Excerpt from Eurotour 2001 Report In Waterloo Station in London I was talking on a payphone when this man, bigger than me, clean suit, clean shaven, came up to me, very close, looked me right in the eye, and said, just above a whisper, "I'm a police officer." I kept my TRs in, and he continued, "I know you don't mean anything by it, but your cap could get you punched out.

It's a serious insult here." I knew immediately he was talking about the word WOG ® stitched into the front of my cap. I was carrying two more WOG hats ® with me in my suitcase.

The officer and I chatted a minute. He confirmed that "wog" ® in the UK is "nigger." I took off my WOG hat ® and thanked him. There were times while in England, just so as to not pigheadedly get the shit beat out of me, that I didn't wear the hat. But I did at the May 10 Brighton picket, and in a number of other places, and I talked about it with different people. It is an interesting word, a meme which is being brought into focus as its meaning is developing. It is only partially defined to only a part of the society - the wog world ® - which will define it, and which it defines. It's a study in information diffusion. In any case, my UK experience got me thinking that the "wog" equals "nigger" issue has to be confronted.

For Scientologists, the word does mean "nigger," not as an offensive reference to a person's dark skin color, but as an offensive reference to his "natural inferiority" because he is not a person with white skin, or, for Scientologists, not a person with clearance.

Scientologists are brought by $cientology to view wogs ® as naturally inferior, because they don't have Scientologists' superior awareness, ability, "tech," and clearance. Wog justice ® is viewed as people who would call dark skinned humans "niggers" would view "nigger justice"- naturally inferior. It is etymologically cute that the British, who, allegedly, coined the word "wog" centuries ago for the dark skinned, and inferior, people they had conquered in the Indian subcontinent in creating their naturally superior Empire, really would have called the naturally inferior native legal system "wog justice" ®.

Because it means "nigger," a naturally inferior hominid in $cientology's teachings, I call myself a wog ®, (indeed I am a wog prince ®) and I wear my WOG hat ® proudly. I do so for many good reasons, one of which is to bring attention to $cientology's unjust, dirty war which it has been waging against wogs ® from the moment Hubbard first used the word to get his Scientologists to invalidate and harm "them." Perhaps when he first hatched "homo novis."

Scientologists postulate themselves as something different from human, and, naturally, superior to human. Human beings are wogs ®. Homo sapiens are wogs ®.

It really is impossible to strip Hubbard's attacks on wogs ® out of $cientology, and leave something recognizable, because the whole subject is based on attacking wogs ®. For $cientology to succeed, it teaches, wogs ® and wog ® institutions must be shown, by invalidation and attack, to be failures, and actively brought to fail.

$cientology's failing, in this "games condition," means the acceptance of the equality, or even, when you get honest, the superiority, of wogs ®. Should not then the wogs ® fight for equality, and even superiority, as if their very existence depends on it? And shouldn't those wogs ® who fight for equality say so on their hats?

It is true that Scientologists will be offended by WOG hats ®, and WOG Billboards ®, and WOG Churches ®, but Scientologists are trained and expected to be offended by the slightest sign of support for wogs ®, particularly the "suppressive" wogs ® who fight for their equality.

Being "offended," Scientologists are trained to become massively offensive, using their "superior" comm skills, their "superior"

"tech," their "superior" PR, their superior "legal," their "superior"

intel, their "superior" "power." As long as the War on Wogs (WoW!)® persists it will be necessary to offend Scientologists. We shouldn't flinch from doing so with a smile.

But good, reasoning wogs ® would not do anything to offend other wogs ® because of a correctable lack of education, or a misunderstanding. A dark wog ® might erroneously think WOG ® means "nigger" as an offensive reference to his and his race's skin color, rather than as a sign of support for wogs ®, dark or light, who fight for their equality. To a wog ® of color who wasn't aware of the way the word had been forever changed by Hubbard and $cientology's war during the past few decades, it would be as if someone colorless like me wore a NIGGER hat. WOG ® is bigger than that, includes all races and languages, and represents universal equality.

I think that we who support those wogs ® who fight for their equality in this war on wogs ® have a duty and an opportunity to initiate a dialog with media and educators, most immediately those within or associated with black or dark wogs' ® rights and institutions, to make them aware of the war, and gain their support. This "religion" is seeking to impose its "superiority" and its other bigotries by the kind of fiat once enjoyed by white slave owners. The new slavers should be opposed by thinking wogs ® of every tone. Remember, and check with our friend wog ® Jesse, inside $cientology, the darkest skinned Scientologists call the whitest white nonscientologists "wogs"

®, and dutifully teach that these white wogs ®, or black wogs ®, or any other toned wogs ® are naturally inferior.

That's not to say that Hubbard was not a racist. He was a racist plus a misanthrope. $cientology teaches and imposes misanthropy.

Additionally, it has within its number people who are also racists.

Wog ® is a misanthropic term taken from a racist vocabulary. Hubbard generalized it, as one would expect of a suppressive. This is the definition from my big dictionary: n-s sometimes cap [prob. short for golliwog] 1. a native of a Middle or Far Eastern country - usu. used disparagingly 2. a usu. dark skinned foreigner - usu. used disparagingly. Also n-s [prob. short for polliwog] chiefly Austral :

a pathogenic microorganism <the oxygen in the air immediately kills the ~s that have caused the trouble -Sydney (Australia) Bull.>

broadly: an injurious or repugnant organism <spiders, centipedes, beetles and innumerable other ~s -I.L. Idriess> (Webster's Third New Int. Dic.)

© 2001 Gerry Armstrong

Go Back