7.4 Protection of Marriage and Family

According to Article 6 Paragraph 1 of Basic Law, marriage and family are "under the special protection of the state system." This basic standard is put into effect through parents' rights to bring up their children and the ban, with only few exceptions, of separating children from their parents (Article 6 Paragraph 2, Sentence 3 of Basic Law).

7.4.1 "Handling" or Disconnection

The method of dealing with family members demanded by the SO in cases of conflict is in crass contradiction to the values set in Basic Law. Scientologist are supposed to "handle" "antagonistic" family members, meaning those who refuse to accept Scientology. Thus, family members have to be drawn into the SO or left alone. Conflicts and occasional mental stress tests are commented upon with cynicism:

<A Scientologist who through family or other ties is connected to a person who is guilty of suppressive actions is generally a potential source of trouble or a source of trouble. The history of Dianetics and Scientology is full of these.> [102]

If the "antagonistic" family members will not be "handled," the organization requires, as a rule, that connections to the person be cut. The directives permit "ethics officers," <particularly in connection with husbands and wives>, to issue a "Separation Order"). If one of these is issued, the husband and wife, at least for a certain amount of time, are not permitted to have contact with each. [103]

The SO justifies the break this way:

<It is quite similar to how one deals with a criminal. If he does not handle the situation, then society reaches for the only other solution: it 'breaks' the connection of the criminal with society. In other words, it removes him from society and puts him in a prison, (...)> [104]

In case of conflict the values of marriage and family founded in the basic law have no meaningful role for the SO. On the contrary, "failure to handle <or dissociate or disconnect from> a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts" [105] is listed as a "high crime" in Scientology.


102. 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. 141.

103. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter "Separation Order" in "The Organization Executive Course Vol. 1," Copenhagen, 1991, p. 763.

104. L. Ron HUBBARD, HCO Bulletin <Being PTS and Disconnection> in <How one confronts and destroys Suppression. PTS/SP course,> Copenhagen, 2001, p. 245.

105. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Einfuehrung in die Ethik der Scientology," Copenhagen, 1998, p. 337. [The words in angle brackets do not appear in an older English language equivalent ... ed.]

7.4.2 Children in the SO

<Whole civilizations have changed because someone changed the children.> [106]

Parents subjecting their children to processes like "Child Dianetics" can prove to be extremely problematic. For instance, HUBBARD suggests that an "auditing" procedure be used on small children <like it would on animals>. [107] Children and young people can also be subjected to hours-long sauna sessions of the "Purification Rundown" that go on for weeks. According to HUBBARD, people can become immune from radioactive rays this way! [108] HUBBARD asserts:

<Radiation is apparently water soluble as well as rinsable to a very high degree. According to research, one must only direct a stream of water at the upper surfaces of a building or a street to wash the radiation away. This fact is well known to trained defense personnel. So when one does the Purification Rundown, one should meticulously see to it that one really sweats buckets.> [109]

A pediatrician noted the following after examining a 10-year-old girl:

"... Dorothea enthusiastically, almost zealously, told of her various course which she took at the Scientology Church every afternoon. In doing this she spoke of auditing, of a question-answer problem test and of the Purification Course, which involved daily sessions in the sauna of from 3 to 5 hours. Before the sauna session she was dispensed medication ('niacin') so that her body would be detoxified. During the sauna program there was a drink ('Kalmak' [English: CalMag. Ed.]) for more 'detoxification.' She described the objective of this treatment as a state of "clearness.' To the comment that such a long session in the sauna was strenuous, she related that on the day before she had to be carried out of the sauna; she said she was screaming and was not 'master over her body.' During this she saw herself 'from above,' like 'when one is dead.' She said she had been 'out of body.' The girl obviously perceived this as a great strain. Therefore I asked Dorthea why she hadn't given up this training program, and she answered, 'Papa has deposited so much money for me, and now I have to do it to the end.' My assessment is that a girl of such an age is in no way fit for this method either physically or mentally, and that continued exposure would have harmful influence upon her." [from German, source not specified. Ed.]

It must be suspected that children and young people of various ages are subjected to physical and mental suffering based on the SO's abstruse concepts.


106. L. Ron HUBBARD, paragraph <Techniques for Child Processing>, "Einfuehrungs- und Demonstrations-Prozesse und Assists," Copenhagen, 1987, p. 184.

