This week, it’s answers about the Golden Age of Cults, the Cult Wars in academia, the big difference between L. Ron Hubbard and Donald Trump and a lot more. Enjoy!
(1) I think there is a widespread perception of the Seventies as being the Golden Age of Cults, at least in the United States and Western Europe. The danger of this perception is that the public (and even experts who should know better) can have trouble identifying new destructive cults that superficially don’t resemble Scientology, the Moonies, Children of God, etc. Setting that very real problem aside, do you think there is any truth to the idea that the Seventies were a time in which destructive cults thrived?
(2) I’ve been pondering a certain point from your latest show with Ciprian that there are some academics/sociologists who seem rather dismissive of the concept of cults. I find this disgusting, but truly fascinating. I think the field of sociology is important and valid but I also think it might be somewhat limited, and possibly flawed.
One simple analogy is this: At its worst, sociology is like studying schools of fish without sufficient focus on what an individual fish actually is. Another thing is there’s arguably more than one renowned sociologist out there who seems to use a touch of coercive persuasion in their best selling books. As you say, context is everything, and I admit to having a rather extreme personal aversion to being controlled but might there be something in the field of (applied) sociology which makes it susceptible to things such as double binds? Like, if you want to apply sociological knowledge to changing society, certain tactics might seem…necessary?
(3) You’ve said previously that Hubbard liked to control people whereas Trump likes to control situations. Can you go into more detail about that – how and why?
(4) I saw your Q&A about COVID vaccinations and whether people should be forced to take them. I lean towards individualism myself but I basically agree with you on the justifiability of forcibly quarantining Patient Zero. So I wanted to ask you about something in a similar vein that I’ve found disturbing for some time.
There seems to be in the West today an attitude by some people that a single individual takes priority over the entire rest of the world – and in my own experience, this seems more ascendant on parts of the Left: from people who justify no-platforming and banning speakers because someone who can’t bear the thought of that person even being in the city, to the people who routinely slander military intervention against groups like ISIL as “bombing children” and by extension seem to say (whether they will admit it or not) that mass killings by groups such as ISIL are OK compared to the stopping of such killings at the cost of some inadvertent civilian casualties.
What I think disturbed me most about this as a child was during an episode of the kid-friendly Doctor Who spin-off The Sarah Jane Adventures. At the end of the episode, an alien is about to destabilize satellites around the earth and cause them to crash directly into nuclear power plants, effectively ending the world as we know it – but the main protagonist reaches the console that can stop it before the alien does. In response, one of her companions is held at gunpoint with the warning that they will be killed if she presses the buttons to stop the satellite crash. Despite the urging of a third companion to press it anyway, she refuses saying – and I quote – “one life is as sacred as the entire planet.” The situation is essentially resolved by Deus Ex Machina if I remember correctly. What disturbed me at the time (when I was about 13 I think) and still does today is that you literally had the titular character be prepared to see billions of people die just so she doesn’t feel responsible for one death (she wouldn’t even have been directly killing anyone). It seems clear that this view is being glorified or at least promoted, and to young children at that, or else why would the main character (who never apologises or seems to change her mind subsequently) be the mouthpiece for it?
I’m interested to know if you think there’s something to this: do you think that these kinds of views are being promoted, glorified, or are otherwise working their way into popular discourse – and if not, what do you think are the forces holding them at bay?
(5) Hey Chris I was watching an Aaron Smith-Levin video and it got me thinking who gets to audit Miscavage? Does he audit himself? If someone audited him I feel like immediately they would have to be sent away somewhere to not let out what he said. The darker implications are that if he’s going completely insane he could convince himself of anything sitting on that machine for hours at a time. How many people do you think have seen his case file? I thought Scientology doesn’t work that well if you do not have somebody guiding you through it. How is he getting around this other than just being brutal?
(6) There must have been several high ranking Scientologists who were aware of the events surrounding the death of Hubbard. Everybody that was involved in perpetuating this made-up story must have known and were aware of the real circumstances. They know Scientology could not save Ron Hubbard. I can’t believe that every single person that was involved in the inner circle believed that story so my question to you is how did they reconcile this convenient story that was perpetrated on the rank and file and who exactly were those people as they knew the truth. Who came up with that incredulous story because they must have known it was a lie and as I recall the lawyer wasn’t even a Scientologist I believe.
(7) When Miscavige says “we are the fastest growing religion” or something similar, do you think he really believes that? Are the people under him feeding him false stats to stay in his good graces. (or do the lower levels bump up the numbers they give to middle management)?
(8) Knowing David Miscavige’s paranoia, do you think he has been vaccinated for COVID-19? What about Shelly?