultists? Seems that way to me.

 

[Karakorum]

I have been thinking about this and I have a hard time thinking with the statement "cults are primarily a social vehicle."

It certainly takes rigging to get people to agree on the stringent and often kooky principles that keep a cult together and working, for sure. But without the desire to coerce a group and to bend the reality of individuals to create the agreement that then becomes the cult, like for example all the ideas that go into the closed group "bubble" aspect, there isn't a destructive cult.

I think that you could say that all groups are social, inherently. Duh.

Further on what @Karakorum said, I didn't have that many close ties to sever, after moving around a bit. I also didn't have the camaraderie, having been in a new staff commitment, also with so many people that I did not know. It might have been harder to leave back when I was on CLV org staff before.

Really what happened was the purpose was gone for me. It had been long been squeezed out with the FPRD crap. It became more of a survival thing for me, getting out.

It really feels like it's just a social group that was rigged with a trap. Or that the not so visible trap was there waiting in the group. The group was so rigged with this element: The group pushed hard that it was a group that ran off of the group ethic. So in that way it did require that the group be vigilant to what the group was doing, right or especially wrong.

At any rate, I am still trying to think with this.

I'm also trying to think with this. My first impulse when I heard Chris say this was: "Nah Chris, you are wrong". But then I realized that the social ties were in fact the very last barrier I had to on my way out of the church, something that for a time kept me in for a time after I lost any remnants of faith in the tech. So I think there is more to it than meets the eye.

 

[He-man]

If enslaving people and believing in mass murder indicates cult membership, does that mean that Communists are cultists? Seems that way to me.

As always, I find it interesting that you wouldn't add Nazism to your comment. If you want to mass blanket anyone to the left of your ideology, that's your problem.

My reply was in the context of groups that are not on the political spectrum but more on the religious one.

 

[ILove2Lurk]

Cults are primarily a social vehicle.

It's different for different people.

I was a highly trained public, had zero interest in green on white, and mostly no interest
in being a member of anything.

I had only one focused interest and desire: to achieve the vaunted OT states that were
meticulously described in mostly the early 50's lectures and books. i had studied the
early materials as deeply and carefully as anyone I know. The promises were pretty clear
and astounding. Sadly, all just manipulations of the mind's creativity and imagination
capabilities.

Can you "mock up" or imagine "X" mental state? Can you hold it in place forever? Well,
there you are, I finally concluded.

One could surmise that the whole subject of Scientology is one of drilling, improving
and working with one's imagination -- in an unknowing fashion, I guess -- and drilling the
capability of holding ideas in place in one's mind -- silly and unreal as some of them are.

The social vehicle was nothing for me. It brought me in contact with a wide variety of
people that in the ordinary course of life I wouldn't necessarily befriend or have much
to do with. All we had in common is the scientology bond and nothing else.

 

[Enthetan]

As always, I find it interesting that you wouldn't add Nazism to your comment. If you want to mass blanket anyone to the left of your ideology, that's your problem.

My reply was in the context of groups that are not on the political spectrum but more on the religious one.

The National Socialist German Workers Party was, at its core, a collectivist ideology, and I therefore put it on the Left with the other collectivist ideology.

Really, the main difference between Hitler and Stalin involved WHO was to ultimately rule the world.

To a large extent, I regard myself mostly as a right-wing anarchist libertarian.

 

[Dotey OT]

I agree with @ILove2Lurk in that I think it is different for different people.

I still find Chris' statement about cults interesting. There is either nothing there or something that I missed.

I did not originally join the scn group because of the scn group or anything to do with the scn group. I could've cared less about joining any group, I still don't care to join anything. My interests are usually my own, and not bred by others.

I don't have to agree with Chris. I am certain that we don't agree on all things, and that is ok. I can live, and so can he. I don't think I am missing out here.

Actually, I was having a discussion with an ex-scn friend this past weekend, and I realized how much that the scn group has changed. Back when I first started, auditors were held in the highest esteem. It was very easy to see, and was a steady drum beat, "GET TRAINED." That went on for quiet a while, but became muted over time. The esteem for the auditor was replaced by "DONATE TO THE NEXT LEVEL." This is a representation of the social dynamics changing, or at least the ground rules of what the group thinks is important. Both supposedly further the work necessary by the group to achieve it's goals. The web weavers managed to get that woven in without too many of the group noticing that something had changed. That kind of makes the social mechanism a secondary importance, or lower.

I think I just talked myself out of thinking that there is something in what Chris says here.

 

[Karakorum]

I agree with @ILove2Lurk in that I think it is different for different people.

It is. The 1st gen experience vs the 2nd gen experience is the first hing that comes to my mind, but its not just that.
Chris himself is 2nd gen, but the way he tells his story and his moment of revelation as a teen makes it seem more similar to a 1st gen recruitment experience than to what I experienced.

