Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church


New and Non-Scientologists

Once a person embarks on a journey to improve his life (and those of his fellows) by studying Scientology, he sees the world differently than he did before. He sees the problems of the world in a different light. And as time progresses, he will likely come to see that he is not his body, and that his “life” as a being encompasses not just his current lifetime, but many before and many to come.

Since it happens gradually, he may not realize just how differently he sees things. But it should become apparent as he continues to study Scientology yet associate with people around him who are not Scientologists. Our student/PC may come to see himself as “superior” to his fellows in the non-Scientologist world. This isn’t unreasonable, since he’s probably gained abilities and insights they don’t have.

This feeling of “superiority” only really becomes a problem if he begins to treat his fellows poorly. Their situation, like his, has arisen over millions of lifetimes. It may take some work to get them up to the point where they are even able to consider there is more to know, more to see, more to experience. Meanwhile, they rightfully require his respect, compassion, and in short, his granting of beingness.

Failure to grant them beingness make him an enemy of his fellows. Whatever his position on the Bridge, it behooves him to grant beingness to his fellow humans, no matter how far down the scale of awarness they exist.

This is equally true between staff and public, between execs and staff, between Sea Org and non-Sea Org personnel, and between OTs and preclears. Superiority is not a license to be cruel and abusive. It is an opportunity to show others that one can grant beingness, regardless of how much distance exists between viewpoints.


I got called on the carpet the other day for using the word “wog” in a comment to a post on someone else’s blog. In fact, the moderator of that blog edited out my use of the term.

I covered my use of this term briefly in my post Responsibilities of Leaders, but I expand on it here.

The origin of the term wog is unclear. In some circles, it is purported to be short for “Worthy Oriental Gentleman”. But this, too, is disputed.

“Wog” came to be a pejorative used primarily by the British to describe conquered or subjugated Asians, most particularly those of India when it was ruled by the British. In the tech dictionary, the two definitions are both from the Briefing Course, and mark it as a derogatory term. In its everyday, slang use among Scientologists, it simply came to mean non-Scientologists, sometimes meant derogatorally, sometimes not, depending on context.

A few rabble-rousers in the Independent field have made noise about the use of this term, and gotten some not-quite-bright others to go along with them. We have a similar example of this among upper and middle class caucasians arguing against Native American names being used in connection with sports teams (example: the Atlanta Braves). Native Americans seem curiously silent on this issue.

This is an example of “political correctness”. You’ve probably heard the term. It is an attempt by psychs to control thought by controlling speech.

“Political correctness” has several cousins. One is “propaganda by redefinition of words”. The George Orwell book 1984 calls this “Newspeak”. In the real world, an example is the Russian language. It is peppered with terms redefined for propaganda purposes. (I know this because I studied Russian in college. Not recommended.) There is a brilliant LRH reference on the subject, HCOPL 5 October 1971 PR Series 12 Propaganda By Redefinition Of Words. A study of this issue is highly recommended. Among other things, it details how psychology came to intertwine itself with German philosophers and was used as a tool to encourage Germany to war on its neighbors.

Political correctness was picked up by the communist party and has been used for decades as a way to “soften up” the West in preparation for the eventual takeover of communism.

Here’s another example: Did you know that some newer editions of Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn have the word “nigger” edited out of them? Despite the fact that this was part of the actual language in common use at the time these books were written. Perhaps if we never see this word in these books, we’ll imagine that their protagonists weren’t uneducated poor children of the South in the 1800s. Apparently, rewriting (lying or alter-ising) history is always better than confronting what actually happened.

In the name of political correctness, “garbage man” is replaced by “sanitation engineer”. (I’ve been a garbage man. I didn’t mind being called one. I picked up people’s garbage, after all.) “Retarded” is replaced by “developmentally disadvantaged”. “Christmas” is replaced by “Winter Holiday”. While I wasn’t looking, “oriential” somehow became offensive, and must now be replaced by “asian”, Lord knows why.

Perhaps we should replace “short” with “vertically challenged”. After all, David Miscavige’s “self-esteem” (another psych term) is something I know we’re all concerned about.

(By the way, I’m not “follically challenged”. I’m “balding”. Happens to some guys when they get older. Good thing I’m not a body.)

Of course, there’s no way to win on this; after a new term is accepted as a replacement, it too becomes offensive and must be replaced.

One of psychology’s assertions with regard to political correctness is that people can be permanently damaged by the mere utterance of words by others. Of course, as Scientologists, we know this to be false, unless the words are accompanied by pain and unconsciousness. (Reference: Dianetics The Modern Science Of Mental Health.)

When words become objects or things to a person, realize you’re dealing with someone exceptionally low on the Tone Scale. (I’ve word cleared people like this; it’s not fun.)

Then there are those, like the person who complained about my use of the word “wog”, whose sole purpose (by survey of his other writings) is simply to enturbulate. If misplaced (and false) righteous indignation allows him to get away with his enturbulating, that’s the tactic he will use.

Perhaps we should resolve not to let agents provocateurs and psychologists dictate our actions.

Words only have the power you give them.


Single Post Navigation

7 thoughts on “Wogs

  1. I love this post and I remember you gettting called on the carpet and thought “HOW STUPID”. There was someone who came to your defense and his post was deleted and we had to be subjected to the hosts inanities on why we shouldn’t use WOG.
    Also, I love how you pointed out that a person can rightfully be superior once he becomes a Scientologist. Of course, being a squirrel doesn’t give one that status-quite the opposite actually and they are the ones who vehemently object to a (real) Scientologist being superior.

  2. I believe the guy who came to my defense was the one who told me that the original complainer was just a trouble-maker. I went back and checked, and sure enough, the complainer was also consistently engaged in covert sniping at Milestone Two. At that point, I realized his righteous indignation was simply more sniping.

  3. That figures!!!
    What I find amusing are the “scientologists”, who are so politically correct, are extremely good at labeling and attacking in abundance and quite invalidative in their attempts to get you in check.In fact annihilation can be part of the process and they can seem to have quite a “superior” attitude whle doing it.
    Look it, the great thing about Scientology is, it is an esteem builder like no other. A person taking the incredible comm course is already superior to others walking around and if he paid heed to the intention of the course, he feels superior with alot of ARC and will get others to have similiar wins to his.

    • Yeah, there’s an awful lot of hypocrisy in the Field.

      And the other thing about those Scientology wins is that they can not only make you feel better about you, they can make you feel better about all your dynamics.

  4. 1984 on said:

    I suspect that “Wog” was considered a politically correct put-down at the time (it did say ‘worthy’, so it must be ‘OK’, right?).
    Oddly enough, I checked two different dictionaries, and neither had a listing for it.
    Oh, well, I must get back to my ‘nigger work’….er, change that to ‘grunt’ work (oh, I hope that no one here is ex-military, army. Oh, the hell with it, just make it ‘hard’ work………………………(I hope nobody is sexually challenged).

    • I couldn’t even find “wog” in the Oxford English Dictionary. I had to go to the ‘Net to find definitions.

      I suspect that “wog” was used with the typical (colonial, superior) English sense of ironic humor.

  5. Well, to me there are non Scientologists and there are wogs, too! There is a big difference as LRH defines the term. So I don’t understand this politically correct thing! The term can be used and should be used to denote those people who would never but never take a look into something spiritual much less take some action about things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: