Scientology likes to say they are not trying to compete with psychiatry. But the reality is that despite Hubbard saying he had developed the Introspection Rundown and thus gotten rid of the last reason for psychiatry to exist, Hubbard’s policy remains that no “institutional” cases or people with “psych histories” are allowed in scientology orgs.
In 1972 Hubbard was intent upon using “Big League Sales” to get governments to offload psychiatry and take on scientology.
No explanation though about what to do with those in institutions or needing treatment for severe mental illnesses? Perhaps his thought was to follow his own advice in Science of Survival:
There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered…. A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
Here is Hubbard’s “evaluation” of the situation vis a vis psychiatry:
OCCUPY TERRITORY EVAL
6 November 1972
SITUATION: Governments hold onto and nurse psychiatry and the mental health movement. Vital tech of Scientology not used by governments yet.
DATA: Psychs can’t deliver yet governments hold on. Psychs just PR without delivery. Government still retains them.
ADMIN WHY: We have not PRed governments properly to make them offload psychs and onload Scientology.
ETHICS WHY: Governments not evaluating and accepting false reports.
IDEAL SCENE: Scientology has replaced psychs in all government zones.
HANDLING:
1. Continue to attack psychs everywhere.
2. Survey what governments want and also think they are getting from psychs and what governments don’t like about psychs.
3. Compose and deliver campaign to inform governments properly as per sample (unsurveyed) brochure attached. Note it does not mention religion. What we really can do in each zone of government interest should be stated calmly like business service card style. But a nice brochure. Caution: Needs survey.
4. Do a leaflet that covers each point of the brochure so as to answer queries about that service. Use STATS.
5. Train up new PR contact people on Big League Sales Closing Techniques AND USE THE TECHNIQUES TO SELL NOT COURSES BUT AGREEMENT THAT SCIENTOLOGY IS NEEDED. Use Big League to get agreement (not agreements), or some favor. The thing sold is the idea of Scientology. The exchange is acceptability (not money). Make THEM reach to orgs.
L. RON HUBBARD
It is interesting but there is not 1 Scientologist I know who would advocate actually rounding people up and “disposing” of them. It is complete nonsense to suggest that Scientologists would think so and that Hubbard actually thought so. He was making a point! But if you wish to fall for the oft-repeated story line here of Mike’s – which is relying on your literal understanding or rather misunderstanding of the quote and your pent-up vitriol against the Church, then God help you!
Actually I have more than a sneaking feeling that many of the rather hateful commenters on here would gladly do that which they are implying that Scientologists or Hubbard would do. Certainly many of you have “burnt books” eh?
Fool,
Hubbard stated this- how can Scientologists pick and choose which statements are supposed to be believed and which ones are not? How do you know what was in his mind when he wrote that? the fact that he continually made statements about removing people who stood in his way implies that he was VERY serious about this- he has said that psychiatrists and psychologists are evil and should be destroyed utterly. if they are evil, where do they go in this utopia of cleardom? Where DO people like me get warehoused? Apparently scientologists DO believe this because you have not hesitated to make some pretty serious remarks about how you view me.
since you are NOT Hubbard, how can you speak on what HE believed or not?
And I FULLY believe this sorry excuse for a human being meant every word of his delusional thinking. INCLUDING the need to delete people. When will you see the madness that he spewed for what it was- a pathetic, mewling broken man who was unable to face or acknowledge his own inadequacies? He absolutely KNEW he was unstable mentally and that he had major psychological issues. That is why he wanted people destroyed- he knew that he would not fare well in a face to face battle with people smarter and better educated than he. If he had been born in the age of the internet, his fraud would have been apparent immediately and no one in their right mind would have joined his cult. Unfortunately for the world, and for the people he drew in, information was not readily available.
Go ahead with your whining- I cant wait.
Kat
Irrelevant babble Fool. The FOUNDER advocated it. Those who follow such a criminally insane person are as insane and criminal
FP, I bet you also don’t think you know any scientologists who would put anyone, much less a child, in a chain locker on a ship, or throw people who can’t swim overboard into the sea. And yet we know that Hubbard’s directives about such things were indeed meant to be taken literally, and that he observed with satisfaction as many of his followers faithfully carried them out exactly as ordered, on a regular basis.
