7. The Scientology System - incompatible with democracy

The Federal Constitutional Court, on the occasion of prohibiting the "Sozialistischen Reichspartei" (court decision: BVerGE 2,1), used the phrase "liberal democratic basic system." This is the system which, barring rule by force or arbitrary rule, is a rule based on freedom, equality, and the self-determination of the people according to the will of the current majority. Its basic principles include: the respect of human rights as set in Basic Law - but mainly the right of the individual to life and to free development, the sovereignty of the people, the separation of powers, accountability of government, the legal degree of the administration, the independence of the courts, the majority party principle, the equal opportunity for all political parties, as well as the right to forming and exercising a parliamentary opposition.

7.1 Human dignity and Human image

"The dignity of a person is inalienable." The prominent position of this fundamental law in Article 1 Paragraph 1 of Basic Law shows that the person in his uniqueness is "the highest legal value in the constitutional system" (court decision: VBerfGE 45, 187, 227). It includes the image of a responsible person with social obligations who acts according to his free determination, protecting this person from any state arbitrariness, and thus guaranteeing free development. The SO ethics presented in a following section is not compatible with human dignity as understood in the sense of Basic Law.

7.1.1 The Scientology Human image

Although the SO places great value in public on the image of an organization whose central point focuses on religious transcendence, HUBBARD's writings reveal an almost purely technical image of a person. HUBBARD compared the ideal of a "clear" - a "cleared" person - with a machine:

<We we have obtained a Clear, we are standing before something that man has never seen before, because one has never before existed in a non-fragmented state: a perfect machine, well oiled, powerful, shining and ready to perform all its own functions without guidance and without further delay.> [67.


67. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Dianetics. The manual for the human mind", Copenhagen, 1999, p. 365.

7.1.2. The "Ethics" of the SO

The SO presents the word "ethics" to the public in a way with which many observers could agree: "Ethical behavior" or "ethics" is said to be reason, and reason is optimal survival, such as avoidance of war or environmental destruction. This, however, is only the first step in the Scientology train of thought concerning "ethics." HUBBARD's "ethics" is one of the "re-defined" terms. It does not mean moral teachings with a positive slant for people. In his writings, HUBBARD always listed the principle of "survive" as the highest maxim of all conduct, used it as an absolute for all "dynamics" (areas of existence) and for the judgment of good and evil. According to HUBBARD, the optimization of survival is the equivalent of being "ethical." HUBBARD's "ethics" has been summed up as follows:

<Simply said, good is survival. Ethical conduct is survival. Wicked conduct is non-survival. Construction is good when it promotes survival. Construction is wicked when it hinders survival Destruction is good when it promotes survival.> [68]

According to HUBBARD's doctrine, because only the SO can assure survival, everything that serves it is "ethical" and "right" and everything that harms it is "unethical." In this way, "ethics" becomes a synonym for the ruthless implementation of one's own goal and the removal of "counter-intentions" that stand in the way of the SO:


Scientologists who produce "high statistics" are supposed to be assigned a good "ethics condition." In all cases, SO staff are under presser to close ever more sales, to write ever more letters, to make ever more "communication lines." "Unethical" conduct - categorized into errors, misdemeanors, crimes and high crimes - is committed by those that hinder the expansion of the SO. This can be met with psychological pressure or sanctions. The SO designates opponents as "Suppressive Persons" ("SP"). Those merely having a connection with a "suppressive person" can be classified as "Potential Trouble Source" ("PTS").