107. L. Ron HUBBARD, paragraph <The casebook of the old master>, "Einfuehrungs- und Demonstrations-Prozesse und Assists," Copenhagen, 1987, p. 194.

108. L. Ron HUBBARD, HCO Bulletin <Purification Rundown and Atomic War> in "The Purification Rundown Series," Copenhagen, 1987

109. L. Ron HUBBARD, HCO Bulletin <Radiation and Liquids> in "The Purification Rundown Series," Copenhagen, 1987.

7.5 Democracy and supporting principles of state organization

The Federal Republic of Germany is constituted (Article 20 Basic Law) as a social and democratic constitutional state. The federal constitutional court has outlined its supporting principles with the concept, among others, of a basic liberal democratic system.

7.5.1 The Social State principle

With the decision for a social state, social justice is elevated to a principle of state action. One component of the social principle is the mission of creating, to the largest extent possible, social balance and equality of social chances. In this, the social state principle does not promote the establishment of a comprehensive welfare state, instead it works towards a convergingly equal promotion of the welfare of all citizens with a convergingly equal distribution of the burden. (court decision: BVerfGE 5, 85/198). The question of "how," meaning by which method this goal may be reached, is not set up to be mandatory. A socially just distribution of burden and taxation is viewed as one effective instrument (the economically strong take on a greater burden, progressive taxation). The SO rejects a corresponding state system principle.

7.5.2 Scientology and social state

<One of our most basic obstacles to total freedom in this society is the economy.>

In numerous policy letters and paragraphs HUBBARD disparaged wholesale with heavy polemics and dealt out written barrages against political decision-makers and presumed that a <worldwide idiot economy> was in effect. Essentially, the blame for the economic crises was given by the Scientology found to income tax, which he described as "suppressive" and "Marxist":

<Income tax is designed according to the Marxist principle of taxation (you can find that in Das Kapital, the communist scripture): 'Each according to his needs.', 'From each according to his ability to pay.'> [112]

HUBBARD's core thought is that only those people who produce are 'ethical," and that only <non-production" and "parasitism" and thus "down statistics" are rewarded by the "welfare state":

"Not everyone realizes how Socialism penalizes an up statistic. Take health taxes. If an average man adds up what he pays the government he will find his visits to medicos are very expensive. The one who benefits is only the chronically ill, whose way is paid by the healthy. So the chronically ill (down statistic) are rewarded with care paid for by penalties on the healthy (up statistic). (...) On the other hand a totally indigent non-working person is paid well just to loaf. (...) Parasitism is Parasitism. Whether high or low it is unlovely." [113]

According to HUBBARD, neither the old nor the sick and weak, meaning those who are no longer able to work, deserve any help. HUBBARD wants his readers to come to the following conclusion:

"Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not Western Governments (or Welfare States) became at last Suppressives. For they used the law used by Suppressives: if you reward non-production you get non-production." [114]

The SO fully identifies the social state principle with the welfare state of socialist coinage. A consequence of such ideas it rejects the social state principle and pursues radical political tax goals. In doing this it discards the principle of taxation according to ability to pay, which is put into effect as income tax. The SO wants tax money to be collected or compensated in part through a sales tax.

In the USA, the SO is already conducting campaigns to do away with income tax. In the 1990s an association closely tied to the SO was founded for this purpose called the "Citizens for an Alternate Tax System" (CATS), which was to function as a "pressure group" on politicians. So far the SO has not promoted anything like this in Germany. Nevertheless, doing away with income tax is part of the general plan.

It is quite obvious that - aside from the question of feasibility - a political realization of such a concept would have enormous social dislocations as a consequence. While the removal of income tax by itself does not necessarily transgress the social state principle, the lack of propagation of other equivalent measures by the SO is an indication of its dismissive attitude toward social justice. The radical Scientology standpoint towards social and tax politics in not compatible with the social state principle of the Basic Law.


110. L. Ron HUBBARD, paragraph <Economy> in <Ron. The Friend of Mankind. Freedom fighter>, 1997, p. 46.

111. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter <Business systems> of 24 February 1982, published on 10 November 1986.

112. L. Ron HUBBARD, paragraph <Business" in <Ron. The Friend of Mankind. Freedom fighter>, 1997, p. 49. HUBBARD formulated the same thing in places including the lecture <The five states of being and the formulae for their improvement,> transcripts and glossary, Los Angeles, 1998, p. 3.

113. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Introduction to the Ethics of Scientology," Copenhagen, 1998, pp. 259.

114. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Introduction to the Ethics of Scientology," Copenhagen, 1998, p. 253.

7.5.3 Disparagement of Democracy

HUBBARD bases his assumptions on the "uncleared" person, whether that be a private individual, a judge or a politician, because of his aberrations, is not in a position to be self-determined or to behave rationally. The state goal is to increase the "ethics level" up to a "free society" to ensure survival. HUBBARD assessed a society, which <is hindered through arbitrary restrictions and suppressive laws>, to be at <step 2>. [115] According to HUBBARD, that is where the area of "criminals" begins. [116] These concepts are clarified on HUBBARD's "political scale," in which he classifies political systems according to the "tone scale." [117] His "political scale" puts "social democracy," meaning the principle of a democratic social state, at an "ethics level" of "2.0." [118] According to HUBBARD's complex concept, a democratic social state corresponds to a criminal system. This alone contains a political dimension, a momentum, and a requirement that Germany must be "cleared." Besides that, HUBBARD branded civil society as "suppressive." [119] At the same time, HUBBARD reveals disdain for the parliamentary system and presents democracy as collective aberration.

<No political system that is used on a colony of apes could govern anything other than apes. (...) A political system that tries to function among ignorant, uncivilized and barbaric people could have outstanding principles, but could only enjoy it in an ignorant, uncivilized and barbaric state unless one took them person by person and cured the ignorance, incivility and barbarism of each individual citizen. The collective thoughts of apes is ape-thought. A fascism that is led by idiots and used on idiots would be idiot-fascism. (...) The reactive bank [120] - the unconscious mind, however you would like to call it - suppresses all respectable impulses and supports the bad. Therefore a democracy is a collective thinking of reactive banks.> [121]

In the same policy letter, HUBBARD coins the phrase "aberrated democracy" and adds:

<Scientology gives us our first chance to have a real democracy. (...) Therefore, on the basis of factual evidence we can conclude that the first real democracy will appear when we have freed every person from evil reactive impulses. (...) A political philosophy cannot audit. We can.?

HUBBARD also rejected the majority principle:

<Should you ever have the opportunity to elect a leader for your group, don't be 'democratic'! (...) Instead protect yourself from these ladies and gentlemen and the parliamentary process, who know all the legal and time-consuming procedures, but somehow never attain anything other than chaos. A capable successful leader is worth a million impressionable country bumpkins. Democracy hates understanding and ability. (...) Democracy is only possible in a nation of clears - and even they make mistakes. If the majority rules, the minority suffers. The best are always a minority.> [122]

The concept of an "aberrated" society and HUBBARD's conspiracy theories especially reveal the false bottom of the SO's argument that HUBBARD supported democracy. The Scientology founder rejects the majority principle while asserting that only the SO can create a real democracy. HUBBARD even saw fit to grant "amnesties" to state agencies or to subject them to a Scientology "justice":

<If the tax authorities (...) continue like this or if the FDA complains, then of course we can put them before a Committee of Evidence, and if they are found guilty, then we can cancel them accordingly and let it be known they are a suppressive group. I assure you, that this is not as shallow as it sounds. (...) Therefore, whether 'society' accepts it now or not, we must spread our 'Pax Scientologica' like stormtroopers in front of our direct technical actions, or nobody will stand still for auditing, but will collapse in terror, and only a handful of us will be free. (...) So we can develop our habits early, without worrying about whether people accept our administrative technology or not. Always expand it. React by shrugging your shoulders if someone protests or stops for air. (...)

<As you see, nobody will be declared suppressive as long as he or she does not testify against us. And only those who so testify are suppressive. (...) You find them in the 'society' that they named and elected, because such birds play the reactive minds of every individual in the crowd exactly.