You probably also don’t think you know anyone who would be involved with the “the hole” or any of the worst incarnations of the RPF subsequent to the chain locker – though if you were in Scientology long enough, you may well actually have known someone who was or is. Those are of course the present-day implementations, of the sort of ruthless means for dealing with SPs that Hubbard put his imprimatur on when onboard the ship, restrained only to the anticipated day when “the orgs say what is legal or not.”
Your denialism reminds me of the Marxist Communists in the 1930s, who thought that a Soviet dictatorship lead by those whose ideology had justified purges and warfare as means to an end, was somehow going to result in the harmonious idyll that it claimed as its theoretical ideal, and who remained in denial even as the reports of horrors, especially under Stalin, came in. Or of the admirers of Mr. Hitler and his German economic miracle (there was one in our extended family, a second-generation German immigrant) who didn’t think he’d really do the sort of brutal things he wrote and spoke about in the 1920s, and refused to accept the truth until faced with the most awful evidence (though of course some still deny it to this day).
And how are we to know when Hubbard is supposed to be taken literally, or not – particularly when some of his dictates that might seem unbelievable or inhumane, were in fact carried out, to his personal approval? Ironically, you’re stuck in the classic problem of dogmatic true believers in traditional religion (what Hubbard considered “implants,” followed by “madmen”), trying to explain away some of the terrible dictates of old “scripture,” that have in fact been acted on over the ages, as somehow now supposed to be treated as if they were always just symbolic or allegorical.
A discussion about the Constitution seems to come up often these days. Many claims are done without reading and/or understanding what the Constitution states which includes the people, the Federal Courts, the Supreme Court, in general, and lawyers in particular. Usurpations of it have been going on for more than 150 years. For a full understanding, one should begin at the beginning e.g., Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, the Federalist Papers which provides the Framer’s intention of what they wrote in the Constitution, Letters between the Framers, Vattel’s Law of Nations which modernized the entire practice of international law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Nations), and a good dictionary, Webster’s Dictionary 1828, defining the words which the Framers used (http://webstersdictionary1828.com/.
A retired lawyer from Tennessee is an expert, imho, and I provide a link to her blog (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/definitions-and-basic-concepts/) which begins with BASIC CONCEPTS OF “GOVERNMENT”. Along the sidebar are the links to many of her writings which are directly supported by original documents. Without the knowledge of how our republic is supposed to work, the electorate is doomed to create a totalitarian state. Totalitarianism refers to the type of government that attempts to assert absolute and total control over the public and private lives of its citizens. It is neither right nor left but not good nevertheless.
Peabody, most people today cannot balance a checkbook. Humans at their current average IQ level cannot put together a civilization that won’t devolve into a human rights destroying machine. Witness the last 4,000 years of recorded history. 97 out 100 people surveyed today have no idea of what human rights are. Thus they don’t know when they are being violated. They’ll answer such insanity as ,”food”, “housing” Medical care” and the like.
“Adders are safe bed mates compared to people on the lower band of the tone scale.”
I think we should toss a few of said adders into the bed of Tiny Boots and see if Hubbards words bear any truth. Worse case, the monster gets a few well placed bites of the deadly venom, he goes off to Target 2. We get rid of him, and prove to all still believers that Hubbard did not speak the truth, as they so whole heartedly believe.
Hey we all have this wrong. Foolproof will straighten us out on how Hubbard had the keys to clearing the planet by hook or by crook. Mostly by crook based on Hubbards own scriptures. However I might be wrong.
If you find the little diagram that accompanies the definition of “aberration” in the Tech Dictionary or it might be the Admin Dictionary, the one with lines crazily shooting out from A-Z and D-G etc, here and there and there and here etc. – and then read your comment again and compare – the similarity is remarkable!
Sounds like a final solution from Ole’ Yeller, scientology’s messiah LRH.
Read those words again, all Still-Ins. This is your founder’s own words. History is not painting a pretty picture of this sociopathic conman.
Yes, literal understanding is an awful thing – for you that is.
But don’t worry, society and you also have the old mainstays of prisons, electro shock treatment and drugs, and death row to fall back on.
