Title: repost: SCIENTOLOGY OR DEMOCRACY?
Author: Tom Voltz
Date: 5 Nov 1997 12:30:35 -0800


As a farewell present to the ars community I herewith would like to present
to you a chapter and a bit from my 1995 book on scientology. The chapter
has been expanded a little bit to include more information and comes under
a separate post entitled "Scientology or democracy?". May I ask you to
please respect the copyright on it and DO NOT retranslate it into any other
language, including German - if you want it in German buy my book which was
released as a pocket book a few days ago by HERDER Verlag, book # 4572,
entitled "Scientology".


SCIENTOLOGY OR DEMOCRACY?


	"To hell with this society. We are building a new one."
	L. Ron Hubbard

Scientologists will accuse me of having chosen a heretical title for this
chapter. I wish it were so. After all Scientology has marked differences
with Buddhism which it so often claims to be its spiritual forerunner. The
path of Buddhism leads the individual to enlightenment. Scientology on the
other hand does not trust its «freeing» theories and practices but also
prescribes its concept of a «saved world» in many different areas.

Scientology's understanding of democracy

In view of the current discussion about Scientology it is quite appropriate
to take a closer look at Scientology's understanding of democracy - that
type of political system which only makes it possible for Scientology to be
active. At this point I cannot but extensively quote L. Ron Hubbard, as
otherwise no reader will believe what L. Ron Hubbard has to say about the
subject and where our society will end up if Scientology's leaders had it
their way:

	"The reason a democracy [...] caves in lies in its extending its
	 privileges of membership to those who seek to destroy it.

	"The idiocy of doing so is plain. When a person announces he is
	 no longer part of a group, he has rejected the group. He has
	 also rejected its codes and rules. Of course he has also rejected
	 the protection to which he was entitled as a group member.

	"Democracy always faces this problem and so far never solved
	 it. The Constitution of the US permits people to refuse to
	testify if it would incriminate them (5th Amendment). Yet it
	sits by in courts letting people who are pledged to overthrow
	the government yet use their privilege to invoke the 5th
	Amendment. Idiocy is the right word for it. It does not make
	sense to extend the protection of the group to the person
	seeking to destroy the group. That's like encouraging a disease.

	"If a group member rejects the group, he rejects everything
	 about the group and no further question about that. Certainly
	 there is no question in his or her mind of salvaging or helping
	 the group. Why should the group then seek to extend its
	protection over him unless it wants to defy its first right:
	that of survival."

	"So, in Scientology, anyone who rejects Scientology also
	rejects, knowingly or unknowingly, the protection and benefit
	of Scientology and the companionship of Scientologists. If the
	person never was a member of the group or if the person had
	been a member of it, the result is the same."

	(HCO PL 17 March 1965, Organisational Suppressive Acts)

If Scientology had the power I have no doubt that they would eliminate the
5th Amendment and replace it with their enforced Sec Checks, as described
by their Founder in a bulletin and where he says the subject would not even
need to speak. Just strap the E-meter electrodes to him and ask him in ways
to get yes or no responses from the meter.

In the above quote we recognise obvious black-and-white-thinking. No grey
areas in between. Let us suppose someone leaves his party. That party is
the CDU [German: Christian Democratic Union]. No longer member of the party
does he now also reject democracy and Christian thought? Has he now
automatically become an enemy of the nation? Most probably not. And if he
would now join the SPD [Social Democratic Party], will his former
colleagues now treat him like a leper, a traitor? Well, in their first
stages of pain and anger they may. After a while however they will again in
political debate and rivalry work towards a better and more just democracy.
After all the person showed his colours, his state of mind and he did not
hide the change in his political opinions. By no means has he rejected
democracy.  (This of course excepts those politicians who have a totally
different agenda anyway and are paid lobbyists.)

Hubbard in other places as well philosophises in black-and-white concepts:

	"There are two types of behaviour-that calculated to be
	constructive and that calculated to be disastrous.

	"These are the two dominant behaviour patterns. There are
	people then who are trying to build things up and others who
	 are trying to tear things down.

	"And there are no other types. Actually there aren't even
	shades of grey."

	(Hubbard article of 2. April 1964, Two Types of People)



JUSTICE THROUGH «SUPERHUMANS»?