<(...) Society is obviously full (...) of paranoid little wolves like Galbatty in Australia or the head of the FDA in Washington. Such men snatch these posts up because they are men full of fear. (...) If you want to handle one of these 'leaders', then put the guy's hat on. It's hard. With Scientology administration and policy. Never fail to use Scientology administration or our justice system to handle the individual person in society outside of our system. It sounds adventuresome. Well, it is! But also effective. (...) You will only fail to handle a situation if you do not handle it with Scientology. The older methods failed. To hell with them! That's why we're here!> [125]

HUBBARD apparently used the term "Pax Scientologica" in reference to "Pax Romana," (Roman peace), which does not mean a peaceful state of transition, but the implementation of a legal system with the strong hand of a dictator.

The SO dos not regard this sort of concept as remote fiction. In February 1999, for instance, during a gathering of the "International Association of Scientologists" (IAS) in Munich, a leading member of this organization stated tat the SO rejected the democratic system in Germany and could not accept politics as it was. At the same time he compare the situation of the SO in Germany with the persecution of the Jews during the "Third Reich." Every time the speaker uttered a sentence that placed Germany beside the United States and the most important place for the SO worldwide, he was met with a round of frenetic applause. During a "Crusade" gathering of the IAS in Stuttgart at the end of August 2001, a functionary asserted, in an emotionally charged mood, that the SO was more on the advance today than it ever was, and that all people would sometime experience a new Scientology world order. On the occasion of another IAS gathering in Stuttgart in August 2002, a high-ranking SO representative made clear that in the Scientology future, they would talk about the hard times of the Scientology "Crusades," when the world had not yet been "cleared."


115. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Dianetics. The manual for the human mind", Copenhagen, 1999, p. 562. For more on these concepts, "The Science of Survival," pp. 133.

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

117. See sect. 7.1.3.

118. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Scientology O-8. Das Buch der Grundlagen," Copenhagen, 1990, p. 194. The chart is also published as an HCO Bulletin under the title of "Politics," and is contained in "The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology Vol. VIII," Copenhagen, 1991, p. 331.

119. L. Ron HUBBARD, HCO Bulletin <More on PTS Handling> in <How one confronts and smashes suppression, PTS/SP course>, Copenhagen, 2001, p. 249.

120. "Reactive Bank": the "memory storage" in humans that is fill with "engrams" (see sect. 3.1), which must be fully erased with Dianetics procedures to become "clear."

121. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter "Politics" in "The Organization Executive Course," Copenhagen, 1999, pp. 651.

122. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter "The Theory of Scientology Organizations" in "The Management Series volume 2," Copenhagen, 2001, pp. 187. Emphasis in italics in original.

123. FDA: Food and Drug Administration.

124. "Put the guy's hat on": Scientology slang for assuming the function of an area of responsibility

125. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter <Administration Outside Scientology> in "The Organization Executive Course Vol. 1", Copenhagen, 1991, pp. 736.

7.5.4 The SO and the constitutional state principle

Constitutional statehood ("Rechtsstaatlichkeit") means that state power is bound and limited with laws to prevent arbitrariness and misuse of power. Some of the irrevocable components of the constitutional state principle are: the right to a legal hearing, judicial monitoring of government use of force and procedural basic rights.

The "Scientology Organization," which means to permit rights only for "honest" people, is at odds with principles like equality before the law. HUBBARD operates on the assumption that a community with such principles is not capable of survival. As justification for that, he imputes critics with destructive intentions:

<The reason why a democracy or any wide open group collapses lies in their broad endowment of privileges to members who strive to destroy them. The idiocy of such behavior is clear. If a person discloses that he is no longer a part of the group, he has rejected the group. The person has rejected the laws and rules, too. Naturally, they have also rejected the protection they were entitled to as a member of the group. Democracy is at odds with this problem and so far it has never solved it. The Constitution of the United States permits people to refuse to give testimony if they would be incriminated by that (5th Amendment). (...) Idiocy is the right word for that. It does not make any sense to extend the protection of the group to a person who afterwards endeavors to destroy the group. That's as if were promoting illness.> [126]

The Scientology perception of justice differs in fundamental ways from that of a democratic constitutional state:

<The purpose of Justice is to clear the organization and the environment. One cannot make Clears in an uncleared environment. (...)> [127]

One of the most important maxims of Scientology "justice" is to create "order" for the expansion of Scientology and to clear resistance out of the way. Examples of Scientology "justice" include:

<JUSTICE: If a person refuses to answer an auditing question, whether it's in an HCO Confessional or other auditing, he or she can be brought before an ethics court and charged with a 'non-report.'> [129]

<JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT (...) No one among us corrects or punishes gladly. Nonetheless we are perhaps the only people on earth with a right to punish - (...) But keep in mind that there are times when it is important to put a head, any head, on a pike, to stifle smoldering disorder. Simply remember that law is an action that serves to do away with disorder and to maintain public security.> [130]

The right of an accused to remain silent, ridiculed by HUBBARD, is an acknowledged fundamental of a constitutional state. Forcing testimony makes it unusable. Forcing people to incriminate themselves is a violation of the right to a fair process.

