Fool,
Neither did Hubbard.
Kat

And you do like something “authoritative”! Especially from Stanford eh? Whoah! And yet none of these philosophers or the tomes they write have ever come with anything that alleviates or resolves the problems of the human mind and spirit. Still they are, as you say “authoritative” and that’s what really matters eh?

FP, you’re the one too blind to see – though we should realize that you were fooled, to begin with. The “Scientology definition of the word ‘wog'” is the re-definition of a word with origins before Hubbard was even born, and was certainly calculated by Hubbard. All anyone else here is saying, is that the word should be treated as originally defined, and as used in dictionaries.

I actually know the word from my childhood, when old British family members, quoting as a lesson a once-popular phrase that I won’t repeat here, cited it as an example of a derogatory way of referring to of other races and nationalities, that was improper. The well-read Hubbard, and particularly his English and Australian followers, would have known that it had a meaning roughly equivalent to the n-word. It’s itself an example of Scientology’s indoctrination and control, that none of the many people such as at Saint Hill who knew better, succeeded in standing up and demanding that it ceased being used to refer to fellow human beings. With them, in particular, it served the sort of propaganda purposes laid out in Hubbard’s policy letter, getting them to view others as less than fully human, the way wartime propaganda about “huns” and “japs,” “criminal” and “subhuman” (regarding Jews, by the Nazis), and so on.

Now, I get that you didn’t know how it was originally used. Hubbard pulled on you the old trick you may remember from childhood, where you teach a kid who doesn’t know any better a naughty word, telling them it has a nice meaning, and then snicker as they are fooled into using it, with embarrassing consequences. But your ignorance of its original meaning, doesn’t mean that Hubbard’s use isn’t still a redefinition.

Show us an example of a word that Hubbard coined, that others have tried to re-define, and then you’d have a point.

I dont need to “tarnish your brush” (?) you do a fine job at that.

Maybe you used it so, but me and all my peers never used it that way. However, as usual, the original argument was that it was racist. We have now established that it wasn’t racist – probably much to your chagrin, so now you come up with something else to try and tarnish my brush.

Haha! WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST. Exactly my point! The Scientology definition of the word “wog” I posted above. It is you that wish to re-define it “to the advantage of the Propagandist”. I hink that I am conversing with idiots here! You still won’t see it.

FP, Hubbards’s own Propaganda by Redefinition of Words policy letter cites it as a disingenuous and manipulative trick. And it’s still sloppy, imprecise, and confusing, for someone someone supposedly claiming to be creating a precise “science.” Real scientists don’t re-define words when they need to describe something – it’s a trick of ideology and control, as Hubbard himself puts it:

“the trick is–WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST….
The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended…
The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible….
This, so far as words are concerned, is the public-opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition.
A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda.
One must know how to do it.”

from Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12

This thread continues to highlight your brainwashed state.

You and going to try to claim the terms “wog”, “woggy”, “wog-think”, “wog world”, “woggish” were “rarely used”? You are a liar.

And, like a racist who doesn’t comprehend that what they say IS racist (which is how most of them are), you cannot even see how condescending, derisive and mean the use of this term is.

You are a sad person.

But once again, a wonderful example of a fundamentalist Hubbard true believer for all to see.

Well at last some semblance of truth. Anything to shut Kat up. Actually, though Mike, you are exaggerating the issue. Firstly I rarely heard it used in all my years in Orgs and secondly I am not defending anything as there is nothing really to defend, despite how you twist it. It was rarely if ever used with any malice, more as a statement of fact. It is about the same in intensity as if one said “non-Christian” or whatever. If you want to start another massive discussion on this then feel free. It certainly can’t be lumped into the same category as racist etc. Far from it.

Anyway, you’re now a wog and wouldn’t understand! Haha!