In his book Introduction to Scientology Ethics L. Ron Hubbard writes:

	"I have observed that man cannot be trusted with justice."

	(From: Introduction to Scientology Ethics)


In other words: Today's nations need scientological enlightenment. The
above sentence however also many other comments by L. Ron Hubbard have
created in many a scientologist a level of suspicion against the
constitutionally governed state and its legal system which from my point of
view exceeds the limit. - And the vicious circle is that with each court
case Scientology looses that conviction gets strengthened in the minds of
the scientologists. And Scientology looses a lot of its cases.

That the legal system should be used in its own and peculiar way was
introduced by L. Ron Hubbard in 1955:

	"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather
	 than to win. [...] The law can be used very easily to harass,
	 and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the
	 thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorised,
	 will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease.
	 If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

	(Hubbard Article on Dissemination, Technical Bulletins,
	1976 edition, page 157)

What does this have to do with justice? Where is the realisation that
Scientology itself might break the law? It comes as no surprise that the
impression is made that Scientology wants to subjugate the whole world. And
indeed L. Ron Hubbard has his very own understanding of justice:


	"The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to
	 defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then
	 you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it
	 is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court
	 of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much
	 MORE CHARGING, and you will WIN. And the public, seeing that
	 you won, will then have a communication line to the effect that
	 Scientologists WIN. Don't ever let them have any other thought
	 than that Scientology takes all of its objectives.

	(Hubbard Article on Dissemination, Technical Bulletins,
	1976 edition, page 157)

Psychological warfare at its best. It's called diversionary operation. I
suspect in this way Scientology also used journalist and writer Omar
Garrison when he wrote the books "The Hidden Story of Scientology" and
"Playing Dirty". Ruining people is another part of it. A person who has
successfully been "ruined utterly" by Scientology is easier to be shut up
for good. It is easier to present to the public and the media that such a
person should not be trusted anyway. What Hubbard probably failed to
consider is that you can pull that trick only so and so often, after which
the outside view will become a fixed pattern with its originators being
visible in bright daylight.

I strongly recommend a study of Hubbard's 25, March 1976 policy "A new Hope
for Justice", where he characterises current justice with statements such
as "Justice apparantley cannot be trusted in the hands of men" or like this:

	"Who is Public Enemy #1? the FBI! Its obvious target is every
	opinion leader and public-spirited group in America! ... In the
	name of "justice" and even calling themselves Justice
	Department they practice every conceivable perversion of
	injustice. With their terror tools, preferring lies to fact, they
	have created a police state in which no man, woman or child or
	even a politician are safe, either from downstats [people failing
	to work hard or long enough] or the FBI."

The reader may laugh or may say Hubbard was crazy, no one would take such
statements seriously. Again I must say, that  the average scientologist
DOEs take such statements to be pure fact, the result of a clear view of a
superior person.

What could we expect from justice under the control of Scientology?
Examples are provided in this book.


DEMOCRACY BRINGS NOTHING - THERE IS NONE

	"I don't see that popular measures, self-abnegation and
	 democracy have done anything for man but push him further
	 into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels,
	 self- abnegation has filled the Southeast Asian jungles with
	 stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation
	 and income tax."

	(Hubbard Article of 7 February, 1965, Keeping Scientology
	Working)


These sentences can be found in Hubbard's article "Keeping Scientology
Working, published in 1965 and re-issued by Hubbard in 1980 with the
following additional note at the beginning: "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." This article is
amust read for every scientologist at the beginning of every major course.
It is the first article of the course material. I think Hubbard here
expresses quite clearly what he thinks of democracy. - Let us not forget:
When Germany awoke after WW II many Germans said they had read "Mein Kampf"
but that they had shrugged it off to some degree, not believing Hitler
really had meant what he had written, including his reasons why Jews should
be annihilated.

In 1966 he says:

	"There is no democracy being practised in the world anywhere
	 today. And as far as I know there never has been any
	 democracy, and even in ancient Greece there was no democracy."