The SO acts on the assumption that the "aberrated" society is not at all in the position to make a rational decision. The state's justice system is alleged to have become a <cancerous sore>, the <police and the court system> are alleged to be composed <primarily of depraved> people. The "Scientology organization" sees its own system, in place of these, as a <new hope for the law> [131] and has created its own justice system:

<In the name of justice, aberrated people come to incredible injustice. The upstat is punished. The downstat gets away. Rumors are permitted as evidence. (...) Our present legal system here often not only offers no protection, but often creates instead new injustice. (...) WISE offers the NEW, based 100% on L. RON Hubbard's technology, justice system. It is administered by a Charter Committee ...> [132]

Scientology justice is not just an offer to arbitrate disputes out of court (sometimes the SO procedures are called "arbitration.) The SO instead rejects the use of the regular court system in conflicts between Scientologists by threatening to ban them from the organization, and tries to keep members from entering the regular court system. For justice they put their own system in place of the courts, and for that purpose use "Committees of Evidence," "ethics" courts and in the Scientology WISE business association so-called "WISE Charter Committees" (WCC). The "Exekutiv Direktive" of a WCC from Baden-Wurttemberg lays down the rules for Scientologists in even more certain terms:

"1. A Scientologist may not introduce a court warning process ("Mahnbescheid") against another Scientologist.
2. A Scientologist may not yield a claim against another Scientologist to a non-Scientologist who would then take legal steps against the Scientologist.
3. A Scientologist may not initiate a lawsuit against another Scientologist in court.
4. While a Scientologist may consult with an attorney, this attorney may not then represent this Scientologist to sue the others.
5. A Scientologist may not charge another Scientologist or report to the police. If a Scientologist acquires knowledge of an illegal act by another Scientologist, naturally this must be handled and will, in that case, also be reported to the authorities. However this happens exclusively via WISE.
6. A Scientologist may not sue a firm that belongs to another Scientologist or in which another Scientologist is even an associate.
Violations of above items 1-6 are suppressive acts and will be handled in accordance with the standard ethics process. A recommendation of one Scientologist to another Scientologist to commit the above acts will also be handled as a suppressive act."

A Scientologist who had a dispute with a WISE company from Baden-Wurttemberg and did not stick to the rules was declared an "enemy" by an "ethics order":

"Condition - Assignment (...)
(...) had a dispute with (...). He submitted a complaint to the Charter Committee Stuttgart in order to have the situation handled. Without, however, waiting for the result, he yielded the claim for money that he had on (...) to his brother, and his brother sued (...) in court, which (...) would have been stopped from doing, because he is a Scientologist. (...) knew that his brother would sue. (...)For that (...) is assigned a condition of ENEMY as a Scientologist. It is expected that he will (...) 2. bring his brother to withdraw the lawsuit for an out-of-court settlement, 3. Appear in the (...) Org on (...) at 20:00 to participate in a settle meeting with (...)."

Scientologists who do not submit to this have to count on being declared a "suppressive." This involves a formal declaration ("SP Declare") which is broadly distributed in the SO. The "SP Declare" specifies which of the so-called crimes the "guilty party" is "guilty" of.

For instance, a German Scientology member who several years ago had a disagreement with his WISE employer and brought him to court instead of following the internal Scientology justice system had this "SP Declare" imposed upon him:


X from Y is herewith declared a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON. Through her own actions she is guilt of the following SUPPRESSIVE ACTS: (...): 2. INTRODUCE A CIVIL PROCESS AGAINST ANY SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION OR A SCIENTOLOGIST (...) WHEN ONE HAS NOT FIRST BROUGHT THE ATTENTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE CHIEF TO THE MATTER AND RECEIVED AN ANSWER. (...) Should she recant and come to her senses, her way back to good standing is through Steps A through E [133] in accordance with HCO PL 23 Dec. 1965RB SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS." [134]

Decisions by the Scientology "justice" system can have considerable consequences, such as the transfer of funds, for example. A case was revealed in 2002 of one SO member having sued another member before the "WISE Charter Committee" (WCC) Stuttgart for a dispute over commission payments from a brokerage in an amount of over 45,000 euro. The WCC came to the "resolution" that outstanding commissions would be reduced or settled with other means.