HUBBARD developed a meaning for ethics, free of any moral measures of value, from a worldview so typical for him, of uncompromising social Darwinism which does not recognize any justification for the existence of the sick or the weak, meaning those who cannot "produce." One of the most important "Policy Letters" of the SO would rather have Scientologists "dead than incapable" and rejects the principle of democracy:

"WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT. NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU. (...) And I don't see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. (...) If they enrolled, they're aboard; and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us -- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive (...) When we do instruct somebody properly, he becomes more and more tiger. (...) The proper instruction attitude is "You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable." (...) An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of 'unworkability.'" [70]

"Suppressives" are supposed to be eradicated:

<The recognition as a suppressive is our hanging. When things are bad (bad indicators are strongly visible), it is very beneficial to hang a body from the gallows. We call it 'putting a head on a pike.' (...) If there are bad indicators all around - low and falling statistics, bungled cases - we will be very skilled with our questions and put the area virtually under martial law - we call this a state of emergency. When the emergency situation has been cleared up, you usually have to put one or two heads on a pike to convince people that you meant it seriously (...) Ethics is the steamroller, (...) SUPPRESSIVES! Eradicate them. (...) Find the suppressive and shoot him. Peace reigns.> [71]

HUBBARD's violent language and his cynical world concepts are marked by intolerance and socially Darwinistic influences. Personal interests have to take second place behind the supposed necessity of saving the "human race":

<What kind of a huge overt [72] it is to let the entire human race decay because one does not have the guts to use discipline? (...) Bring ethics hard into your org and your environment. Raise Cain with it. (...) It is a new civilization we're after, and we will make it.> [73]

Although HUBBARD asserts <that primitive people are much more aberrated than civilized people> [74], he nevertheless does not take a classic racist approach. According to him the "new" man does not gain his supposed strength and his "survival potential" from biological origins, but from a mental and social technology that puts him at an advantage over those who do not have this technology available - an Uebermensch via psycho-training. HUBBARD also said that people should stop being a Home Sapiens and become a "Homo Scientologicus." [75] The SO obviously perceives its teachings as the foundation for a perfect human civilization. At the same time, an ever more dramatic need for action regarding a society that is supposedly in decline is constantly signalled:

This picture from the "Scientology Handbook"
illustrates how the organization sees itself. The
Scientologist is supposedly at the peak of civilization.

<Our governments do not manage to stop revolutions from breaking out, the heads of government of these states from being murdered or stop any of their enemies from infiltrating them over and over. The war waits with weapons at the ready for another mistake from incompetent heads of state. (...) We are trying to do our work. One can compare with an attempt to pull a wounded water buffalo out of a wallow. The fact alone that you're trying to help him is positive 'proof' to him that you are up to no good. (...) Remember that when you meet a 'critic.' And also remember that he's only standing in your way (...) Those who have a different opinion have an unrestricted right to their own shock and their own weaknesses, their darkness and their death.> [76]


68. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Introduction into the Ethics of Scientology", Copenhagen, 1998, p. 21.

69. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter "Ethics" in "The Organizational Executive Course Volume 0," Copenhagen, 1999, p. 660, emphasis in original.

70. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter "Keeping Scientology Working Series 1" in <How one confronts and destroys suppression, PTS/SP course>, Copenhagen, 2001, pp. 1, emphasis in original

71. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter "Indicators of Orgs" in "The Organization Executive Course Volume 0", Copenhagen, 1999, pp. 672.

72. "Overt": an action directed against survival.

73. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter "Org Ethics and Tech" in "The Organization Executive Course Vol. 2," Copenhagen, 1991, pp. 86.

74. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Dianetics. The Manual for the Human Mind," Copenhagen, 1999, p. 192.

75. L. Ron HUBBARD, HCO Bulletin "The big Auditing problem" in "The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology Vol. IV", Copenhagen, 1991, pp. 140.

76. L. Ron HUBBARD, leading article "The Value of Scientology" in magazine "Impact" Nr. 94 / 2001, p. 5.

7.1.3 The Worth of an Individual

It is not all too surprising that HUBBARD asserts in the standard work, "Dianetics," that the "potential value" of a person can be calculated with an equation:

"The potential value of an individual or a group may be expressed by the equation

PV equals I D to the X

where I is intelligence and D is dynamic. The [actual] worth of an individual is computed in terms of the alignment on any dynamic, of his potential value with optimum survival along that dynamic ..." [77]

According to this view, the worth of an individual is set according to what "products" he produces in the various areas of life ("dynamics").