	(Hubbard taped lecture of 1 November, 1966, Government and
	 Organization)

It's a grim world we live in. It needs to get a radical clean up, or should
I say clearing? As Hubbard outlines in his article of 9 July 1980,
corrected an re-issued for typo reasons on 20, October 1985:

	"It must be noted ... that promiscuity, perversion, sadism, free
	 love, homosexuality and other irregular practices fall far
	 below an acceptable level of ethics. A society which falls into
	 this category can be expected to abuse sex, be promiscuous, to
	 misuse and maltreat children and to act, in short, much in the
	 way current cultres are acting ... A society which reaches this
	 level is on its way out of history, as went the Greeks, as went
	 the Romans, as goes modern Europe and American culture ..."

Want to find the above quote in the original? Good luck. It only appeared
when the article was first released and can be found in "Staff Volume 0" as
published by Scientology in 1986. Later it obviously became victim of a
major cleaning operation of articles containing anything potentially
compromising to the image of the organisation.

The above is a good example to show where Hubbard mixes observation and
moral judgement which in the eyes of the average scientologist is viewed as
scientific observation and conclusion. Is there no way out of this terrible
condition, current societies are in? Obviously our governments and our
educational systems don't work anymore.

Don't worry, Hubbard has the resolution all figured out: Scientology's
Political Officer!


POLITICS FROM APES FOR APES

On February 13, 1996 Hubbard publishes an article entitled: POLITICS. And
here we have him talking plain text:

	"Now and then you hear me speak derisively of governments and
 	ideologies- including democracy.

	"If, by seeing I criticise an ideology, anyone seeks to believe I
	 embrace its opposite, he has failed to get the point. [...] A
	 democracy or a communism would be a huge joke in an insane
	 asylum. Well, isn't it? [...] No political system applied to a
	 colony of monkeys would have anything to govern but monkeys.
	 That's plain, certainly.

L. Ron Hubbard here by no means attacks a specific political system, much
more he announces our world to be one big insane asylum. At the same time
he notes that all people (of course I assume he excepts scientologists) are
apes. From this superior point of view he also is able to classify, to
stress, how individual nations in the world differ from each other and
which might be better than another. In Hubbard's world the yardstick is
rather simple:

	"The only difference in existing systems of politics is their
	 relative values in giving the individual a chance to develop and
	 receive a higher level of personal sanity and ability. That rules
	 out any system which witch hunts, freezes opportunity or
	 suppresses the right to improve by any workable system or
	 suppresses a workable system.

	"Watching the US and Australia fight Scientology with blind
	 fury while supporting oppressive mental and religious
	 practices proves that democracy, applied to and used by people
	 [deviated from reason], is far from an ideal activity and is only
	 democracy [deviated from reason]."


Now we know how Scientology deals with politics! Criticism of Scientology
is blind hate. And so the Germany government too is full of such hate and
therefor has to accept that Scientology in full page ads in major US
newspapers compares the government to the Nazis of the Third Reich -
Heretically I could recommend to the scientologists another ad where
Scientology would ask: «What is the difference between the government of
Germany and the government of Iraq?» The Scientology answer would be: «The
Iraqi government does not persecute Scientologists!» (Omitting that there
are not Scientologists in Iraq.) Scientology's radical language, I may have
overdone it a bit, in the eyes of the uninformed reader creates emotions
and in this specific case pushes aversion against a people, in this case
the Germany.

With the following explanations Hubbard, without noting it, shows the
absurdity of Scientology. It seems no one in Scientology has to this date
noted it:

	"Every human has in common with every other human the same
	 reactive bank [subconscious] . This is the most they have in
	 common.

     	"The reactive bank-unconscious mind, whatever you care to call
	 it- suppresses all decent impulses and enforces the bad ones.

    	" Therefore a democracy is a collective-think of reactive banks.
	 [...]

	"Any human group is likely to elect only those who will kill
	 them. That's concluded from actual 1950 experiments."

Which actual «experiments» he refers to is not revealed by L. Ron Hubbard.
Maybe he refers to the beginnings of Dianetics, where psychologists who at
first showed some friendliness towards his ideas turned away from him. In
Scientology itself there is extreme collective-think. Declarations coming
"from above" are blindly being believed by the majority.

And as democracy is collective-think on the level of the subconscious it of
course is an unusable political system. Exception: a Scientology democracy.
And such a system should be put into practice:

	"Scientology gives us our first chance to have a real democracy.
	 [...]

