Maybe you are a little bit puzzled by the previous posts. Could it be possible that I praised murky people? The question is legitimate from a morale perspective. However, at the moment, I will keep away from this kind of discussion in order to focus on the scientific topic at hand. I’m here to observe from an amoral viewpoint. If you add morals to the reality you may end up building a wall that conceals it. And what I’m trying to demonstrate is not easy to spot. Dominance can only be grasped through elimination. Does Tang look like Georges Clooney? No. Is he at the top of a dominance hierarchy where explicit attributes are needed? No. Has Tang power? Not in the usual sense. Is he gifted in rhetorical speech? Well, you don’t need a PhD to perform a Christ and Sex based snow job. But whatever way you look at it, you can’t help thinking that Tang is a dominant from an ethological standpoint. Of course, and here morals can come back, he does not deserve his dominance from a social point of view. His dominance is biological. Therefore society does not hesitate to punish him. To me, I don’t need to condemn him, that’s not my job. What I’m interesting in is that he involuntarily reveals the dominance structure by leaving a trail of subjugated followers.
Indeed, a community was created around an invisible dominance source. Both the followers and the guru psychologically benefited from this situation which confirms once again the happiness theory which drives the construction of social networks. The dominance signature rest on two pillars: sex and money. From an ethological perspective you can translate that by a preferential access to resources and reproduction. Fact is we have both in Tang’s sect. So there must be dominance, somewhere. If there is dominance then we should wonder what attribute makes Tang beat the random odds in fights. There is neither fight nor attribute. So the only explanation left is the presence of an unconscious honest signal. In some animals, an invisible and odorless pheromone is an indicator of the rank in the dominance hierarchy. It is not absurd to extrapolate this signal to humans and make it the structuring magnet of the dominance structure. Of course, I’m not talking about pheromone here because it would have been discovered way earlier. This can only be something subtle. In normodominance, it is impossible for the conscious brain to spot the signal amidst the explicit attributes (Intelligence, beauty, strength…). This is normal in the sense that normodominance is where the competition game occurs. How Mother Nature is going to decide if there is a competitive gain in humans? Elation or happiness will be signal that the individual is well adapted to the environment. The honest signal carries the information to the female who suddenly does not need a protracted courtship. She will take the initiative.
Carly Rae Jepsen / Call me maybe
Hey, I just met you,
And this is crazy,
but here’s my number
so call me, maybe?
And all the other boys,
try to chase me,
but here’s my number,
so call me, maybe?
The dominant of the dominance structure has an effect way before we consciously think or behave. The limbic system behind our conscious neocortex is going to receive the dominance signal and the following message will propagate to all part of the brain “Stay next to him, he will protect you, he will provide counseling and he will make you happy”. During Pleistocene, humans survived in tribes where cohesion was a competitive advantage. The dominant had a regulative function. That’s the reason why I consider Tang as the dominant of a primitive tribe. The dominant was not always the stronger. This skew may have favored the advent of civilization where happy-dominance prevailed on violence-dominance. Obviously violence did not disappear. Happy-dominance regulates the individuals within the tribes and violence-dominance is used outside the group to get whatever resources. Let’s go back to the main subject. It may sound a little strange to connect dominance and sects. All I want to show is that dominance the way I experienced it and the guru grips on its followers are two identical phenomena. Mania is eruptive but guru’s dominance acts in the background through a hidden mechanism. Maybe manic patients undergo the full dominance fire whereas the gurus have an underserved high honest signal for genetic reason. Mother Nature is unfair. Her unfairness is revealing though.
The third case study should convince you of the identity relationship between the sectarian abnormality and bipolar madness. We have precisely an all-in-one specimen the destiny of which can only be fabricated by dominance. We’re going to cast an eye over a powerful sect and our lucky eyes will be those of a woman who had an affair with the guru. The sect powerfulness can impair our analysis in the sense that the structured group prevents the observation of the happiness dominance. A structured group looks like a local dominance hierarchy hiding the dominance structure. However, here, only the guru personality is of importance for our purposes. Scientology is a sect which can be compared to a cancer developing international metastasis. It doesn’t rest on the usual mystical rhetoric. It rather attempts to cash in on self-development method which is vaguely related to science and psychology. If you believe in engrams, this may mean that your bank account is in serious trouble. The big commander-in-chief of this fraud is Ron Hubbard. Hubbard’s swindler skills could only be denounced by his own son. If you want to cheat on people, you need persuasion. Dominance is never far from this kind of skills. Let’s observe Ron Hubbard through the eyes of Barbara, his beautiful assistant. These testimonies attracted my attention, guess why.
Source: BARBARA KAYE (I)
Well, I’ve always found that it’s the mind of a man that is most sexy. He (Ron Hubbard) was not really terribly physically attractive. And he had a brilliant mind, no question about that. I surely thought this was a man who is interested in marrying me, and who I might be interested in marrying.
Source: BARBARA KAYE (II)
He was certainly very depressed, He had lost the color in his face. His voice was hardly audible. He told me that he was totally blocked, he was working under a publisher’s deadline that he was failing to meet. He believed that his inability to write was due to the sinister interventions of other people, such as Sara hypnotizing him in his sleep and telling him that he would never write again. I found him paranoid, you know. He was clearly going through a clinical depression.