If I remember rightly, there was a class action lawsuit against Oklahoma in the 80’s brought by people who did not want people with mental illness/mental disabilities “warehoused”. They demanded these people live in their own communities. They won the lawsuit and used a whole lot of money trying to place people with relatives. Nothing ever worked and no one came up with another solution. It was a nightmare then and still is. Most relatives were against it. They were old and worn out trying to deal with the illness and communities couldn’t house them. I worked in the system at that time. Nothing seemed to work after the institutions were closed. Sad deal all around.
Yep, people are unwilling to pay so there can be no service. Pretty simple actually. If enough people WANTED something better they would pay for it.
Look at that worthless, bloated con artist FREAK! 🤣 Thats the Scientologists hero and Dear Leader? 🤣you’ve got to be SHITTING me….
There was an Ex Sea org member who lived on the streets of Los Angeles. It was a pretty gruesome story. The parents continued to work in the Sea Org full time.
As this SO member became more and more disturbed, he was eventually reported to the city mental health department.
They came and did a full intervention and the story has a triumphant ending>
Meanwhile the Sea org used his parents for slave labor and the cult, although they were utilizing his parents full time, did NOTHING
I tell the story here ~~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLkGbLNaaTg&t=30s
One of Ivan & Nancy Obolensky’s sons. Two of El Wrong Hubtard’s “OTs”. Serge is kids name I think.
Truly horrific – thanks for sharing. David Miscavige is a psychopath.
Scribe, that kid was running loose in Hollyweird before DM was in control. Blame the cause, HUBBARD.
Hubbard was one sick puppy. He truly believed that people were irredeemable and wanted the ones he decreed were broken to be thrown away. This illustrates that he had no insight into psychiatry or psychology, and that translates into scientology NEVER being a viable alternative. He basically stated- we will only help people who dont really need help. We will destroy anyone who may prove that my “methods” dont work. Ergo- scientology will always work! If you ONLY help people who do not need help (only small neuroticisms or unruly thoughts will be allowed), then WE CANT FAIL. Thats why he wanted to use stats- if you treat people who are not sick, you will have a 100% success rate. The beauty of the scam…
I did the Introspection Rundown. It was interesting and weird. How i became interestingly weird 🙂
I did the Spection Intro Rundown . But, I flunked. I did feel weird, though. So I’m counting that as a win.
I did the Intersection Rundown where I directed traffic after a Dodgers game. I had a big win screaming at all the bad drivers.
Let me take a not out of that. Lol
“We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank.”
Well Ron I will speculate, and by the way, don’t ever tell me what I can and cannot think. My conclusion is that as far as the bank goes, you never rose above the need for ever increasing amounts of cash. Best of luck on Target Two.
The only thing I remotely like about Hubbard: he has the balls to tell you exactly what he is.
That people read him, and completely fail to recognize the implications of his casual ability to pass off genocide and murder as acceptable activies in his organization boggles my mind.
Thank any gods that exist that Scientology never reached a powerful enough position to ‘Clear the Planet’.
“A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.”
Substitute Philippines dictator Duterte for “Venezuelen” and “addicts” for “lepers” and you have the modern day version of Blubbard’s ‘simple expedient.’ Dear Founder’s psychopathic idiocy culminating in the criminal enterprise of Narconon.
“A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.”
This is truly the worst quote. It makes clear that he’s talking about an actual Holocaust, not just excessively colorful language. It also lowers my opinion of all Scientologists (sorry to whoever that may offend). How does one read those sentences and not recognize a proposal equal to Hitler’s Final Solution? Just substitute Jews for beggars, and it’s the same. That they can read this and still cheer on Scientology’s war against psychiatry means they are soulless and lack any kind of moral compass.
This reminds me of the CBS story about Down Syndrome disappearing from Iceland:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/
“Inside the country where Down Syndrome is disappearing” makes it sound like the condition known as Down Syndrome is being eradicated like they’ve developed a cure or something. But read the article is and all it says is that 100% of the women who get pre-natal screening that detects Down Syndrome are aborting their babies. The headline is just deceptive clickbait.
This is not eradicating Down Syndrome any more than destroying beggars cures leprosy. It’s just killing innocent people.