	"So we can conclude on actual evidence that the first true
	 democracy will emerge when we have freed each individual of
	 the more vicious reactive impulses. Such beings can reason, can
	 agree on decent and practical measures and be depended upon to
	 evolve beneficial measures.

	"Until we have done that we will continue to be critical of human
	 "democracy"- and any other political philosophy advanced upon
	 man as a cure for his ills."

And thus it is obvious: True democracy is not possible without Scientology.
Current democracies, by apes and for apes, simply accommodate Scientology
in that they permit the organisation to exist and work.

The major unanswered question however is: Once the whole world has become
scientological, Earth will also have been introduced to Scientology's
system of control and management. And I really can not see what would
differentiate this from a totalitarian regime. Only L. Ron Hubbard's
writings would be valid, everything else would have to be forbidden because
it would be «suppressive». People of different opinion would be thrown out
of the (scientological) country, might have to go to Alaska or to Siberia
or be sent to the Sahara until they are rehabilitated (or dead) ...

While on June 14, 1965 L. Ron Hubbard wrote that all comments attacking any
political group or ideology were null and void, as we shall see he
nevertheless continued to express his political ambitions after that date.

Dear Mr. Hubbard, I am tempted to say, how come Scientology continues to
publish all the just quoted articles as valid policy of your so-called
church? Why have they not been cancelled? Does the one sentence of
cancellation of all statements concerning politics only exist to have
something to show to critics?

After all, two years later L. Ron Hubbard in the spirit of a political
statement wrote:

	"Democracy is only possible in a nation of clears - and even they
	 can make mistakes."

	(Hubbard article of 2. November 1970, The Theory of
	Scientology Organisations)


SCIENTOLOGY'S POLITICAL OFFICER

On October 9, 1962 L. Ron Hubbard held a lecture entitled "Future Org
Trends". That lecture, published again in 1991, deals with the future of
the world. To put Scientology in the right light, Hubbard at the beginning
in a generalising manner hits:

	"Now, Scientology would go the way of many other good things
	 unless some thought is put upon its future. Buddhism went its
	 way, collectively, and actually wound up enslaving people.
	Bum show. The East, the paralysis of the East, the fatalism of the
	 East, and so forth, are as attributable to Buddhism as to any
	 other single item. I don't know what Gautama Siddhartha said,
	 but I sure know that people have been saying since, "If you just
	 sat and regarded your navel for enough Years and did nothing,
	 you would become part of nirvana." And nirvana, as far as I can
	 figure out, is the GPM."

GPM means «Goals-problems-mass» and is a new word creation and in
Scientology's own dictionary is defined as follows: "the goal pointed one
way, the opposing forces point exactly opposite ... where these two forces
have perpetually met, a mental mass is created." L. Ron Hubbard further
writes, that such masses can "cause psychosomatic effects, e.g. illness,
pain or feelings of ... tiredness."

And so L. Ron Hubbard explains the Buddhist concept of nirvana as being
nothing else than a condition where the Buddhist is caught in never-ending
spiritual tiredness.

Zen-Buddhism and Lamaism do not fare better in this lecture by Hubbard. It
is rather interesting, or, better, rather sad: A few years after he
proclaims Scientology's "religious background" as being Buddhism and
praised it as the bringer of civilisation he now declasses it to being a
philosophy which only produces turbulence of the soul.

These institutions which are now no longer acceptable in his 1962 lecture
are now being replaced by Scientology in the form of a vision he has for it
in 1970:

	"About 1970 - might look very much like this: The basic
	 building block would be the district office. [...] Its influence is
	 in terms of, oh, ten thousand people - no greater than that. But
	 that is your basic building block. [Here follows a detailed
	description of that organization.] Now, there'd be money all over
	 the place, as far as I can see. And n the Central Organization -
	 just looking a bit further ahead than that - there'll be a
	 political officer. You want to know what happens when you clear
	 everybody in that neighbourhood, the only thing that center can
	 become used for is a political center. Because by the time
	 you've done all this, you are the government ...

	"I'm just giving you a little glimpse of 1970. And it looks to me
	 like a world that someone could walk down the street in. The
	 situation between us now and that then is far closer together
	 than you might think at this present moment. It's just within an
	 ace of coming true."

