Nowhere is it *so* evident the disdain Scienos have for "wogs" as
it is in the Sea Org.
>>RonsAmigo (email@example.com) wrote:
>>> Lets look at the situation from another angle.
>>> Do you think Jews would choose to participate in a newsgroup where:
>>> 1) the majority of the participants referred to them as "kikes?"
>Rod Keller wrote:
>>I suppose this comment is directed at the term "clam". The offer has been
>>on the table for years now that "clam" would be abandoned as soon as
>>Scientolgists abandon the derogatory term "wog" for non-Scientologists.
RonsAmigo (a Scientologist) wrote:
>Perhaps you would care to post even *1* example of a Scientologist
>calling an ARS participant a "wog". The ARS belief that Scientologists
>use the term "wog" to demean or degrade others has no basis in fact.
>It is true that for Scientologists the term "wog" is on occassion used to
>refer to non-Scientologists (most religions have similar terms) but its
>common usage is not to demean or degrade. "wog-job", "wog-friend"
>and so on are typical.
You are a Scientologist, and I am an ex-Scientologist. And I am here
to tell you, and anyone else reading this, that you are being less than
honest with regards to Scientologists' use of the term "wog". I will
admit that there are Scientologists who do not use the term "wog" as
a demeaning or degrading term, but it has been my experience that this
is not true for the vast majority of Scientologists I have known.
My involvement with Scientology was not brief. I was a member in good standing
for over 15 years. I was a "public" person before I was staff at
a Class IV organization. Then I became a Sea Org member for almost 8 years.
After leaving the Sea Org I was again a "public" (not staff) member for
another 5+ years. I have known hundreds of Scientologists. My primary
staff position in the Class IV organization was in Division VI -
Distribution, or Public Division. In the Sea Org, due to my posts held,
I again worked in positions to meet not only "public" members, but I
worked with active field staff members who "regged" for Scientology, and
I met and knew all those who came on staff (signed a Sea Org contract)
at the advanced organization I worked for. I was, as they say in Scientology,
"on the public lines". I held posts in HCO Division I, Dissemination
Division II, Treasury Division III and Executive Division VII.
Through the years I heard the term "wog" used hundreds of times by
Scientologists. The term is not used here on alt.religion.scientology
by the Scientologists who post here. There are a couple of reasons for
One is contained in Hubbard's HCO PL 2 September 1970, entitled
"First Policy", in which he wrote, "MAINTAIN FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH
THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PUBLIC". (caps in original)
A second reason is that Scientologists are not supposed to speak
Scienospeak in the presence of "wogs", since Hubbard did not wish
Scientologists to alienate "wogs" by giving them "MUs". As anyone
with a cursory study of Scientology knows, "word clearing" is very
important to Hubbard and his cult followers.
Those who are in or have been involved with Scientology *know* that
Scientologists speak VERY differently to one of their fellow culties
in private, from how they speak in the presence of "wogs". So I will
enlighten the reader as to exactly what a "wog" is, in Scienospeak.
Hubbard defined "wog" as: "1. worthy Oriental gentleman. This means
a common run-of-the-mill garden-variety humanoid. [Saint Hill Special
Briefing Course tape 82, catalog #6611C29, entitled "Clear and OT
Defined"] 2. a wog is somebody who isn't even trying." [Saint Hill
Special Briefing Course tape 73, catalog #6608C02, entitled
"Suppressives and GAEs"] (Damn! Where's that damned *decoder* ring?!)
Now Amigo, you also know that Hubbard considered that by "Clearing"
people, he was making a "new man" -- a "homo novis", as he called it.
Hubbard defined "homo novis" in _The Book Of Case Remedies_ as:
"HOMO man, NOVIS new."
On page 40, in _History Of Man_, Hubbard defined "homo novis"
as "a theta-animated MEST body possessed of new and desirable attributes;
a MEST Clear, a good sane rational MEST being about a skyscraper higher
than Homo sapiens". In other words, Hubbard is saying that (Damn! Where's
that *DAMNED* decoder ring?) a "MEST Clear" is a *bigger*, *better*,
*more able* and _superior_ being than a regular Homo sapien ("wog").
In HCOB 28 June 1965 "Releases - Different Kinds", Hubbard said that
"the Second Stage Release is definitely HOMO NOVIS. The person ceases to
respond like Homo sapiens and has fantastic capability to learn and act."
(Remember Hubbard's claim that a Clear has fantastically improved
So, Amigo, the definitions of "wog", and the related definitions of
"homo novis" and "Clear" illuminate Scientologists' meaning when they
use the term "wog". And in case this isn't enough, ponder this!
Hubbard defined "Homo sapiens" as "1. a MEST body, [I gotta find that
*DAMNED decoder ring!] whether it belongs to the race of man or the
race of ants is yet but an animated vegetable. Given a theta being to
guide it, it becomes part of a composite such as Homo sapiens. By itself,
the body would live, walk around, react, sleep, kill, and direct an
existence no better than that of a field mouse, or a zombie. Put a theta
being over it [fully 'exterior', I suppose] and it becomes [magically]
possessed of ethics and morals and direction and goals and the ability
to reason; it becomes this strange thing called Homo sapiens." (from
_History Of Man_, page 42)
So, in summary, a "HOMO NOVIS" is a "new man", a "Clear", a "theta
being" with infuckingcredible new abilities -- all gained, of course,
through (ta da!) ... Scientology -- the "science" of "knowing how to
But a lowly "run-of-the-mill", "unenlightened", poor ol' "PTS",
non-from-bivavle-evolved, "raw meat", Homo sapien is just a "worthy
Oriental gentleman" -- a "wog" -- an "animated vegetable" or "zombie"
with a "being over it".
Nowhere is it *so* evident the disdain Scienos have for "wogs" as
it is in the Sea Org. I am reminded once again that Scienos, especially
those in the so-called "elite" group of the Sea Org, are convinced that
*they* are "going UP as the *world* [with all its "WOGS"] is going
DOWN". Anyone who is not in the Sea Org is a part of the problem, in
the eyes of Sea Org members. Remember: Scientologists *think* and
*believe* that they are the "most ethical group on the planet".
And everyone else is just "unaware", "in apathy", is "PTS", "out-
ethics"... or just... a plain ol' "WOG".
Scientologists really do think that they are better, more ethical,
more enlightened, more aware and more able than the "unenlightened"