So what does Scientology do with Down Syndrome? Can a developmentally disabled person be cleared? Can Dianetics remove the third chromosome on the 21st pair?
Ah yes, Big League Sales by Les Dane. Any objection to the sale is simply part of a ‘brick overcoat’ and if you remove the objections brick by brick, your prospect has no other option but purchase whatever you are offering.
This is the arrogance that scientology registrars learn as part of their hat. Saving money for retirement, a child’s education, down payment on a house, health insurance…or god help you, a vacation, all bricks in the overcoat and objections that a registrar will help you overcome as you slog your way towards immortality and a rocking chair on the porch to infinity.
I did that same program, Big League Sales, when I was in the Honolulu Mission . But, I’ve always been a great salesman! And I was the only person out there! But, boy, I sure could bring them in.
It’s very easy to bring them in using your confidence.
Once you remove the brick overcoat, individual bricks can be used to pound your prospect into compliance. 😂
“The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order …”
That, the now infamous quote from the Dianetics Modern Science book re: 7 year old girls and passionate kisses, and I’m sure many others that I can dig up given some time – it boggles the mind that we (the former Kool-Aid drinkers), read this stuff, usually at least several times, and no alarms went off, no Jiminy Crickets yelling “Hey YOU, did you get that? I mean did you REALLY REALLY get that?” It really speaks to the subtle power of this form of hypnosis, and should be well-noted by the never-ins who always pose the question “Why? How could an intelligent person fall for this crap?”
Most intelligent people couldn’t get through the dianetics book and weren’t exposed to much of hubbard’s writings but there appeared to be something different and interesting that got them hooked at the outset. 20/20 hindsight is always so illuminating.
In the mid 1970s when I trained on “Routine 3 Revised” metered Dianetic auditing I don’t recall if it was required to read DMSMH. If it was I think I was just “spot checked” on it. It wasn’t an obstacle course to train as an auditor.
Addressing someone’s negative and unwanted attitudes, emotion, sensations and pains wasn’t mystical. Like you say, hindsight is 20/20.
At the time I had no idea that I would eventually be following some prophet’s creation stories and space opera.
I split in 1982 before venturing into the OT levels. Lucky me.
Gorillavee,
As a “never-in” it does sometimes boggle the mind that people could read this and not logically comprehend what Hubbard was saying. However, I understand how mental manipulation and the internal dialogue that happens in cults works, as well as the inherent blind spots that the mind creates to deal with such incongruities in “scripture”. ‘It is a lot like how christians can read parts of the the bible- especially old testament- and not see or acknowledge the completely contradictory teachings.
My question is this: would ANYTHING have made you open your eyes to what he was commanding here? Im asking because I’m trying to speak with several still-ins and am looking for something that will snap their eyes open- or at least start them thinking. Any insight would help.
Kat
The most glaring evidence is the population of scientologists in most every area.
They could look at the stats but stats may not be published.
At one time stats were posted in the Org Information Center. Even public were welcome.
The still-ins are not looking. If you’re trying to speak with several still-ins, you will have better luck talking to a lamp post.
Thanks Peabody. Thats encouraging! Lol- just kidding.
For some reason your comment does not appear here, but I do have it in my notification email. My answer will not be encouraging either. Nothing from the outside really made me change. I was always observing and noticing inconsistencies and conflicting data. So in a sense, one could argue that I was never totally IN.
One thing that might help – through all the inconsistencies and conflicts, I always wrote them off as human frailty. Staff are after all humans too, and subject to their own “aberrations”. It was the tech that always had me hooked. I stayed in and justified everything I saw that was wrong because I wanted the superhuman powers. Once I realized that all of THAT was a load of crap, leaving became easy – why the hell should I put up with all of the BS if I’m not getting the holy grail out of it?
So maybe your best route is to get them to realize that the gains are really peer-pressured illusions. But you can’t push that. You’d have to VERY gently lead them that way, without them realizing what you’re doing. Good luck.