	(Hubbard  taped lecture 9 January 1962, Future Org Trends)

Once the world is Clear - a nation, a state, a city or a village - the
Scientology-organisation in the area becomes its government! And once this
has taken place the only policy accepted as valid is Scientology policy.
You may say that such change of law would require a democratic vote. And
democratic it would be. And the people, now all scientologists, would
cheerfully so vote. It would not be the first time in history, that
democracy would find its end in such a way.


GOVERNMENT POSITIONS FOR SCIENTOLOGISTS ONLY

Another vision of political life is presented by Hubbard on November 1,
1966 in his lecture entitled "Government and Organization". If Scientology
has sufficient influence upon a government, says Hubbard, the future
representatives most probably will only be accepted as candidates for
election after they have reached a specific level of Scientology
enlightenment. In addition anyone would have the right to review the
written protocols of the scientological therapy sessions, so that one knows
whom one is about to elect. The "vitreous" member of parliament, vitreous
down to the most intimate detail. Says Hubbard:

	"Now, this then is probably the direction government will go
	 under Scientology, if Scientology has much influence upon
	government."

And that Scientology indeed might plan taking over or infiltrating
government became clear in 1963 when L. Ron Hubbard separated Scientology
into five levels. the last one reads:

	"QUOTE: STEP FIVE: SCIENTOLOGY FIVE

	Scientology applied on a high level to social, political and
	 scientific problems."

	(Hubbard  article of 30 July, 1963, Current Planning)

Now that is fairly general so we should also note the following and rather
specific instruction given to Scientology's Department of Government
Affairs, today called Office of Special Affairs:

	"Bringing continuous pressure to bear on governments to create
	 pro-Scientology legislation and to discourage anti-Scientology
	 legislation of groups opposing Scientology ....... Examining the
	 purpose and action of this post, it should become apparent at
	 once that we have here in actuality the equivalent of a Ministry
	 of Propaganda and Security, using old-time political terms.
	.....the action of bringing about a pro-Scientology government
	 consists of making a friend of the most highly placed
	government person one can reach, even placing Scientologists in
	domestic and clerical posts close to him and seeing to it that
	Scientology resolves his troubles and case."

	(HCO PL 13. March 1961, Department of Official Affairs


It remains to be asked to which degree the current US administration has
been subjected to these hubbardian orders. Celebrities with an open door to
the White House may have had considerable influence in introducing
Scientology's top public relations personnel in high places. Those however
who suffered from the organisation, those who were driven into bankruptcy
either through excessive "donations" or through Scientology's litigation
practices, those who spent years in the healing process from the
psychological damage inflicted upon them, all those do not have a lobby in
Washington. Their voices go unheard, while at the same time Scientology
continues to promote it can heal all psychosomatic illnesses, eliminate any
mental or spiritual problems, and really is the best thing which ever
happened to mankind. Does it take another raid at the various Scientology
headquarters to unearth the dark sides of this questionable organisation
and to once again reveal what is really happening behind the scenes?


THE PLANET IS OURS!

So exclaimed L. Ron Hubbard. He also introduced his 10-step-plan to world
domination. The reader may think this is pure fantasy. If it were the case
the lecture "International City" by Hubbard would not be part of today's
"religious" curriculum, part of the advanced Saint HIll Special Briefing
Course. Here are the steps to world domination as outlined at length by
Hubbard in his hour long lecture:

STEP 1: To persuade all governments to turn over all atomic weapons as well
as the control of atomic manufacturing to the United Nations.

STEP 2: To convince the United Nations and all governments of the world
that they select a site for and construct an "International City". Hubbard
says this should be in North Africa on the Mediterranean coast as this
would provide for sufficient land reserves for unlimited expansion.
International City in the desert, Ghaddafi as the host?

STEP 3: Persuade all governments to remove their capitals to International
City. This should include all aspects of government, the presidents, the
members of cabinet, congresses, parliaments, etc. And, says Hubbard
"prohibit a secondary capital or even a communication relay centre within
the country itself."

STEP 4: Step for is for each government now relocated to establish all
necessary communication links to the local states and provinces.