Of great importance to the Scientology understanding of people is also the so-called "tone scale" and the "Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation" associated with it, which are part of HUBBARD's fundamental teachings. The "tone scale" lists numerous human moods by number on a vertical scale, some examples of which range from "enthusiasm" ("4.0") down to the undesirable area - past "anger" ("1.5"), "covert hostility" ("1.1") and go down to "sympathy" ("0.9"). These are not at all considered by Scientologists to be descriptions of a chance moods, but instead to represent a state according to which a person can be categorized by "ethics level" and personality characteristics, also including political tendencies. While people at the top of the "tone scale" get outstanding evaluations, the table lists for "covert hostility" the characteristics of a moral degenerate:

<Psychotic (...) Promiscuity, Perversion, Sadism, deviant practices. Uses children for sadistic purposes. No control over reason or emotions, (...) Communist.>

A person in the category of "anger" is evaluated as follows:

<Rape. Sex as punishment. (...) Annihilates or destroys others (...) Fascist.> [79]

These are not just arbitrarily imposed differences between "valuable" and "inferior" people, rather they build a character image of a sub-human.


77. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Dianetics. The manual for the human mind", Copenhagen, 1999, p. 57.

78. L. Ron HUBBARD, HCO Bulletin "Complete Tone Scale" in <How one confronts and destroys Suppression. PTS/SP course,> Copenhagen, 2001, p. 16.

79. L. Ron HUBBARD, appendix "Hubbard Chart of human evaluation and Dianetic Processing - Part I" in "The Scientology of Survival. The Prediction of Human Behavior," Copenhagen, 2001

7.2 The principle of equal treatment before the Basic Law, Article 3

According to Article 3 of Basic Law, all people are equal before the law. The equality principle contains an objective ban on arbitrariness, according to which equals may not be treated unequally and non-equals may not be treated the same. No one may be put at a disadvantages on account of gender, ancestry, language, homeland or origin, belief, religious or political worldview.

7.2.1 Superior Scientologists, inferior opponents?

<A truly suppressive person or group has no rights at all as a Scientologist.> [80]

<I believe and know that auditors belong to the upper tenth of the upper twentieth of the most intelligent of human beings. Their will, (...) their ability to comprehend things and to apply is superior to any comparable qualities of any other condition. (...) We are the only group on Earth who have a usable solution. (...) My goal is to get a Barbarian out of the mud that thinks it's his creator, (...)> [81]

HUBBARD's writings are steadfastly marked with hate and disdain for the non-Scientology society. His teaching differentiate between supposedly superior Scientologists as <golden people> and <new spiritual leaders> [82] and supposedly inferior non-Scientologists. The latter are disdainfully regarded as <assembly line humanoids>, "wogs," [83] or even as "raw meat." [84]

The "Scientology Organization" has a future for society in mind where not all people should have rights:

<This group [the SO] believes that honest people have rights and that dishonest people have forfeited their rights by virtue of being dishonest. The definition of a dishonesty is whether or not someone tries to harm his fellow man with libel, hidden actions and injustice or open crime. This group reserves the right to check the honesty of its members.> [85]

The SO is the one who determines who is honest. In addition, according to the standard "Dianetics" work, only the "non-aberrated," meaning "clear," should have civil rights:

"Someday there will, perhaps, exist a much more sentient law that only the unaberrated can marry and bear children. (...) Perhaps at some distant date only the unaberrated person will be granted civil rights before law. Perhaps the goal will be reached at some future time when only the unaberrated person can attain to and benefit from citizenship. These are desirable goals (...)." [86]

These specifications of the "cleared" state are enough to recognize that it is a dictatorship. HUBBARD's teachings are not compatible with the equal treatment principle as stated in Article 3 of Basic Law.


80. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter <Suppressive actions. Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists> in <How one confronts and destroys Suppression. PTS/SP course,> Copenhagen, 2001, p. 143.

81. L. Ron HUBBARD, leading article "What it means to be a Scientologist" in magazine "Dianetik Post. Magazin des Dianetic Stuttgart e.V." Nr. 141 / 2001, p.5

82. Magazine "international Scientology News" Nr. 9 / 1999, p. 17.

83. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Fachwortsammlung fuer Dianetics und Scientology", Copenhagen, 1984, p. 112. At the end of the entry for the word "Wog here comes from the English and describes 'a non-British person in one of the English colonies'"

84. L. Ron HUBBARD, "PTS/SP-Vortragskassetten Glossar," Hollywood, 1990, p. 22: "raw meat: People who have not yet had anything to do with Scientology."

85. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter <Staff who are not Scientologists" in "The Organization Executive Course Volume 0," Copenhagen, 1999, pp. 646.

86. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Dianetics. The manual for the human mind", Copenhagen, 1999, p. 432 and p. 559.

7.3. Freedom of opinion according to Article 5 of Basic Law

In accordance with Article 5 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of Basic Law, everyone has "the right to freely express and to spread his opinion in words, writing and pictures." According to a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court this basic right is "quite constitutional, for it first enables consistent mental discussion, the battle of opinions, which is its life-element. (..) It is in a certain sense the foundation of every freedom in general" (court decision: BVerfGE 7, 198 ff., 208).

7.3.1 Rejection of any criticism

<CRITICAL THOUGHTS, these are always only indicators that the person being checked has committed an overt against whatever he or she is criticizing. Critical thoughts, expressing opinions and attitudes toward something are actually indications of a previous overt.> [87]

The SO generally regards criticism as suspicious and it is interpreted as an indication of having committed an "overt," which is an action directed against survival. Therefore there can be no freedom of opinion in the SO. Things regarded as a "high crime" ("suppressive acts") include:

"Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the suppression of Scientology; (...)
Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it; Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology;
Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press;
[High crimes] consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing Suppressive Acts." [88]

The implementation of this type of policy on legal speech would mean the end of the free expression of opinion. The freedom of association mentioned in Basic Law Article 9 Paragraph 1, might also be relevant, because listed as "crimes" under the same "ethics" codes are:

"Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO" [89]

This stands in stark contrast to the "creed" distributed by the SO to the public:

<We of the Church believe: That all men, no matter what race, color or which confession they might be, are created with equal rights. (...) That all people have the inalienable right to think freely, to speak freely, to freely write their own opinion and to counter the opinions of others or so express themselves about it or write about it.> [90]

Also incompatible with the spirit of free contest of opinion is the claim of the "Scientology Organization" to possess the exclusive truth. HUBBARD's presumptuous concepts on opponents testify to the inability of the SO to accept criticism in an open society. The same organization that accuses critics of "religious intolerance" makes the following threat:

David MISCAVIGE introduces the new "PTS/SP" course

<Anyone who criticizes or makes sarcastic comments about someone for being a Scientologist cannot withstand a personal review of his motives or past actions. (...) We find no critics of Scientology who do not have a criminal past. We prove this over and over. Politician A prances in a Parliament on his hind legs and brays like a donkey for condemnation of Scientology. When we check him out, we find crimes, embezzled funds, moral missteps, a longing for little boys - dirty stuff. (...) We are not a justice enforcement agency. BUT we become interested in the crimes of people who try to stop us. If you oppose Scientology, we'll keep a sharp lookout for your crimes - and we will find and expose them. If you leave us in peace, we will leave you in peace (...) But those who try to make life difficult for us are immediately in danger.> [91]