This seems so emotionally cold. “Those” under the 2.0 Tone blah blah blah, are human beings!!! “Dispose of them quietly”? What?!!! Like Miscavige did with his wife? Or just kill them. Which one would Hubbard chose? Hubbard hated psychs because he was afraid/terrified of them. Psychiatrists would realize he had “issues”. You don’t need a degree to see he had issues. So get rid of psychiatry and all others under 2.0 Tone and “I , Hubbard, can rule the world!!!” OMG
So get rid of psychiatry and all others under 2.0 Tone and “I, Hubbard, can rule the world!!!” OMG
Besides the: “There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, … … … is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”, there is one important factor: WHO would then determine who is under 2.0 ?? Their ‘ethics’ ‘officers’? Or OSA?
It would be very likely then that anybody who is critical of Scientology and their doings or is exposing them would be labeled as “down-tone” and being under 2.0 on Hubbard’s tone scale. It would be used to eradicate any criticism and critics, very much like some dictators/dictatorships label anybody who is opposing or criticizing them as ‘terrorists’ and imprison or even kill them.
You realize that anybody declared suppressive automatically becomes 1.1 on the tone scale. What could be easier!
“. . . dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”
“The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone. . .”
“By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.”
Let’s not be coy. Hubbard is advocating the extermination of those unable to function in his utopian ideal society. I have a vague recollection of a similar policy enforced in some country some decades ago. I doubt if Hubbard’s Final Solution could ever create a population of Homo Novis Ubermensch.
Meanwhile, Scios continue to salute their leaders, “Scientology, uber alles!”
It has taken me many years to get to my own final truth on this issue. For the longest time I thought there was some residual value in auditing. But Hubbard’s assumptions were all wrong. Brian Lambert gave me the real data on the tone scale. There is no way that Hubbard was able to understand the human mind. His war against the “psychs” was total illusion. As reported on this blog, I took my daughter to a psych about 15 years ago. She was cured by him in a few visits. Although Hubbard’s e-meter auditing sounds professional, it is not. In the end, Hubbard’s method only provides minor relief. The way he framed the questions leads to a reversal of spiritual growth and the stopping of long run mental healing.
George, ” Hubbard’s method ” was: MAKE MORE MONEY. Dianutty and scientology were not designed to help or provide relief from suffering or increase awareness.
One size-fits-all questions asked in repetitive, robotic fashion that ” address ” a non-existent reactive mind are not therapeutic.The whole construct is rubbish: the loaded language, the indoctrination, the Orwellian ” ethics “, the ” technologies ” of auditing and administration…All of it. Any ” minor relief ” is created by the individual, and is quite often temporary and/or illusory. Just my opinion…
well said
Make Money. Make More Money. Get Others to Make Money.
Why not just buy a mint?
And get the others to give you their “more money”
Milton Erickson also did lots of good for people with hypnotherapy. This chant about ‘there is one tech and that is standard tech’ was just a way to line Ron’s pockets.
George, I think it also is important to note that any possible value in auditing in some cases, is counterbalanced by the others in which individuals get worse, go psychotic and even kill themselves. That’s a downside residual from the abreaction therapy that Hubbard saw and copied, but which the Navy abandoned shortly thereafter (and prior to the publication of Dianetics – typically, Hubbard was actually behind the curve) because of those adverse outcomes, along with its general ineffectiveness.
It’s actually a classic problem of therapeutic (these days, mostly pharmaceutical) research, that at first something may seem to produces some impressive remissions or cures, but then on thorough follow-up turns out to have so many adverse outcomes (including deaths) as well, that it simply can’t ethically be used. Thus we sometimes hear initial reports of a treatment that produces virtual “miracle” results, that has to be withdrawn when carefully observant researchers realize that others in the same cohort are getting worse or even dying.
I feel compelled, inspired, and driven to hammer this point home in rebuttal to all of those people who continue to call Flubbard’s ass-spew
” therapy ” : it is not therapy. It was not designed to be therapy. It was not conceived with the idea that each individual would explore his/her problems, phobias, and traumas via a personal question-and-answer dialogue that would empower and help him/ her. It was not designed with a respect for individual autonomy. The focus in Hubbard’s ” system ” is on Hubbard’s redefinition of who you are and what ails you, with him being the ” source ” of all valid information about that AND the source of all monetized solutions. It’s all about HUBBARD. It’s about a process of indoctrination and degradation that creates obedient, disassociated, more-or-less traumatized robots. Hubbard’s affirmations are the foundation of his criminal con.