STEP 5: Step five is the complete remodelling of the United Nations. Says
Hubbard "basing its member-delegates on a formula comprised of land value -
land area and value, production and construction value and population
figures ..." Power to the people or power to those whose highest ethical
values are those of money and materialism?

STEP 6: And then, so that the UN will keep control of everything, Hubbard
suggests that no treaties of mutual assistance (such as the one Britain had
with Poland in the 30s) should be permitted any country.

STEP 7: Next the UN should have a small and powerful armed force, while at
the same time all other armies would have to be abolished. As the UN would
have the only army with an atomic arsenal  they could then force any local
government to better not start attempting to build these nasty things again.

STEP 8: This step then establishes the UN as the only actual government on
earth: "Persuade the United Nations and national governments that the
activities of the United Nations and national government should be limited
to ... And then we limit what a national government should be up to."

STEP 9: What would Hubbard get out of all of this? Here it comes: "And then
of course you eventually would find that they wouldn't want psychiatrists
in International City. They have political use. ...  And about all I would
ask would simply be a monopoly on all mental healing done inside the
boundaries of International City. ... "

STEP 10: The final result: "And the next thing you know, they're all
members of a [Scientology introductory] course and you got the planet. But
that point won't go into in the original release. It's nothing hidden, it
simply makes it somewhat incredible."

I think this shows the problem you have with any government which is too
centralised. It takes a handful of people at the right positions who then
can play with the rest as they desire. As a side-note: Today's version of
the lecture as it is presented on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
has been manipulated, and amongst others the following has been edited:
"... a lot of Scientologists might be able to make capital out of such an
idea, they might be able to have some fun with it one way or the other." -
Today's taped lecture goes like this: "... a lot of Scientologists might be
able to have some fun with it one way or the other." There you have one of
the "good" reasons for "Clearsound Technology"(tm).

Now the reader may believe that Hubbard was talking science fiction and
that indeed no sensible person would ever consider the above to be a real
plan or idea. If such readers would however know the inside talks amongst
scientologists, their frames of mind, then he or she would rather quickly
come to realise the sincerity with which such visions by their founder are
being taken. The fanatical adherence to Hubbard's words, only
understandable to those who ever were part of it, leaves no doubt that none
of his thoughts or visions are considered mere ideas. They MUST be
followed. It is "standard technology". Scientology plans on a long-term
basis, as ridiculous as some of their future world dominance plans may
sound.

The above quoted lecture was held on March, 24, 1964. In 1995 an internal
Scientology publication (The Auditor, issue 284, ca. August 1995) printed
excerpts of a speech held by one of the senior executives of Scientology
aboard their ship. He announced "never before released" information about a
soon to come scientological therapy, called Super Power. During the speech
he quoted L. Ron Hubbard: "You've always had the idea of clearing the
planet, right? All right, this is how we'll do it. First we clean up all
the staff with Super Power and then we use it to clean up the public. And
then we clean up the government. And that's how we'll clear the planet."

Don Drader is the president of WISE International, the World Institute of
Scientology Enterprises, that part of Scientology which is responsible for
the introduction of Hubbard's ideas to the business world and which hides
the fact that their management courses are in fact "religious teaching" -
or is it the other way around? In his editorial message of issue #41 of
their magazine "Prosperity", released in spring 1997, Mr. Drader states:
"In WISE we are engaged in a campaign to get LRH administrative tech
standardly into use in every business, community and government on the
planet."


CONCLUSION

If Scientology could gain influence as it pleases, then I fear the result
would be that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
government would be controlled centrally. Hubbard policies would gain the
status of the Law. This could of course be justified quite easily by a
declaration by the then active Scientology management:

	"The best form of government, says Hubbard, is that of a benign
	monarch. L.Ron Hubbard was a loving and caring man. We, the
	spiritual heirs to L. Ron Hubbard desire to practise this thought.
	Therefor Hubbard's policies from this day on are valid laws for
	our nation.

	"As a first step we shall introduce what our founder wrote in
	1950 in his book Dianetics, The modern Science of mental
	 Health: "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 toand benefit from citizenship.  These are
	desirable goals." And therefor all US citizens shall report to
	their nearest Scientology organisation to receive (or not) a
	confirmation of his/her rights before the law. Those who are not
	Clear yet - in other words still aberrated - shall receive a
	grace period of 12 months. After that period they shall loose
	their civil rights unless they have attained the state of Clear.

	"We might as well announce the next steps in our plan of
	freedom for this planet: In accordance with the book Science of
	Survival all citizens shall undergo a so called "test-of
	emotional-tone". Those, whose emotional level is found on the
	scale to be at 1.1 shall be dealt with according to this writing by
	our beloved founder L. Ron Hubbard: "No social order which
	desires to survive dares overlook its stratum of 1.1's.  No social
	order will survive which does not remove these people from its
	midst." As we want to be a successful and surviving nation we
	shall provide special housing in Alaska to those citizens found to
	be at 1.1 on the scale. Proper rehabilitation opportunity will be
	provided for the approximately 6.5 million US suppressive
	persons, two and a half percent of our citizens."

So that there is no misunderstanding: Except for the two Hubbard quotes the
above declaration is fiction. - Today.

How worthless democracy really is to scientology can be seen in practice
within Scientology today. Seeming adherence but actual ignorance: A
scientology association is formed and differentiates between active members
and passive members. Active members are those who are employees of the
organisation, the consuming (and paying) scientologist only has the status
of a passive member. The president of the association (and other
functionaries) can only be elected by the active member, the employee. At
the Hamburg, Germany, Scientology organisation the statutes read: "At the
occasion of the membership assembly the ordinary member has a full voting
right. The extraordinary member have a consulting vote." Also: "The
membership assembly may pass decisions no matter how many members are
present." "Ordinary members are such persons who actively and with success
work on a full-time basis for the goals of the association," - with which
the statutes refer to the employees.

Seeming democracy also in another area: "An extraordinary assembly of the
members of the association can be called for by the board, if at least one
fourth of the ordinary members [the employees] presents the board with such
a request." - I call this seeming democracy as no employee of a Scientology
organisation has even the slightest chance to call together one quarter of
his fellow employees in order to effect a change in any matter with would
be contrary to what the top management of Scientology says. At such a point
Scientology ethics policy covering "mutiny" would be activated. Not to
speak of the average, consuming and paying scientologist. He has no say
whatsoever.

On an international level I note: The "International Association of
Scientologists", where every scientologist has to be a member should he
desire to obtain services (except for minor introductory ones), has a
delegate for each country. How these delegates are being appointed is a
mystery. We members never received an invitation to become candidates. I
suspect there is an internal policy which reads pretty much like this: That
person is the delegate who leads the biggest organisation of the country.
And the founding fathers of that organisation by no means were "a couple of
dedicated scientologists" as Scientology public relations like to portrait
- they were high and highest ranking executives of Scientology. Note: In an
effort to rebut the above as it appeared in the original edition of my
book, Swiss Scientology sent copies of invitations to IAS delegate
elections to the press. However, these invitations were dated a few years
back and also showed that they had only been displayed on the local org's
student notice board. Anyone who was not an active student at the time was
left clueless - which of course included many IAS members.

Some time ago I talked with a long time and dedicated scientologist and he
recommendingly said: If I had the intention of pushing something through or
if I was planning something where I would experience strong opposition from
the international management of Scientology, then it would be wiser for me
to forget my plan or intention and go and do something else ... the same
scientologist also was convinced that the introduction of the hubbardian
world of thought in all spheres of politics and society would be a blessing
for mankind.

True, Scientology does not have its own political party. In fact they don't
need one. It is far more advantageous for them to find individuals, make
them into scientologists and let those scientologists then influence the
political process. Those who know what Scientology really stands for will
consider the political visions by L. Ron Hubbard with horror.

Now if you still have doubts about the true intentions of Scientology and
the scope of influence they desire to achieve then you just might be the
same type of person as several of the old Germans I asked during a research
project why they never had read Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" where Hitler
had already stated in plain text what he thought about the Jews and what he
would do with them and with others. "Oh, but we did read it," was the
answer, "however we never thought this was meant to be taken seriously."
They learned the lesson, or so I hope.

As a final side note: CATS, Citizens for an Alternative Tax System, which
promotes abolishing all income tax and only levying sales tax, is based
upon an early Hubbard article where he outlines precisely that plan and
vision.