Source: BARBARA KAYE (III)
He sent me a wire telling me that he had been very ill and saying that he wanted to marry me. I went to Wichita. He looked terrible. He had hair down to his shoulders and his fingernails were like talons. And I found a note, a very sweet note in my hotel room saying ‘glad you are here, I love you’ but I saw a man there who had no prospects, for one thing, and that he had some psychiatric difficulties and I didn’t see much of a life for myself with that sort of individual. So I left.
I hope you’ve guessed that Ron is a bipolar colleague. What fascinates me is the good shape he displays in phase (I). He’s certainly, at this moment, in an elevated mood to such an extent that Barbara want to procreate with him even if he’s not particularly physically attractive. You don’t need to be physically attractive with the dominance I’m defending on this blog. In phase (II) and (III), you notice that Ron is depressed. Logically, Barbara does not want to mate with him. This is extremely acute in phase (III). The fluctuations of dominance (bipolar disorders) have a powerful effect on human reproduction. Did you really believe that we were not animals? Well, we’re not only animals, but we are to some extents. You may think after these three testimonies that the diagnosis of bipolar disorder is not properly established. Bearing in mind that Barbara Kaye is a trained psychologist, her diagnosis is not the one of the man on the street.
Source: BARBARA KAYE
The first time I made a clinical diagnosis of Ron was when I was with him in there. He had a house on Mel Avenue. He asked me to come there and he was in a deep depression. There was no doubt in my mind he was a manic depressive with paranoid tendencies. Many maniacs are delightful, apparently productive; they do all kinds of marvelous things and have tremendous self-confidence and talk and talk and talk, really hyper. He was like that in his manic stage – he was enormously productive and creative, he had big feelings of omnipotence, he talked all the time of grandiose schemes. It was extremely interesting in his case because he made his fantasies come true.
This highlights beyond reasonable doubt that the creator of one of the most powerful sect in the world was bipolar. Admittedly, to my knowledge, he didn’t have a history of psychiatric admission. However, his condition was visible enough to be noticed by his entourage. Nobody seems to realize the profound connection between the success of his sect and his bipolar condition. This is incredible. His case illustrates perfectly the relation between power and dominance. Question is how can you still be the master when dominance fluctuates? You need sectarian power which is stable and structured enough to guarantee a continuing exertion of domination. However domination is no longer dominance. Power is lithium for dominance, it keeps the conscious domination stable while dominance fluctuates. Power is a local dominance hierarchy that eclipses the dominance structure. One is conscious, the other is not. In the sect, the attribute that you need to beat the odds is the conscious level of belief or knowledge (bullshit) that you acquire in the sect. This gives you a status in the local dominance hierarchy. Moreover there can be a “police” in the local dominance hierarchy. Examples are numerous in the sects. They can be ideological and coercive.
The great success of Ron Hubbard is the integration of his sect into society. It is supported by some stars like Travolta or Cruise. It is not surprising that in this case there is no rape accusation. Ron is just a womanizer. Tang would like to be treated like that but his sect does not have the same widespread success. Society accepts the massive sexual activity when it recognizes as being a part of the system. In the following testimony, we have women who cheat on their husbands but this time everybody find it normal. In any case, Ron doesn’t escape the law of hypersexuality.
Source: BARBARA KAYE
I accompanied him on a lecture tour in San Francisco and we were at the home of an attorney doing some legal work for Ron, and someone’s wife at the party enticed him into the kitchen, and I came upon them in the kitchen in an embrace. He was a womanizer. Every attractive woman was fair game to him.
To get the complete dominance picture, it is necessary to address a counter-intuitive sect feature. The guru is a happiness provider for this follower. Call that whatever you like, psychological benefit, positive affect. Reality is not the way we want to perceive it. A sect is not a bunch of poor fragile idiots suffering under the yoke of crazy gurus. Dominance necessarily implies a transfer of happiness among followers. Happiness is the cement of the sectarian group. When dominance is less powerful and more diffuse, it builds the more informal social networks of civilized “normal” people (see Hierarchy). Finally, this is a fact, dominance and truth are not in sync. Dominance only tells you that you are adapted to the environment. Can be part of the truth or can’t be. It depends also on what you call truth.
PAM KEMP – friend of Ron Hubbard and ex-scientologist:
He was really flamboyant, I mean he was full of life and he rode about on his Harley motorcycle, and we threw parties and he would play his guitar and sing and put on his cowboy hat and he was just lots and lots of fun. We would all get together and then we would do various exercises and we would go out and see if just with thoughts we could knock off policemen’s hats. What kind of power did we have in terms of thinking and thought and energy and that sort of thing. I mean, it was great fun.
Stephane Eicher / Déjeuner en paix
Est-ce que tout va si mal ? Est-ce que rien ne va bien ?
L’homme est un animal ” me dit-elle
Elle prend son café en riant
Elle me regarde à peine
Plus rien ne la surprend sur la nature humaine
(Does everything goes wrong, does nothing get better?
She tells me that Man is an animal
She takes her coffee, laughing
She hardly looks at me
Nothing surprises her over human nature)