I vaguely remember reading the book "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller from years ago (Amazon.com editorial below).

It is a satire on war and the title itself has become a common English word in the late 20th century in America. The definition of it in the dictionary says:

[From the novel Catch-22 (1961) by J. Heller] a paradox in a law, regulation, or practice that makes one a victim of its provisions no matter what one does.

And that, too, describes what Scientology is. The closest word that Hubbard had to "Catch-22" would be "pan-determined," which means to have control of both sides of a game situation. In some instances it works fine, in others, not at all. However, make no mistake about this, Hubbard "defines" you into a victim no matter your circumstance.

Here are four examples:

1) You can't complain about Scientology if you haven't taken any Scientology courses (TM)(R).

If you have taken courses and you don't consider them perfect or beneficial, then you are an apostate (traitor) and aren't credible.

2) If you are a Scn'gst in good standing then you are sane.

There is no such thing as a Scientologist in bad standing. A Scientologist can't be insane. All people other than a Scientologist in good standing are insane.

Lisa McPherson was one such person. A person becomes redefined as insane and hence a wog, when they become other than what the ideal Scientologist is supposed to be like.

RPFers are insane, critics are insane and apostates are insane.

These people are lumped into one such category: suppressive.

Side Note: One thing that strikes me funny here, is that in the book "Catch-22"

the way to get out of war is to say to the commanding officer that you are insane for being in the war. However, only a sane man would consider himself insane for being in a war, and therefore you stay in the war because you are now sane. But if you say you are sane then you too will stay in the war. (From memory from over 10 years ago. Forgive me if I have something wrong.)

That part in the book reminds me of the two Catch-22s above.

*** 3) In Scientology, Hubbard's tech is perfect.

If you aren't producing the intended results while applying it then you did something wrong. And I would think for a blip, you are deemed unofficially a suppressive or a suspected suppressive until you "make it go right."

In evidence of this, you are sent to ethics when you can't make the tech go right. Ethics is in itself the idea of making the Scn'gst wrong and the tech right -- always!

4) If you produce for Scientology then you are upstat and promote the organization and are deemed a Scn'gst -- for the most part.

If you don't produce for Scientology or take away from it you are a definitely asuppressive and definitely not a Scn'gst.

The only way to get back in good graces with Scientology is to do amends and become a producer for it again.

What makes this above a catch-22 is the idea that you are a suppressive and the idea you are a Scn'gst flip flops so readily and almost instantaneously it is almost comical.

Scientology is indeed the greatest satire on intellectualism of the 20th Century. However, this is unlike any other satire that has existed before.

It is one played out daily by all Scientologists who have taken the role of protecting "the only hope for mankind."

Catch-22 Editorial Reviews Amazon.com There was a time when reading Joseph Heller's classic satire on the murderous insanity of war was nothing less than a rite of passage. Echoes of Yossarian, the wise-ass bombardier who was too smart to die but not smart enough to find a way out of his predicament, could be heard throughout the counterculture. As a result, it's impossible not to consider Catch-22 to be something of a period piece. But 40 years on, the novel's undiminished strength is its looking-glass logic. Again and again, Heller's characters demonstrate that what is commonly held to be good, is bad; what is sensible, is nonsense.

Yossarian says, "You're talking about winning the war, and I am talking about winning the war and keeping alive."

"Exactly," Clevinger snapped smugly. "And which do you think is more important?" "To whom?" Yossarian shot back. "It doesn't make a damn bit of difference who wins the war to someone who's dead."

"I can't think of another attitude that could be depended upon to give greater comfort to the enemy."

"The enemy," retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, "is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."

Mirabile dictu, the book holds up post-Reagan, post-Gulf War.

It's a good thing, too. As long as there's a military, that engine of lethal authority, Catch-22 will shine as a handbook for smart-alecky pacifists. It's an utterly serious and sad, but damn funny book.

-- "Fact is that I'm perfectly able to show it, but just like I wouldn't bother showing you the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, I won't bother showing you what's in front of your nose but which you don't want to confront." Enzo Piccone

Go Back