The following excerpt is taken from Science of Survival, one of the core texts of Scientology:
The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.
Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered.
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 to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator [Juan Vincente Gomez] 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.
A clarification for those who aren’t up on their Sci-speak: a “tone level” is the Scientology means of measuring someone’s emotional and mental state. Level 2.0 down – i.e. those who must be “deleted” for the betterment of society – includes Suppressive Persons (critics of Scientology), homosexuals, and other undesireables.
Just what this “deletion” or “disposal” would entail is not made clear. However, it should be noted that the above quote speaks favourably of both “quarantine” (some would call it “internment”, perhaps “imprisonment”) and the “collecting and destroying” of those deemed undesireable. That his example in this case was a military dictator is simply another point towards his authoritarian personality. Prior to “deletion,” those who have not met Scientology’s standards – or who reject Scientology itself – have a world of second class citizenship to look forward to:
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 and would result in a marked increase of the survival ability and happiness of man.
Without wishing to invoke Godwin’s Law, there is something unsettlingly familiar in these words. A supreme group – a master race of sorts – controlling society, with suspension of civil rights, internment or worse for those who refuse to comply, or even worse, dissent. Hubbard’s open contempt for democracy, his pathological hatred of those who criticised or refused to follow his dictates, his hunger for absolute power – all of these things should be cause for concern.
The Office of Special Affairs – Scientology’s KGB – has as its stated aim “to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology.” Orwell himself would be hard-pressed to create a more terrifying dystopia than Hubbard’s vision of the future.
Further information:
– Quietly and Without Sorrow
– Hubbard on Democracy & Ethics
– Scientology would exterminate undesirables
– The tone scale
June 23, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Nice try, but “Science of Survival” was written in 1951, over half a century ago. Although it IS what you might call a “core text”, it’s also generally understood that it’s supposed to be taken in a historical context, and that not everything it says is necessarily practiced today. A lot has happened in Scientology since 1951, you know!
That’s the purpose of the MATERIALS GUIDE CHART, to put everything into proper context and show you the historical order these texts were written in. You probably know that already, but you’d rather pull wacky-seeming quotes out of context and try to focus on any negative spin you can possibly arrange.
Having said that, the idea of “deleting” dangerous and antisocial people low on the tone scale isn’t a new one – that’s what most societies do ALREADY, by putting criminals in prison and even sending the worst offenders to the electric chair.
Do you really think Hubbard was wrong to mention the anecdote about lepers in Venezuela? Do you really think murderers and crack addicts in our society today have some sort of innate right to bring down society?
June 23, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I’m going to respond to this (and your other comments) in full later, but for now, this:
“Do you really think Hubbard was wrong to mention the anecdote about lepers in Venezuela? Do you really think murderers and crack addicts in our society today have some sort of innate right to bring down society?”
Are you seriously comparing people with leprosy to murderers and crack addicts?
June 23, 2008 at 11:26 pm
The leprosy bit was something of an allegory, see. I think the subtlety of it escaped you. But even if it wasn’t: when people break out with Ebola or the Hantavirus or whatever in a crowded public airport, they get QUARANTINED. Whether they want to be or not. For public safety.
I believe this is more in line with what Hubbard was talking about when he spoke of the Venezuelan situation where people with a contagious incurable disease were infecting others.
It doesn’t matter whether we’re speaking of murderers or people with contagious diseases anyway, because in either case, society isolates these people from the generic public whenever possible. I say “isolate”, LRH said “delete”, whatever. It’s the same thing.
Aren’t you glad that LRH spoke in colorful, direct and bold terms like that, so that you could have a rich tapestry of juicy quotes to twist and misrepresent the meaning of, decades later?
June 24, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hubbard didn’t speak of “quarantining” the beggars and lepers, but of “collecting and destroying” them. That’s a very, very significant difference.
Do you have a reference to hand that shows Hubbard meant “isolate” when he said “delete” or “dispose of”?
Further responses to your first comment:
“Having said that, the idea of “deleting” dangerous and antisocial people low on the tone scale isn’t a new one – that’s what most societies do ALREADY, by putting criminals in prison and even sending the worst offenders to the electric chair. ”
Those “dangerous and antisocial people” (i.e. those who registered below 2.0 on the tone scale) include homosexuals. Do you feel homosexuality is dangerous and antisocial?
It also included so-called Suppressive Persons, which includes those who criticise Scientology. Do you support or reject jailing people who disagree with the CoS, or who practice modified Scientology?
June 24, 2008 at 5:37 pm
You’ve piled too many lies and misconceptions on top of each other for me to even bother trying to sort them all out. It would be pointless anyway, since you are going to remain on the attack no matter what I say.
Suffice it to say that the Church of Scientology is, today, open to people of all sexual preferences, and has been since the 1960s.
There’s plenty of Christian Churches who are very anti-LGBT, why dontcha go harass them for awhile and take a break from your obsession with Scientology?
July 19, 2018 at 10:04 am
Bullshit.
June 24, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“You’ve piled too many lies and misconceptions on top of each other for me to even bother trying to sort them all out. It would be pointless anyway, since you are going to remain on the attack no matter what I say.”
Care to point out just what lies and misconceptions I’ve written? Are you denying that the quote from Dianetics is genuine? Or are you just afraid to stand up for Lafayette?
As far as your last point – “never defend, always attack” ring any bells? I love the taste of irony in the morning.
Flunk.
“Suffice it to say that the Church of Scientology is, today, open to people of all sexual preferences, and has been since the 1960s.”
Funny, that. Because when Jason Beghe left the CoS, one point he made was that when he was nearly hurt in a car crash, it was attributed to his having a friend who was gay. Or do you reject that as well?
Is homosexuality no longer a tone 1.1? Yes or no?
“There’s plenty of Christian Churches who are very anti-LGBT, why dontcha go harass them for awhile and take a break from your obsession with Scientology?”
Funny you should mention it; if you look through the “other cults” category (here a link) you’ll see a few posts about Westboro Baptist Church, one of the most unpleasantly homophobic “Christian” groups out there. Not, of course, that one group’s homophobia excuses that of another.
June 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I’m not on trial here, and my refusal to submit to your insulting interrogation is not an admission that your nonsense is valid. I’ve already stated my position and that’s pretty much all I have to say. It would be pointless anyway, since you have again proved that you are going to remain on the attack no matter what I say.
June 24, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Trial? Interrogation? If you say so.
Refusing to accept what you say without question does not equate to being on the attack no matter what you say.
You described my comments as lies and misconceptions without ever pointing to what, exactly, was untrue or misrepresented. What’s the deal?
Also, again: is homosexuality still a tone 1.1? Yes or no?
June 25, 2008 at 11:19 am
[…] 25, 2008 Future Org Trends Posted by Temple of Xenu under leaks A recent post gave a view of the treatment of minorities, dissenters and other undesireables in a […]