The SO pursues the goal of establishing its form of "justice" in society. In 1998 there came to light a 1993 letter from a WISE functionary which said that it was planned to expand the activity of "WISE Charter Committees" to non-Scientologists. Among German Scientologists, WISE also propagates that people can only <be pulled out of the mud with application of L. Ron Hubbard's ethics and legal technology,> <where other systems have failed.> [135]


126. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter <Organizational Suppressive Actions" in "The Organization Executive Course Vol. 1," Copenhagen, 1991, p. 988.

127. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter "Justice" in "The Organization Executive Course, Vol. 1," Copenhagen, 1991, p. 741.

128. "Confessional": a statement made during a "security check."

129. L. Ron HUBBARD, policy letter "HCO Confessionals" in "The Organization Executive Course Vol. 4," Copenhagen, 1991, p. 996.

130. L. Ron HUBBARD, <The Handbook of Rights>, Copenhagen, 1979 (copyright 1989), pp. 8.

131. L. Ron HUBBARD, "Einfuehrung in die Ethik der Scientology," Copenhagen, 1998, pp. 429.

132. WISE International (pub.), magazine "WISE-Europa News" issue 2/1994. Emphasis in the original.

133. "Steps A through E" consists of a multi-step, formal procedure in accordance with the "PTS/SP" course, in which the subject submits to the will of the organization and, among other things, records alleged misconduct in the form of a self-criticism.

134. Emphasis in the original (English), name and place anonymized.

135. "Newsletter WISE wins" Nr. 37/2002

7.5.5 The SO and the Executive

<We call them in one after another. We use the E-meter. (...) If someone is not ready to do an E-meter test, then you know that he is guilty. If he does it, then you can observe how every time the needle dips down to a 'yes' when you are right, even when the suspect says nothing at all.> [136]

One of HUBBARD's internal papers that is still valid concerns the quelling of rebellion and the fight against terrorism in South Africa. [137] According to this, the security authorities - and also private persons and businesses - will be subject to widespread use of "E-meters" in state and business so that "subversives" can be told from "honest" people: security checks on the E-meter for the personnel in business and agricultural operations; roadblocks set up on highways and service roads to conduct personal checks with an "E-meter." After the "subversives" have be gotten out of the way, the same sort of checks are to be held at regular intervals in the future. Typical of the SO's perception of justice in the same paper is the following:

<Only the honest have rights. It is good to remind oneself of that when it comes to infiltration. (...) In a long row of known communists who were checked, it was determined that the majority of them had committed crimes of violence. In light of this puzzling fact the imprisonment of a person for his political conviction or for incitement is relatively unnecessary. One does not put a murderer into prison so that he incites a revolt and initiates an international echo in the press. One puts a murderer in prison for murder and hangs him very carefully.>

One could remark that perhaps HUBBARD conceived this under the impression of an exceptional political situation and therefore got carried away with a particularly drastic formulation of words. Nevertheless "E-meters replace guns" is in keeping with the spirit that is consistently found in HUBBARD's teachings. HUBBARD even goes as far as to promote a future society in which one may not obtain work without an advance check on an "E-meter":

<(...) their young upstarts that find themselves in public will probably live in a civilization where they will have to be checked out on an Electrometer to obtain a job, and where there are no irrational and destructive revolutions, for the excellent reason that most criminals will not be available in society.> [38]

These ideas are therefore not "slips", but typify a frame of mind that would lead to a totalitarian surveillance state.


136. L. Ron Hubbard, <Handbook of rights>, Copenhagen, 1979 (Copyright 1989, p. 4.

137. L. Ron HUBBARD, HCO Information Letter "E-meters replace guns" in "The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology Vol. VIII," Copenhagen, 1991, p. 247.

138. L. Ron HUBBARD, lecture "Responsibility," Congress on the state of man, transcripts and glossary, Los Angeles, 1998, p. 20