Please, do not mistake the half-baked, stolen concepts of his scam-that he intentionally assembled in a confusing, contradictory manner( repetition, mimicry, confusion/ paradox, the components of hypnotism )to disorient and manipulate his followers-with a ” therapy “.
Blubbard says; Psychs can’t deliver yet governments hold on. Psychs just PR without delivery. Government still retains them.
Fact is; Scamtology can’t deliver yet koolaid drinkers continue to hold on. Scamtology is just PR without delivery and members remain deluded.
Once again, as always, El Tubbo got it all wrong in his evaluation and planning.
One BIG problem Hubtard would have had with his disposing of those below 2.0 on his Tone Scale quietly and without sorrow (scamology didn’t have the resources to raise their tone level) was that Hubtard himself fell FAR lower than 2.0 on that scale.
HE would have had to be first to walk into the scamology gas chambers, long for all gay people he wanted eliminated.
“Use STATS.” What possible statistic can Lron use to sell $cienoPsychiatry? Nothing for real, that is Lron for you, nothing for real.
Psychiatry was changing a lot in 1972. ‘De-institutionalization’ was the word of the decade and all that did was send chronics to prison. Now every prison or county jail has a section for psychiatric patients. What a freakin ‘improvement’. Ok, some of the former patients did do better in a community setting, but not a large proportion. Psychiatry improves a little every year, the same can’t be said for $cientology.
‘De-institutionalization’ was pushed in good part by the anti-psychiatry movement – which Hubbard had come to late, as they’d already curbed some of the worst abuses like ‘assembly line’ lobotomies by the time that Hubbard wrote about them as if they were still going on. It’s yet another case in which he was actually behind the times and following the lead of others, but taking credit for their ideas and work with an audience not informed enough to know any better.
However, to be fair, part of the problem with de-institutionalization is that it didn’t get the funding it needed to have the best chance at success, and in fact got undercut. Politicians saw it as a chance to try to save money once the established big institutions were disbanded, and patients disappeared into the community – and onto the streets, and into the criminal justice system.
Wasn’t it Ronald Reagan who cut off federal funding to the states for mental institutions? Didn’t many of these places close their doors due to lack of funding? As I recall, it was in the 80s that I started seeing a lot of homeless people on the streets of the large city in which I lived. I’m not knowledgeable about this issue; someone correct me if I’m wrong.
Aqua, why don’t you do some research and enlighten us.
Aqua,
You are correct. Regan did stop funding for most federally run facilities- and many people with mental health issues were forced onto the streets. There are many still stuck there as there is still very little federal funding for the treatment and housing of this population (and they don’t have insurance). Its a very bad situation and the general public still has a negative view of the mentally ill. Its sad that many lost their “homes” when the facilities closed down and were unable to maintain any type of health care. While the system remains “broken” there has been no new move to create large scale plans to help them. They dont vote, and are generally “invisible” unless the media decides to trot them out as a political point.
Kat
*Reagan
Edit button is gone again
Yes, Aqua. Reagan stopped all unconstitutional (unlawful) spending in that area. It was a criminal offense to continue it. Presidents have to swear to uphold the Constitution when they enter office.
If the government only funded those things for which it was granted power, the budget would be balanced. There would be no $22 trillion national debt nor $150 trillion in unfunded liabilities. When politicians promise the electorate with free everything, the not too bright electorate will elect those politicians who will demand more debt to keep their promises resulting in a weaker dollar. When there is no demand for a weak USD, the USD will no longer be the Reserve Currency of the world. A collapse is inevitable. The Framers of the Constitution understood this and is the reason they did not give us a democracy.
Yes Peabody. Currently the US Gov spends more money illegally than it does legally. A nest of criminals that need to be dealt with
Wynski, Peabody, I get it. I really do. I may come across as a flaming lib but I’m actually in the middle, i.e. a liberal Republican and/or a moderate Democrat. I grew up in a staunchly Republican family. I come from a LONG and I do mean “long” line of Republicans and my direct paternal ancestors came over from England in the 1640s and one of them was one of the Signers. I grew up surrounded by Republicans and steeped in the traditional Republican values of self sufficiency, personal responsibility, etc., limited government, etc. I personally live that way. I don’t vote that way but I myself LIVE my life that way. So, I GET what you’re each saying, and in theory, I don’t necessarily disagree with it, and these are the principles I apply to my own life.