END OF CHAPTER "SCIENTOLOGY OR DEMOCRACY?"

------------------ ANOTHER CHAPTER ---------------

NAZI-PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES

A daring heading? I don't think so as I am quoting L. Ron Hubbard:

	"A long-term propaganda technique used by socialists
	 (communists and Nazis alike) is of interest to the PR
	 practitioners. I know of no place it is mentioned in PR
	 literature. But the data had verbal circulation in intelligence
	 circles and is in constant current use.

	"The trick is - WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING
	 ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST."

	(HCO PL  5 October 1971, Propaganda by Redefinition of
	 Words)

In his two page article Hubbard gives examples for the application as well
as further instruction:

	"Many instances of this exist. they are not "natural" changes in
	 language. They are propaganda changes, carefully planned and
	campaigned in order to obtain a public-opinion advantage for the
	 group doing the propaganda. Given enough repetition of the
	redefinition, public opinion can be altered by  altering the
	meaning of a word. [...]

	" "Psychiatry" and "psychiatrists" are easily redefined to mean

	"an antisocial enemy of the people." This is a good use of the
	technique as for a century the psychiatrist has been setting an
	all-time record for inhumanity to man. [...]

	"... we can redefine modern psychology as a German military
	 system used to  condition men for war and subsidized in
	American and other universities at the  time the government was
	having trouble with the draft. [...]

	"The way to redefine a word is to get the new *definition*
	repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine
	medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define
	Dianetics and Scientology upwards. A constant, repeated effort is
	the key to any success with this technique of propaganda."

The end justifies the means. It is important for any group to be a unified
whole. This also holds true for Scientology. It creates strength and
cohesion. Internal criticism then is a point of weakness. Therefor it makes
sense for such groups to build up an external enemy and to keep him alive
in the minds ofthe followers and to blame him for all the evil. This way
you can always divert attention from your own group.

Hubbard says that in PR-literature he had not found any mention of this
Nazi-propaganda technique which he published as a binding policy. I went
for a search and found it after about 10 minutes using the comprehensive
index of - Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf":

	"For these reasons an effective propaganda has to limit itself to
	 just a few points and must keep repeating them in the form of
	catch phrases for as long as it takes to have ascertained that even
	 the very last person understands under these words what one
	wants him to understand."

Hitler clearly says that specific words are to cause specific concepts in
the minds of those who are subjected to the propaganda - the concepts of
the propagandist. In this context Hitler disapproves of the German
propaganda at the time of the First World War and then, in order to give a
good example of the just discussed technique, writes:

	"[...] the war propaganda of the British and the Americans was
	psychologically correct. By inducing in their own people the
	picture of the German being a barbarian and a Hun, they
	prepared their soldier for the horrors of war and thus helped to
	save him from disappointment. Even the most horrible weapon
	which was now being used appeared to him (the soldier) as
	nothing but a confirmation of the information already received
	 and thus strengthened the belief in the rightness of the
	assertions of his government, just as it raised the anger and
	hatred against the atrocious enemy. After all the cruel effects of
	the weapon, which he know came to  experience from the enemy,
	 step by step served as proof of the already  known "hunish"
	brutality of the barbaric enemy, without having been given rise
	to the thought that his weapons might have, and probably had,
	even more cruel effects."

The promotional and PR-methods of Scientology are embracing. They
especially also contribute to the cohesion within the group. The positions
are: Scientology saves the world - psychiatrists want to enslave the world.
The enemy picture has been created.

To which degree this is legitimate PR-work or whether this is overdoing it
is a matter for each reader to determine for himself. However, whenever an
ideology or movement is marching forward with such means, convinced only
they can bring salvation to the world, this must be observed by many
watchful eyes.

                  -------- END OF QUOTE ----------

The above is an excerpt from and an expansion to chapters of the book
"Scientology with(out) an end",  by author Tom Voltz, published in 1995 in
Germany and Switzerland. The book excerpt is copyright © Walter Verlag,
Zürich/Düsseldorf, additions and translation is copyright (c) Tom Voltz.

END OF POST

ars1 persecution page
ars2 lies page
judges main index page