Actually, I was having a discussion with an ex-scn friend this past weekend, and I realized how much that the scn group has changed. Back when I first started, auditors were held in the highest esteem. It was very easy to see, and was a steady drum beat, "GET TRAINED." That went on for quiet a while, but became muted over time. The esteem for the auditor was replaced by "DONATE TO THE NEXT LEVEL."

Yes, I saw that as well, though perhaps that was a less of a focus for me. By the time "donate more!" became the big motto, I was busy trying to make the damn system function and our motto was "work more, sleep less". There was so much work that I guess we didn't have the time and energy to focus on the big picture. Certainly not in the way the public experienced it.

 

[ILove2Lurk]

Back when I first started, auditors were held in the highest esteem.
. . .
The esteem for the auditor was replaced by "DONATE TO THE NEXT LEVEL."

Ditto. Most disheartening and disappointing thing about it all. Being highly respected
and loved one minute and thrown into the sh*t can the next. Happened pretty fast.
I simply quit auditing for good. Screw it!

 

[He-man]

The National Socialist German Workers Party was, at its core, a collectivist ideology, and I therefore put it on the Left with the other collectivist ideology.

Really, the main difference between Hitler and Stalin involved WHO was to ultimately rule the world.

To a large extent, I regard myself mostly as a right-wing anarchist libertarian.

Yeah I know, you have stated that before.

The world is always easier to understand when you get to define everything yourself I suppose.

 

[Enthetan]

Actually, I was having a discussion with an ex-scn friend this past weekend, and I realized how much that the scn group has changed. Back when I first started, auditors were held in the highest esteem. It was very easy to see, and was a steady drum beat, "GET TRAINED." That went on for quiet a while, but became muted over time. The esteem for the auditor was replaced by "DONATE TO THE NEXT LEVEL." This is a representation of the social dynamics changing, or at least the ground rules of what the group thinks is important. Both supposedly further the work necessary by the group to achieve it's goals. The web weavers managed to get that woven in without too many of the group noticing that something had changed. That kind of makes the social mechanism a secondary importance, or lower.

Scientology no longer even pretends that there is some result to be gained by auditing and training. It's all about donations. For what? I have no idea.

 

[He-man]

Scientology no longer even pretends that there is some result to be gained by auditing and training. It's all about donations. For what? I have no idea.

To maintain David Miscabbages lifestyle.

 

[Enthetan]

The world is always easier to understand when you get to define everything yourself I suppose.

It least I try to provide definitions for the terms I use, as I use them. Much of Leftist ideology relies on vague terms that are not really rigorously defined, probably so that each person can read into the statements whatever he wants to.

Like, for example, "anarchist", which (on the surface) means somebody who wants to eliminate government. The actuality is the Left-anarchist wants to eliminate all governmental protections on private property, so that there are no police to interfere when they seize the means of production in order to initiate communism.

The right-anarchist, on the other hand, wants minimal government, with the main legitimate governmental function being protection of people's lives and property against theft, violence, and fraud.

Scientology, in my opinion, was a collectivist ideology in that it regarded its people as being the property of the Group, and expected them to hand over their lives, efforts, and property to advance the purposes of the Group, as laid out by the Group's self-selected leadership. The collectivist regards the Group as having the right to use force to compel individuals to contribute to Group goals.

The inverse of that is the viewpoint that individuals have the right to their own goals, and to devote their property and energy towards the fulfillment of their own goals and purposes, using free exchange to acquire any resources they need along those lines.

 

[Karakorum]

Scientology no longer even pretends that there is some result to be gained by auditing and training. It's all about donations. For what? I have no idea.

Lawyers, PIs, payoffs of famous SPs, invigilation of members...

 

[He-man]

It least I try to provide definitions for the terms I use, as I use them. Much of Leftist ideology relies on vague terms that are not really rigorously defined, probably so that each person can read into the statements whatever he wants to.

Like, for example, "anarchist", which (on the surface) means somebody who wants to eliminate government. The actuality is the Left-anarchist wants to eliminate all governmental protections on private property, so that there are no police to interfere when they seize the means of production in order to initiate communism.

The right-anarchist, on the other hand, wants minimal government, with the main legitimate governmental function being protection of people's lives and property against theft, violence, and fraud.

Scientology, in my opinion, was a collectivist ideology in that it regarded its people as being the property of the Group, and expected them to hand over their lives, efforts, and property to advance the purposes of the Group, as laid out by the Group's self-selected leadership. The collectivist regards the Group as having the right to use force to compel individuals to contribute to Group goals.

The inverse of that is the viewpoint that individuals have the right to their own goals, and to devote their property and energy towards the fulfillment of their own goals and purposes, using free exchange to acquire any resources they need along those lines.

OK Boomer.

Taking notes.

Noting that none of this has anything to do with the OT.

Video is for attention.

My apologizes.

 

[Dotey OT]

Lawyers, PIs, payoffs of famous SPs, invigilation of members...

You said a mouthful. And how!!

This brings up an interesting point. Those that are in and have been in for some time know the sea change of importance in regards to auditors. The next time that I talk to someone that is still in, I am delicately bringing up this point to see how it will be addressed.