The realization of these sort of ideas on a wide social scale would be equivalent to the end of pluralism and free contest of opinion in a democracy. The graphic comparison of opponents being shot <like ducks in a pond> [92] or the labeling of critical media as the "screaming apes of the press" [93] and identification of them as rats by highest-ranking Scientology manager David MISCAVIGE demonstrates that the new management is also inculcated in HUBBARD's ideology:

<Just look at the reactions of the rats when the fumigator shows up. That's the media!> [94]


87. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Modern Management Technology Defined. Hubbard Dictionary of Administration and Management," Copenhagen, 1984, p. 120

88. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Introduction to the Ethics of Scientology," Copenhagen, 1998, pp. 336

89. The 'Hubbard Communication Office' (HCO) is today the division 1 of a SO unit and also contains the "Ethics" department. Also see footnote 1.

90. New Era Publications (pub.) "What is Scientology?", Copenhagen, 1993, p. 579.

91. L. Ron HUBBARD, HCO Bulletin, "Critics of Scientology" in <How one confronts and destroys suppression, PTS/SP course>, Copenhagen, 2001, pp. 78. Emphasized in italics in the original.

92. Speech by David MISCAVIGE at the 2002 New Year's celebration in the magazine "International Scientology News" Nr. 20/2002, p.8.

93. According to a HUBBARD quote in the magazine "Impact" Nr. 75/1997, p. 27.

94. Speech by David MISCAVIGE in the magazine "International Scientology News" Nr. 9/1999, p. 7

7.3.2 Dealing with Critics

What is supposed to happen to people who are critics of Scientology or who do not want to be "cleared" with "auditing"? HUBBARD confirmed what should happen to his supposedly "criminal" and "mentally ill" opponents not only in the standard "Dianetics" work, but in "The Science of Survival" as to what should happen to the supposedly "criminal" and "mentally ill" opponents:

"Criminals lie in the band from 2.0 [95] down the scale,(...) The only answer would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, (...) or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value. In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, (...)" [96]

According to HUBBARD, the people he is talking about could change only if they undergo Scientology processing:

"This does not propose that depriving such persons of their civil rights should obtain any longer than is necessary to bring them up the tone scale to a point where their ethics render them fit company for their fellows. This, however, would be a necessary step for any society seeking to raise itself on the tone scale as a social order. [97]

At the same spot HUBBARD indicates that the existing legal system already allows similar measures - by this he means making an insane person a ward of the court. By expanding the legal definition with the Scientology concept of "ethics," a similar principle could be put into effect. Plans for legislative action implementing this sort of idea actually exist in the SO. The idea of isolating critics and opponents, whereby an entire segment of the population is declared wholesale to be "anti-social personalities" is part of Scientology's ideology:


"There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which cause about 20% of a race to oppose violently any betterment activity or group. Such people are known to have anti-social tendencies. When the legal or political structure of a country becomes such as to favor such personalities in positions of trust, then all the civilizing organizations of the country become suppressed (...) Thus, in the fields of government, police activities and mental health, to name a few, we see that it is important to be able to detect and isolate this personality type so as to protect society and individuals from the destructive consequences (...) As they only comprise 20% of the population and as only 2 1/2% of this 20% are truly dangerous, we see that with a very small amount of effort we could considerably better the state of society." [98]

If one takes the SO at its word, then the organization would gladly isolate its critics and opponents - similarly to Soviet communism - as "mentally ill" in institutions. It seems certain that in this case the organization would use force against opponents for the purpose of implementing its "clear" program on a societal level. A directive makes clear that the organization views the use of force as legitimate for the purpose of creating a demand for the "product" of Scientology.