On the other hand, I had good parents, even though I didn’t have them for long. I also had family who were there for me, family who were good people who helped me when I needed help, helped me and supported me both emotionally and financially when I was devastated by various losses and could do very little to help myself.
In a perfect world, everyone should have people in their lives as I did, back in the day.
Without these people who were there for me I could have easily gone the wrong way and really ploughed myself in – very easily, because, back then, for a while, I was overwhelmed, it was too much, and I didn’t CARE. Back then, I didn’t give a damn about ANYTHING, yet I didn’t have the courage or the anger or whatever it would take to kill myself.
Ok, the point being, I get, fully get, the beauty of these “take care of your own, be responsible for yourself, take charge of your life” values.
But then, stuff happens. All of a sudden, a calamity is on you and you’re not ready for it AT ALL.
I had help. I had people who were THERE for me, NO MATTER WHAT. They were VERY far from wealthy but they loved me unconditionally and they were THERE.
Not everyone has that. And people can’t generally be RELIED UPON to reach out to their neighbors or even their own families with help when its needed.
So I believe that government should be relied upon to take up the slack, to be there, for people who need help and have no one to help them.
Now, will some people take advantage of this and game the system? Of course. But then, there ARE those who will utilize the help and then get back on their feet and take back their responsibility for their lives.
Ok, that was just background info about me and how I think, etc. What about these mentally ill people, though? I get YOUR points (totally valid and true) with regard to it not being the federal government’s responsibility to house and otherwise care for and treat them, feed them, etc…but what does one DO with them? Perhaps federal funding WAS wrong, IS wrong: well, OK, but what solution went in place in its stead? The states don’t seem to be able to handle the problem. Liberal states like New York and California are overrun with homeless, mentally ill people. More California than New York I’d say because of the warm weather. In any event, there they ARE. Maybe they shouldn’t be there, maybe horrible policies CAUSED them to be there, but that’s all background data now and doesn’t solve the problem of what to do with them NOW. They need to be housed, clothed, fed, treated. Whatever the states are doing doesn’t seem to be working very well. These people are not in their right mind, they’re ill both physically and mentally, and some, not all, but some of them are psychotic and violent. I get what is unconstitutional, illegal, etc. that you’ve pointed out. So what is to be DONE? If only for a temporary, and not necessarily a permanent solution.
Look, I’m not trying to come across as a smart ass or to make you wrong (in this instance 🙂 )
The truth is, that back in the day, I myself was, for a while, so apathetic, that if I hadn’t had a few people who loved me, understood me, were there for me and not only there for me but prepared to be there for me for as long as it would take – if I hadn’t had them, who knows? maybe I could have ended up homeless. It could have happened to me. Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know because I did have help and support.
It is irrelevant whether or not I believe gov should or should not take my money and give it to you for your personal living expenses. IT IS ILLEGAL DO SO.
If I want it to do so I have to get the constitution changed. If we want to ignore the constitution then we can say that no one has a right to life and murder is no longer illegal. Do you understand?
It would be like me saying I know the Constitution says that congress people hold office by election but I disagree so I will kill all I don’t like because I feel it is right. IT IS ILLEGAL TO DO SO.
It isn’t about left vs right. It is about obeying the law or breaking the law.
Are you saying social security is illegal?
There is no provision in the US Constitution that allows the Federal Gov’t to run a retirement system for citizens. The Constitution lists MAXIMUM powers not minimum. Under the 18th amendment congress may lay a tax for SS but it CANNOT disburse those funds to citizens. See 10th Amendment for more info.
Read the constitution for yourself, it is a simple doc and actually probably more readable for a person who understand English history. The power wasn’t granted to the Federal Gov’t. The entire Fed welfare program is similarly illegal.
16th Amendment allows federal taxation, 18th established prohibition. Where can the tax money collected under the 16th amendment be disbursed according to your reading of the constitution?
Sorrty for the numeric typo. Here is THE list of powers of congress. This is the limits of their powers.
