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, Im a police officer.
I kept my TRs in, and he continued, I know you dont mean anything
by it, but your cap could get you punched out. Its 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 didnt 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. Its
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 persons 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 dont
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 $cientologys
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 $cientologys 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
It really is impossible to strip Hubbards 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. $cientologys 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 shouldnt
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 shouldnt 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 races 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 wasnt aware of the way the word had been forever changed by Hubbard
and $cientologys 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
tone of wog ® is naturally inferior.
Thats 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> (Websters
Third New Int. Dic.)
© 2001, 2002 Gerry Armstrong