<Hitler (just like Caesar) did not secure 'his conquered territory.' It was impossible to do this - not because he did not have the troops, but because he had no real demand for German technology and German social philosophy before he began the conquest. (...) It is nearly impossible to secure territories if one had not been invited in advance and if force has to be used to expand. One can really remove suppressive with force to assure oneself that a demand is constructed provided that one does not try to force the product on the suppressive and all around him. (...) Since we have a 'product' that frees and deaberrates in the highest sense, naturally there is an end to the game. (...) In any case, we do not conquer land in the same sense that governments do it.> [99]

Another passage from "The Science of Survival" poses nagging questions about the "Scientology Organization":

"It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough (...) -- or simply quarantining them from the society. 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." [100]

To be sure not a single case is known at this time of the Scientology Organization trying to implement its objective with force. Instead the organization concentrates on the ideological re-education of an increasing number of people.


95. Referring to the "Ton Scale" (see sect. 7.1.3)

96. L. Ron HUBBARD, "The Science of Survival. The Prediction of Human Behavior," Copenhagen, 2001, pp. 185.

97. ibid., p. 187

98. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Introduction into the Ethics of Scientology," Copenhagen, 1998, p. 192.

99. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter <Expansion. The theory of policies> in "The Management Series Volume 1," Copenhagen, 2001, pp. 173. Emphasis by the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution. In a German edition of the same policy letter with a 1985 copyright, this passage reads, "One can remove a real suppressive with force to assure oneself that demand will be constructed ..." ("Mann kann einen wirklichen Unterdruecker durch Gewalt beseitigen, um sicherzustellen, dass sich dann Nachfrage aufbauen wird ...")

100. L. Ron HUBBARD, "The Science of Survival. The Prediction of Human Behavior," Copenhagen, 2001, pp. 2.

7.3.3 "Knowledge Reports"

<Anyone who has knowledge of a case of loitering or of an action that was destructive, not done in accordance with policy or unethical, and WHO DOES NOT SUBMIT A KNOWLEDGE REPORT, will be held CO-RESPONSIBLE in the event of a legal proceeding is subsequently undertaken.> [101]

Collection and evaluation of knowledge reports in RTC

With "knowledge reports," the SO means to penetrate into even the most intimate areas of Scientologists and control them. Scientologists justify "knowledge reports" with the excuse, among others, that they are are pursuing the interests of being reported upon, who otherwise might stray from the "right" Scientology path. In the meantime, the organization also offers Scientologists the opportunity to send their reports to the USA online. These reports encompass almost every area of life, but especially circumstances that could negatively affect how the SO is viewed and so are therefore "unethical." People who have distributed "knowledge reports" who have come forward and talked about them have indicated that some of the reports are forwarded to various SO authorities, including overseas, and filed in the folders of those being observed. Examples from the 1990s:

- One Scientology reported to the organization on the activities of a family member in a state security agency. From the report it could be seen that he had attempted to gain background information on the action, which was security-sensitive. According to the handwritten notes, the report had circulated in the SO intelligence service, the "Office of Special Affairs."

- A staff member in a southern German "mission" reported that a critic wanted to move a Scientologist to leave the organization. According to a follow-up report, investigations of the critic had begun the next day.

- A woman Scientologist described the sexual desires of her husband, which she had rejected, and asked that her husband be "handled" accordingly.

- In another knowledge report, a Scientology member wrote about his brother, also a Scientologist, who had searched the work room in the house and his father's business office for documents that were critical of Scientology. The brother justified himself with words to the following effect: "We are at war; the end justifies the means."

From this it has to be concluded that quite a few Scientologists are busy providing the SO with detailed "knowledge reports" from their private and work lives. This brings up the possibility that they are also busy in the work place, in associations, in functions of public life or among friends gathering information and forwarding it to SO authorities, and denouncing the people in their environment. The SO knowledge report is a manifestation of an attempt at extensive control and is incompatible with the spirit of Article 5 of Basic Law. Freedom of opinion can hardly develop in a climate where people are informing on each other.


101. L. Ron HUBBARD, HCO Bulletin "Complete Tone Scale" in <How one confronts and destroys Suppression. PTS/SP course,> Copenhagen, 2001, p. 156. Emphasis in original.