The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—
Mike, as someone who didn’t grow up learning about the US Constitution and thus no long held opinions regarding sections of it, could you look at a section of the 14th Amend and tell me what you think?
Set up, no where in the Const. does it list women as anything superior or inferior to men. It makes no mention of the sexes anywhere. For the section below look specifically at the part starting, “No State shall make or enforce any law…”
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”
Do you think that this would have given women the right to vote as it did to black men at the time?
Thanks for your time.
I would certainly think that it did.
Obviously it was not interpreted that way as it was not the “norm” of the time and so the 15th Amendment was thought necessary.
But then again, one would imagine that Article 4 section 2 would entitle everyone to the same — though apparently women (and certainly not slaves) were not considered “citizens”…
Thanks Mike, you are in good company. I’ve casually queried a number of lawyers during my lifetime about this and they thought the same as you.
In all other ways women were considered citizens at the time in question
Hi Wynski, and thanks for responding to me.
Of course, I understand what you said about federal funding for mental illness being unconstitutional.
I was not contesting that point at all.
Nor was I intentionally trying to grind any political axe.
Appearances possibly to the contrary, the political info I gave about myself as background data was shared with the intention of demonstrating that my post was NOT political.
My only point was that there exists this serious, problem impacting all of American society in various ways, for which a workable, legal, viable solution has yet to be found.
It’s hard to believe I once bought this bullshit. Smh.
We all did, Scribe. We ALL did. And for a lot of people, they went bankrupt.
Luckily I was in the Sea Org. 😂
Well, for those out there that think things went to shit in scientology because Miscavige took over after Dr. Hubbard dropped his meat sack to abscond to Target II in ’86, maybe they should re-read the above ‘eval’ and clear up their ‘MUs’. If that doesn’t work, clear up your ‘BTs’ ‘MUs’.
It is plain to see here that Hubbard was, as he claimed in Hymn of Asia, a reincarnation of the Buddha. This is clearly evident by the way he espouses copious quantiles of compassion, joy and loving-kindness in his generous statements from his seminal tome, Science of Survival. I’m sure the real Buddha would be rolling in his grave or wafting on his pyre if he knew the Ginger Grifter was claiming to be carrying on his teachings in a more updated and refined form called scientology. Hubbard was in fact a complete despotic wack job and a master con artist, about as far from a benevolent messiah as one can get.
Very well said. It is interesting that Tubby even got Buddhism wrong. He grabbed on to the controversial issues which cannot be proven like reincarnation which was a Hindoo interpretation that came centuries after the buddha died. Actually, I traced what the Buddha would have called Hubbard – STUPID MAN.
Isn’t it fascinating that we use to believe him and thought he always knew what he was talking about?
Now he is perceived as an insane person. A delusional nut job trying to take over a planet.
L Ron Hubbard was trying to take over the whole planet! That is the goal of all delusional, suppressive authoritarian tyrants.
And we bought into it! Scary indeed!
Yes Brian, we did.
That was a good step Scientology Hubbard took, closing Scientology off from persons who ought never do Scientology’s pseudo-therapy and exorcism of Xenu’s “body-thetans.”
Hubbard ought to have shared his end of life admission that he’d failed, so that all persons in the future skip Scientology quackery entirely.
He ought to have written a deathbed policy outlawing all of Scientology and ordering all followers to get on in life and not do any more Scientology quackery on themselves.
Chuck, This could have happened in the OT VIII document when he said that the GE had to be audited. He basically admitted that all auditing was a waste. But he did not do it. He just kept avoiding the truth.
Oh, I did not know LRH had a bit of Nostradamus ability to predict the future. Here are his own words, out of his 1972 Eval. Instead of the imagined enemy we just switched the terms Psychiatry for Scientology and it reflects where this cult stands!
DATA: Scientology can’t deliver yet governments hold on. Miscavige just PRs without delivery. Government still retains them.
ETHICS WHY: Governments not evaluating and accepting false reports (from Scientology and his leader Miscavige.)
Actually, my edit would be:
DATA: Scientology can’t deliver yet the Clams hold on. Miscavige just PRs without delivery. The Clams still retain them.
ETHICS WHY: The Clams not evaluating and accepting false reports (from Scientology and its leader Miscavige.)